Talk:Killing of Hae Min Lee/Archive 1

Archive 1

This page does not represent a Neutral Point of View

This is a controversial topic. Many people disagree on many disputed topics. Support hml (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutral point of view section: Speculation from other podcasts

I suggest the deletion of this entire section because i disagree with it.

Birthday is unverified

An anonymous editor added Hae's birthday of October 15, 1980 to the infobox, but doesn't specify where this birthday is sourced. I removed it pending a reliable source. Lugevas (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is October 15, 1980. Check missing person report:http://www.undisclosed-podcast.com/docs/4/Missing%20Person%20Report%20-%20Baltimore%20County.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.131.194 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole article seems very biased

There are lots of opinions and statements made about what happened, and even quotes but no citations in the "Disappearance and Murder" & "The Verdict" sections which are the most important. There are also unreliable sources cited as evidence such as an analysis done on Reddit. The "Persons Involved" section also seems unnecessary unless information is going to be provided telling how these people are involved, like how the French teacher is relevant other than her opinion of the victim. It needs to be rewritten from a more objective standpoint and include citations. And since the podcasts are part of the continuing story and are a reason the case is being looked at they should be mentioned and cited, but also in a non-biased way. Nya8579 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have done a thorough cleanup, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, the removed material should not be added unless consensus for inclusion is obtained in talk page discussions. Note that this article is under discretionary sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Did some more cleanup. The removed material (a 3rd party as the killer) is bald speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Support hml (talk • contribs) 06:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with this article currently that continue to be reverted to:

Background should be split into Background about Hae Min Lee and then a separate section about her disappearance and murder, and should not be lumped together.

"From this call log, police found Jay Wilds. The investigating officers subsequently questioned Wilds, who initially denied any involvement. In a later taped police interview, Wilds confessed to helping Syed bury Lee's body and dispose of her car. Wilds frequently seemed to lose his way during the interview, only to be rescued by knocking or tapping sounds. After the sounds were heard, Wilds would remember what had happened."

Omits Pusateri's statement to police, which contained the first recorded allegations against Syed and is the way the police found their way to Jay Wilds . The last sentence about Wilds losing his way in interviews does not need to be in the articles as it is very much an opinion. Furthermore, Wilds leading to the police to the victim's vehicle should be included in this section, as it was an important development in the case.

Cynistrategus (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

POV Tags

Please do not remove the POV tags until neutrality issue is resolved. Thank you. Support hml (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Support hml: The issues have been resolved, mainly removing unsourced material per WP:BLP. If you have any additional concerns, please describe them here so that thet can be addressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

POV tags require that you post here the reasons for the tag. Please do so, otherwise the tag will be removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: I strongly disagree. You are promoting your own biased point of view. Please do not remove the POV tags. We may need to escalate to the Wikipedia administrators. Support hml (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Support hml: I don't have a point of view whatsoever about this subject. If you have concerns about the article, please explain what it is so that it can be addressed. POV tags are used for that purpose. But if you are not interested in improving the article, POV tags are not to be used just to express your disagreement. Feel free to escalate anywhere you want. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: My apologies. Didn't realize. The page, as it stands, is a lot more neutral than it used to be, so thank you. The DNA section is a bit suspect in that the Syed team doesn't really want to push it (evidence of that is an interview Rabia Chaudry gave that she doesn't trust DNA, and also no public data is available on whether it has been requested). They don't want to push DNA testing (implying they are afraid of Syed's DNA being found), yet want to keep promoting the idea that DNA can exonerate him. Again, thank you. Support hml (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Suspect, or not, that is not for us as editors to judge. Out job is to report significant viewpoints as described in reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: The issue with DNA testing is that it's not a fact but a PR strategy being used by Syed's team. For instance, consider the issues raised by a respected criminal defense lawyer, xtrialatty, on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/34vgky/how_much_does_dna_testing_actually_cost/ The background is that Syed's team is delaying on the DNA tests. One excerpt his here: https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2uzp1i/so_rabia_is_not_too_keen_on_the_dna_being/cod41rc

I realize Reddit is a discussion forum, and not a reference site, but you don't want to be duped into including stuff on Wikipedia, do you?

As to xtrialatty's legal capibilities, see this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/adnansyedcase/comments/35h80x/legal_analyses_by_uxtrialatty/ There are many others.

If you still want to publish the decidedly incorrect PR on DNA tests, that's your call, obviously. Support hml (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not here to make a judgement if the DNA test requested is a PR ploy or a way to prove the innocence of the accused. We just report what reliable sources say. Reddit is not a reliable source, so we can't use it here or anywhere else in WP, and I am not interested in reading comments in forums. Not my thing. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Support hml", OTOH, clearly does have a POV, made clear by his/her username and everything he/she posts. This person is in clear violation of numerous WP policies. -- 184.189.216.159 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Trials and Appeals

There are problems with the Trials and Appeals section. It makes no mention of Adnan's first appeal in 2012 based on inadequate assistance of counsel because Gutierrez didn't call Asia McClain as an alibi witness. It was at that time that Asia was approached by prosecutor Kevin Urick and discouraged from testifying at the appeal, which contributed to the appeal being denied in 2013. Which is when Rabia Chaudry sought out Sarah Koenig about investigating the story. And then Koenig did Serial and approached Asia about Adnan's situation, convincing Asia to change her mind about testifying. The article only mentions the subsequent appeal. I believe the new appeal was based on the argument of inadequate assistance of counsel due to Gutierrez never seeking a plea bargain, and that's not mentioned. Rather it looks like the two appeals are conflated into one appeal based on Asia only. Someone should clarify all of this. It will take a bit of time and I'm not sure I have the time. Any volunteers?QuizzicalBee (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Now there's at least a sentence on the first appeal --87.177.120.222 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Added the ruling for his new trial. Did this on March 30, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obliviblob (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

There was more than one Appeal missing. Fixed now! 16:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopSayingRight (talk • contribs)

"On May 19, 2015, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals remanded the case to circuit court for potential hearing on the admissibility of alibi testimony of Asia McClain, who said she was talking with Syed in the library at the exact time the prosecutor said Syed attacked Lee in a Best Buy parking lot several miles away.[24] On November 9, 2015, the superior Court decided it would hear the case.[25] According to Sarah Koenig's investigation as told in Serial, McClain's account of her encounter with Syed on the day of the disappearance would have been helpful for Syed during his trial.[23]

Syed's appeals lawyer C. Justin Brown said that new evidence about the reliability of incoming call data from AT&T is suspect and should be reviewed by an appeals court, stating, "the cell tower evidence was misleading and should have never been admitted at trial."[26]

On November 6, 2015, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Martin Welch ordered that Syed's post-conviction relief proceedings, which determines if he deserves a new trial, would be re-opened "in the interests of justice for all parties."[27] The post-conviction relief hearing, originally scheduled to last two days, lasted five days from February 3-9, 2016.[28] The hearing was attended by people from across the U.S., including Koenig, and McClain testified that she talked to Syed at the library on January 13, 1999.[29]"

Note that there are repetitions and date discrepancies in this section, as the "November 9,2015 superior Court" is the same court as the "November 6th, 2015 Baltimore City Circuit Court." This needs to be rationalized, probably by cutting out the section about November 9th, moving C.Justin Brown and the incoming cell data into that paragraph, and follow that with the paragraph on Judge Martin Welch.

Cynistrategus (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Cynistrategus would do well to declare his WP:COI before requesting anything. Note in particular WP:COIATTRIBUTE.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Adoring nanny I hereby declare no conflict of interest or personal connection to this case. Now can we discuss the edits? Cynistrategus (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Adoring Nanny was not born yesterday.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

These ad hominem attacks by User:Adoring Nanny are counterproductive and have nothing to do with the quality of the edits, which should be what this discussion is about. Are you ready to discuss the edits? Cynistrategus (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Request For Discussion

Background should be split into Background about Hae Min Lee and then a separate section about her disappearance and murder, and should not be lumped together. Background also omits Pusateri's statement to police, which contained the first recorded allegations against Syed and is the way the police found their way to Jay Wilds - sources as per police memos and transcripts of interviews.

There are repetitions and date discrepancies in the trial and appeals section, as the "November 9,2015 superior Court" is the same court as the "November 6th, 2015 Baltimore City Circuit Court." This needs to be rationalized, probably by cutting out the section about November 9th, moving C.Justin Brown and the incoming cell data into that paragraph, and follow that with the paragraph on Judge Martin Welch. Source is Judge Welch's Decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynistrategus (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the peace offering, it is genuinely appreciated. But I'm still bound by WP:COIATTRIBUTE. That said, correcting dates does not add text, so I can do that much.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, I have no conflict of interest in regards to this article, User:Adoring Nanny

Cynistrategus (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm unpersuaded.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Third Opinion

For discussion of the Third Opinion process related to Cynistrategus and Adoring nanny

3O Response: It looks like there are three issues raised: COI, section headers, and some content.
Third Opinions are for editing disputes, not disputes over editor conduct. I try to assume good faith when an editor states that they do not have a COI.
For the sections, I think one of the problems may be that the article's scope may have shifted; by content it's more about Trial of Adnan Syed than Murder of Hae Min Lee. If the main subject of the article is the trial, then I could understand the murder being background to that. If anyone feels like a shift of title is warranted to reflect the article content, that can be addressed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. For the time being, in the context of the murder (as presently titled), the background section should end with the murder itself. I've done layout on similar articles and usually break from the background with either the immediate lead up to the crime incident or the beginning of the police investigation (when there are no witnesses on the record). I would advise a section break between the paragraph mentioning her disappearance (which includes pre-disappearance information) and the paragraph where her body is discovered. I find that's where it cleanly separates pre/post murder, and otherwise it would leave the background section pretty short. Since it doesn't actually describe the murder, I would tend to name the section "Murder investigation" or "Murder investigation and arrest".
For the disputed content, I would urge extreme caution to make sure everything is attributed to reliable secondary sources – multiple RSS for anything controversial like allegations. We have to be very careful with BLP policy regarding crimes. Remember that you are responsible for your edits. I can't stress enough how important this is. This is one of the few areas of editing where something which is inadequately sourced *must* be immediately removed without discussion. A lot of the material seems to be cited to podcasts, and I have my doubts about their reliability. Do they have a publisher or oversight? Are they professional journalists? At the very least there should probably be in-text attribution like "According to podcast xxx..." I would suggest to leave the material out, search for better sources (e.g.: established news outlets), and work it back in with what's supported by the news sources.
This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing COI discussion at WP:COIN

There is a discussion at WP:COIN related to this article here [1]. Other editors are invited to add their opinions.Adoring nanny (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Several Undisclosed Wiki references and a link to a Reddit AMA that was unreachable were removed under WP:RS. They will need to be replaced. I found a couple of reliable sources to replace some of the Undisclosed Wiki references. Cynistrategus (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Also the Undisclosed Podcast knocking theory is unverifiable from a questionable source. Cynistrategus (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed is clearly WP:RS per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. First of all, it has three attorneys routinely checking it, plus a lot of listeners who pay careful attention. Additionally the tapping part is on tape in the episode.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed advocates and fundraises for Adnan Syed and has no editorial oversight

"Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering"

This is the speculation of people with a bias as to what they're speculating on. Cynistrategus (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I would also suggest listening to the actual tape to hear for yourself whether or not it supports what the source says.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like doing original research to me, and the speculation of people with interests related to the accused and no editorial oversight do not seem reliable to me. Cynistrategus (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources can do original research. We don't. And, as I think you are aware, Simpson and Miller have no relationship to the accused. Donna Brazile works for Fox Nows, and George Stephanopoulos works for ABC. They are still WP:RS.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed fundraises for the Adnan Syed defense fund. There is not editorial overisght. I don't know what donna Brazile or George Stephanopolous have to do with anything. Cynistrategus (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Adoring nanny Controversies about the conviction has its own section in the article, where this sort of allegation would go.

Cynistrategus (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I realize that is how you are trying to set it up. But that is a violation of WP:Structure.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure why cutting short the facts of the investigation portion of the article is productive, as they are in fact the way the police put the case together. The way you have currently edited it, no one who has no knowledge of the case would have any idea of how the Baltimore Police found their main witness in the murder case. It's quite an odd construction, and the tap tap speculation is overweighted in this current version, Adoring nanny

"factually poorer"

User:Cynistrategus has recently reverted [2] with a comment that the version he is reverting from is "factually poorer." However, it is interesting that this user's version steers clear of any mention of "knocking" or "tapping" sounds. As the question of whether or not there are "knocking or tapping sounds" on the relevant tape is factual, all users are invited to comment on whether or not they hear such sounds on the tape.

For those interested to listen for themselves, the tape is played in episode 3 of the Undisclosed Podcast, which can be downloaded here.[3] The discussion of the tapping begins at 33:40, and key portions of the interview are played several times, the first of which begins at 36:06.

It would further be interesting to learn if users think the discussion of the tapping enriches the article, by allowing the reader to make up his or her own mind on question of whether or not Jay Wilds was coached.

Speaking for myself only, having listening to the tape multiple times, I believe the assertion of "knocking or tapping sounds" is unquestionably factual, in addition to being supported by two different WP:RS. I further believe that its inclusion enriches the article.Adoring nanny (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE

Per WP:WIKIVOICE, Wikipedia should describe disputes. It should not engage in them. It is therefore inappropriate to say that Wilds "confessed", because that is disputed. Or again, rather than saying "Inconsistencies have been noted" in Wilds' accounts, we should describe the inconsistencies.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

For yet another example from a recent revert, we should not say that Wilds' account was "consistent" with another person's, because that again is disputed.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Cynistrategus (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really, you've been told that if you are reverted for proper reasons, you should not "start over" from your own version. But you just did exactly that.[4] And this time around, the first edit of yours after that, you said that Jay brought new info to the police. That's disputed too, and another WP:WikiVoice violation.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The information about Wilds and Pusateri's stories is directly from the Serial episode. That's why it started off quoted. It is reliably sourced. And please stop reverting and removing Pussateri's story, which is certainly newsworthy even if it is inconvenient for you.

Cynistrategus (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that the version you keep reverting to has multiple violations of WP:WIKIVOICE, among other things. As I believe you are aware, it is disputed that Jay Wilds gave the police any new information at all. And yet you keep adding passages saying that he did, as you did in you latest revert[5]. It is disputed that Jay Wilds lead the police to the car. As Undisclosed discusses in considerable detail, it is a far better fit with both police documents and the photo of the car itself that the car had been recently moved, which is inconsistent with Wilds' story. Because this "fact" is disputed, it is inappropriate to revert to it. Yet you do.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

For another example, you say in your latest version that the police "focused on checking on the possible involvement and alibi of Lee's most recent boyfriend, Don" . . . uh, no. As I believe you are aware, his "alibi" was his stepmother. That being the case, it would have made sense for the police to check with other employees of the store where he was supposedly working to learn what they remembered. The police didn't do that.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

From Serial Episode 3 Leakin Park: Time: 2:19-2:37.

That first day they call Don, her new guy. They check the area around his house which is in another county, northeast of Baltimore. Over the next two weeks they keep going back to Don, and to Adnan, asking more questions. They check Don’s alibi, he was indeed at Lenscrafters store the day Hae went missing, the manager tells them

His alibi is primarily disputed by the Undisclosed podcast, "...created as a vehicle to promote and fundraise for the Adnan Syed Legal Defense Trust" which has no editorial oversight. Meanwhile, the investigators hired to to investigate for the HBO documentary:

"Many armchair detectives felt that Clinedinst should have been considered a prime suspect. The day she went missing, Lee had planned to meet up with Clinedinst, who was her co-worker at a LensCrafters store in Owings Mills, Maryland. But Clinedinst had an alibi for that day: He was working at a LensCrafters store in Hunt Valley, another Baltimore suburb, where his mother just happened to be the manager. The internet was ablaze with the idea that Clinedinst’s mother had doctored her son’s Hunt Valley timecard, creating what some saw as a phantom shift that put Clinedinst far from the scene of the crime.

After interviewing more than 15 current and former employees of LensCrafters, employees of Luxottica Group, LensCrafters’ parent, and even the developer who built the timekeeping software, we debunked the timecard theory. It was, we concluded, impossible to adjust the computerized timecard retroactively without leaving a trace. Beyond that, other evidence we developed undermined the state’s official timeline of the crime, making Clinedinst’s alibi beside the point."

