Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A witness (Jay) testified at the trial that he saw Hae Min’s dead body in the trunk of Syed’s car. He stuck by that testimony when he was interviewed later: https://theintercept.com/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-...

Forget the feels and focus on Bayesian probability. Hae had left Syed and she winds up dead shortly thereafter. Just statistically, it’s almost always the ex husband/boyfriend that killed her. Jay’s testimony clinches it.




Probability isn't beyond reasonable doubt though. Like I finished the Serial podcast thinking Adnan probably was at least involved in her death, but I still think "just convict the boyfriend/husband based on a single testimony and probability" is a lower standard than I'd like.


"Beyond a reasonable doubt" can be expressed as a statistical probability. Most people put it at 98-99% probability. I think there's a 99% chance that Syed killed Hae.


Riiiiiight but "Well statistically it's the boyfriend/ex boyfriend so lets lock him up" is different to "Well there is evidence that makes us think it probably was the ex boyfriend in this specific case"


Is it possible that Jay could have given false testimony in exchange for unrelated drug charges being dropped?


Why would he stick to the story all these years later?




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: