CONVICTION OVERTURNED MD - Hae Min Lee, 17, Baltimore, 13 Jan 1999

[cujenn81]

Hi everyone! Checking back in. The mystery keeps going!
Wonder if anyone could comment on this, it's one of the many things bugging me.
When Jay told the police his story about the 'trunk pops' -no matter where they were all over town- Why was Hae's car NEVER tested to confirm there was a body in the trunk?
I would think that it would be a basic piece of evidence to 'prove' Jay's story & surely help their case, if indeed, it was found there was evidence there was a dead body in the trunk.

Would you suppose that it wasn't tested because the cops never even believed Jay's story? They knew Hae was never in the trunk, so to them, there was no need to test it? To me, that seems the only reason not to verify with trunk evidence. Because, how could the police just believe a witness, no questions asked?

Usually, they check out what the witness is saying, but as Urick said in the Intercept interview, they used the cell tower pings to collaborate Jay's story. (!) But no other solid evidence? They didn't even interview the 'friends' of Jay's that were on the cell phone records, that Jay said were his friends, not Adnan's. Really? They didn't even bother to verify who Jay was with and when? They just accepted his story & said, 'ok'!!??

I think of it this way, I go down to the police station & tell them that Mr. ABC did a crime. They ask how I know this. I tell them I was with Mr. ABC during some point after the crime. They said 'OK'. And don't even try to verify my story with witnesses? Where I was really during that time? Testing things I told them about? I'm oversimplifying it, but, basic idea.


Again, because if someone saw a dead body in a trunk, how would they 'forget' where they saw it? and why would there be so many stories about a 'trunk pop'.

Just one of the many things I'm constantly wondering about... like why didn't they test the liquor bottle for DNA or prints? or why didn't they look into the rope further? or why didn't they request Hae's pager records? or Jen's pager records? or interview Jen's employer or the pool maintenance guy to confirm what time she left work? why wasn't Jen's brother interviewed? or that guy Patrice? or why didn't they request the video footage of the parking lots at Best Buy, Westview Mall, the mall where Hae worked, or anywhere else for that matter? and WHY, in the name of everything that is holy, didn't Adnan's lawyer request them, or at the very least, point out these gaping holes at trial???

It's completely ridiculous and inexcusable.

 

[cujenn81]

Did anyone see this article regarding the state's response to the circuit court after a judge in the higher court granted Syed's request to reopen his post-conviction hearing to allow Asia's testimony to be entered?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-syed-state-response-20150923-story.html

The attorney general's office claims the AT&T fax cover sheet that stated incoming calls could not be used to determine the cell phone user's location was about a different document entirely.

So which document were they talking about then? I think this must be some type of "Hail Mary" attempt to prevent the proceedings from moving forward. Because if the fax cover sheet really WAS in reference to another document, why not prove it by adding the document it actually pertained to?

 

[watergirl62]

Did anyone see this article regarding the state's response to the circuit court after a judge in the higher court granted Syed's request to reopen his post-conviction hearing to allow Asia's testimony to be entered?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-syed-state-response-20150923-story.html

The attorney general's office claims the AT&T fax cover sheet that stated incoming calls could not be used to determine the cell phone user's location was about a different document entirely.

So which document were they talking about then? I think this must be some type of "Hail Mary" attempt to prevent the proceedings from moving forward. Because if the fax cover sheet really WAS in reference to another document, why not prove it by adding the document it actually pertained to?

My take:

Predictable much? CYA stance, obfuscation, diversion... perhaps the corruption casts a wider net than what has been discovered to date. Or, nobody wants to be plagued during upcoming AG elections by anything this might unveil. I think the cover sheet detail is just a red herring thrown out there to add more confusion to the mix.

IMO :moo:

 

[Soulmagent]

Did anyone see this article regarding the state's response to the circuit court after a judge in the higher court granted Syed's request to reopen his post-conviction hearing to allow Asia's testimony to be entered?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-syed-state-response-20150923-story.html

The attorney general's office claims the AT&T fax cover sheet that stated incoming calls could not be used to determine the cell phone user's location was about a different document entirely.

So which document were they talking about then? I think this must be some type of "Hail Mary" attempt to prevent the proceedings from moving forward. Because if the fax cover sheet really WAS in reference to another document, why not prove it by adding the document it actually pertained to?

I find this completely crazy.
So the cover sheet was hanging out like it is the right cover sheet ,but it is for different paper work except it was turned over in discovery ,just like that. Like it IS the cover sheet. So the correct cover sheet was not turned over in Discovery which would be odd because they would have the same time and date stamp on them as this cover sheet because they must have came it at the same exact time....

 

[MissHaley]

Here's Colin Miller's blog- explaining some of the state's points in their response. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/ev...otion-and-supplement-to-reopen-post-conv.html

Interesting to note, the state said they didn't use that certain part that refers to the fax sheet as evidence. Where in fact they did. He explains better than me. "I have a few responses. The first is confusion. The State absolutely identified "Subscriber Activity" reports as exhibits and admitted them into evidence. "

 

[greenbean]

This development should shock me but, it doesn't. 😐

 

[cujenn81]

Someone asked Colin Miller what other documents could they be referring to in regards to the fax cover sheet & he replied "THAT'S THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION." lol

ETA--I read the actual briefing document filed by the State yesterday. (I found it on A's lawyer's blog.) And, if I understand it correctly, the support for the State's claim is that the cover sheet included a "report legend" and that legend describes the cell tower locations being blacked out and will only be provided after submitting a court order.

I mean REALLY? The document submitted into evidence is still the same freaking document... it's just a copy without the locations redacted.

 

[Soulmagent]

Someone asked Colin Miller what other documents could they be referring to in regards to the fax cover sheet & he replied "THAT'S THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION." lol

ETA--I read the actual briefing document filed by the State yesterday. (I found it on A's lawyer's blog.) And, if I understand it correctly, the support for the State's claim is that the cover sheet included a "report legend" and that legend describes the cell tower locations being blacked out and will only be provided after submitting a court order.

I mean REALLY? The document submitted into evidence is still the same freaking document... it's just a copy without the locations redacted.

I think it states exhibit 31 if anyone wants to search up the document mention in the transcripts.

 

[cujenn81]

Deleted.

I'm fairly certain my post made zero sense because I'm thoroughly confused. I'm not even 100% sure what constitutes a document as evidence.

Sometimes I think I need go to law school just to understand the legal proceedings involved in the cases I follow on Websleuths.
:/

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Deleted.

I'm fairly certain my post made zero sense because I'm thoroughly confused. I'm not even 100% sure what constitutes a document as evidence.

Sometimes I think I need go to law school just to understand the legal proceedings involved in the cases I follow on Websleuths.
:/

I know this much: if a document is submitted as evidence and accepted by the judge, the trial transcript will reflect the transaction.

 

[watergirl62]

Here's Colin Miller's blog- explaining some of the state's points in their response. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/ev...otion-and-supplement-to-reopen-post-conv.html

Interesting to note, the state said they didn't use that certain part that refers to the fax sheet as evidence. Where in fact they did. He explains better than me. "I have a few responses. The first is confusion. The State absolutely identified "Subscriber Activity" reports as exhibits and admitted them into evidence. "

Thanks for the link, MissHaley. I just finished Undisclosed a couple of days ago, but haven't read any blogs yet. Bookmarked. Working my way through Serial Dynasty now.
Been so busy IRL :treadmill: that I haven't had any time to delve into the state's response or any of the associated cover sheet minutia BS.

 

[greenbean]

I couldn't bear listening to Bob's episode today. I made it five minutes before the combo the of his garbled voice and his cheeseball down tempo made me reach over and turn it off.

If I'm missing anything good by swearing off Bob and Serial Dynasty/Truth and Justice/Ashanti Fitness PLEASE LET ME KNOW! 😜


Hope you are all having a good weekend. Be sure to check out the moon tonight!

 

[Tiger09]

Someone on reddit is claiming to have Hae's burial pics. They allegedly paid the fees to get them. I heard Bob went off about that, which is understandable.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

 

[greenbean]

Someone on reddit is claiming to have Hae's burial pics. They allegedly paid the fees to get them. I heard Bob went off about that, which is understandable.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

Well then, this just confirms my suspicion that the world is a mostly horrible place filled with mostly horrible people.

That's about a million steps too far. What do these people think that's going to accomplish? In general, any scientist or investigator that could glean something from those pictures is NEVER going to risk their reputation by posting on an Internet forum. I know people involved with cases have been called out about it before but I really think that a huge percentage of professionals would steer a very wide berth from what goes on here and in other similar forums.

I don't deny that cases like Hae's and Bella Bond fascinate me. I don't really understand why such horrible things happen to good people/innocent children. That being said, what goes on here and at other crime forums is nothing more than gossip. I'm certainly unlikely to find the smoking gun googling away on the Internet. I don't even pretend that what I'm doing here is in some way noble, it is not. As I've stated previously, I am not a lawyer or a cop or a forensic scientist. Im also not delusional about what goes on in Internet forums.

There is absolutely NO REASON (other than puerile fascination) for some internet cowboy to obtain Hae's crime scene pictures. It's a still from a snuff film in my opinion and the whack jobs that seek such things out seriously need to overhaul their moral inventory.

Shame on them.

 

[greenbean]

Welp- just suffered through Bob and serial dynasty while getting ready for work.

IMO, you can't judge the people who sought out and distributed those pictures if you yourself also sought them out and distributed them.

Period.

Whatcha think, friends? What's your opinion on sleuthing and posting post mortem pics?

 

[cujenn81]

Welp- just suffered through Bob and serial dynasty while getting ready for work.

IMO, you can't judge the people who sought out and distributed those pictures if you yourself also sought them out and distributed them.

Period.

Whatcha think, friends? What's your opinion on sleuthing and posting post mortem pics?

I might have misinterpreted Bob's rant (he was definitely hard to follow), but I was under the impression that he was pissed off about the Reddit user making false claims about the pictures or using them to support misleading arguments.

While I didn't believe Bob when he said the ONLY reason he obtained the photos was because Jim Clemente asked for them (I think Bob was probably also curious to see them for himself or he wouldn't have bothered to look at all), I do think his reason for obtaining them is more excusable than some Internet troll obtaining them in an effort to attack and discredit Undisclosed's claim about the lividity issue.

I also think it would be incredibly disrespectful to Hae, and everyone who loved her, for anyone to post those pictures on Reddit (or anywhere else online, for that matter).

 

[watergirl62]

It *IS* disrespectful, but there will always be questionable people who do questionable things. If they offend you, don't look at them. If they were pics of my son, I'd be torqued, angry and out for blood. This just makes me sad for Hae, her family and those who loved her.

 

[greenbean]

I don't think Bob is being honest when he says he "just got them to show to Jim Clemente."

Come on, Bob.

I think he's backpedaling to justify his own weird obsession to see Hae's dead body. He's a fireman and Jim Clemente is a writer for a bad tv show. Period.

People do bad things, sure. That doesn't make those things ok. Lots of people being whack jobs doesn't make seeking an 18 year old kid's post mortem photos a normal or ok thing. IMO, he shouldn't have gotten them or been able to get them. It's horrific for her family and friends. It's horrific for Hae.

They'll be on blast soon, I'm sure. No one sits on something they can monetize on Reddit or any of the Chans. I reckon in a week Hae's half-nude corpse will be on the front page of gawker.

That might be what signs me off of crime forums forever.

 

[watergirl62]

I just finished SD episode 11: the Krista interview. Definitely my favorite so far. I will be sure to skip the one that you are discussing. Ugh. Appreciate the heads-up.

 

[Soulmagent]

I don't think Bob is being honest when he says he "just got them to show to Jim Clemente."

Come on, Bob.

I think he's backpedaling to justify his own weird obsession to see Hae's dead body. He's a fireman and Jim Clemente is a writer for a bad tv show. Period.

People do bad things, sure. That doesn't make those things ok. Lots of people being whack jobs doesn't make seeking an 18 year old kid's post mortem photos a normal or ok thing. IMO, he shouldn't have gotten them or been able to get them. It's horrific for her family and friends. It's horrific for Hae.

They'll be on blast soon, I'm sure. No one sits on something they can monetize on Reddit or any of the Chans. I reckon in a week Hae's half-nude corpse will be on the front page of gawker.

That might be what signs me off of crime forums forever.

I think Bob's motivation behind getting the pictures is to find the truth. Personally,I think having the pictures drawn in our heads by different peoples -different level of understanding is not helping to find the answers. I understand peoples emotional responses but in the end people have to weight the evidence and those pictures are very important evidence. Bobs not releasing them to reddit.
I find a lot of the post dealing with the pictures on reddit immature . While I don't think they should be posted on reddit. I see no issue with people looking at them or procuring them on there own in their search for truth.