El_C Cynistrategus (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the guideline "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."?Adoring nanny (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Baltimore police looked at the boyfriend's alibi at the time of the victim's disappearance. Some citations about the adequacy of the alibi, provided by you, would be helpful, especially considering I have now supplied multiple reliable sources supporting my position. Cynistrategus (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

BLP DS (1RR) now in effect

There's just too many reverts. Please ensure that you adhere to 1RR from now on, everyone. El_C 02:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

---

I realized it would not be fair to have one party ahead of the other in daily reverts (timing-wise), so I just went back to the last version before the dispute began. I suggest you two start with those additions you most agree with, add those, then gradually move into the those additions you least agree with. You may wish to launch an RFC on the most contentious points. El_C 03:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I greatly appreciate the fact that we are getting outside attention. But you effectively just put one party ahead in the edit war. The reason that one stayed was that I decided to be patient for a bit. Note that the version you reverted to describes the idea that Wilds was coached as "speculation." That's a direct violation of WP:WikiVoice. We are supposed to describe controversies, not engage in them.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know who Wilds is and have not had a chance to read the article yet. From my standpoint, that result was random based on the edit history of the dispute. What version would you say represents the status quo ante? El_C 03:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it, you are taking on a difficult task, likely far more difficult than you realize. The problem is that from this user's very first set of edits, he added a greatly off-base version of the homicide "investigation", and has fought to keep it ever since. The article before his first edit would be this version [6]. But that's ancient, and you would be losing good changes, too. Looking at the history since then, there is no version I feel fits that criterion, unfortunately. Is there an admin who has followed the case a bit? To really understand this one involves listening to podcasts. That takes a long time.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I think I misread the history. You did go back to March. Someone else must have put in the "confessed" bit prior to that.Adoring nanny (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah, I went a while back, before the other party's first edit to the article. Sorry, I'm not sure I'll get a chance to look into the content of this article further. And I don't know if there is an admin who is familiar with it. It's possible, I suppose. Anyway, I'm just trying to establish some ground rules so as to better facilitate you two resolving your dispute (are you aware of WP:DRR?); crucial to that, I feel, is cutting down on the edit warring with a 1RR scheme. El_C 04:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Now I found where it came from. It was a different WP:SPA who was also focused only on this case.[7].Adoring nanny (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

At this point, my gut is to go to WP:SPI. But I'm a bit unclear on the protocol. Is it OK to do that, given that I'm obviously heavily involved, and I've already tried WP:ANI and WP:COIN?Adoring nanny (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful SPI can be, that SPA's edit is from over a year ago. What do you suggest we do about having a decent version that does not suffer from SPA skewing its neutrality? El_C 05:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait, Cynistrategus is also an SPA, I'm just now realizing. They've only edited this one article! Sorry about that. El_C 05:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Adoring nanny, okay, upon further reflection, I've reverted back to your version, since there is no stable status quo ante, at least not one that wouldn't place the article in a state of disrepair. That does not mean it is the final version, but while the dispute is going I had to choose the best of two options I'm rather in the dark about. But if I feel that you are becoming complacent in engaging the dispute, I will go back to the March 2019 version, SPA changes be damned. Does that make sense? Cynistrategus, I'm sure you're dissapointed with the choice I made (and the protection effectively restricts you to the talk page), but if reliable sources and neutrality are, indeed, on your side, outside input is likely to side with you over your opponent. Please understand, I could not have you two revert back and fourth indefinitely. That's just too disruptive to the state and stability of the article. Thank you both for your attention. El_C 05:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I realize this is unusual. So let me just say: any admin may override me here without consulting me in any way. El_C 06:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Cynistrategus has actually edited two articles, but the other one is the assistant state's attorney who has defended the conviction over the past several years.Adoring nanny (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Right.  Done. El_C 13:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C I have some problems with the decision. I appreciate that you are not familiar with the subject matter and don't have the time to get involved in finer points of content, but in what reference work is this an adequate description of the police investigation of a murder case? From reading this article can you, a layperson, explain how the police knew Wilds was important to the case? Shouldn't that be part of an article on a murder case? There is much more written in this Investigation section about problems with Wilds than there is about the actual police investigation into the murder.

"Homicide Investigation On February 9, Lee's partially buried body was discovered by a passerby in Leakin Park in Baltimore.[15] Police attention became focused on the person who reported finding the body.[13]

On February 12, 1999 the Baltimore City Police Homicide Division received an anonymous phone call suggesting that the investigators should focus on Lee's ex-boyfriend and classmate, Adnan Syed. On February 16, Baltimore Police applied for cellular phone records for a phone belonging to Syed.[16]

Physical evidence collected in 1999 was not tested for DNA during the initial trial process.[17]

Syed was arrested on February 28, 1999, and charged with first-degree murder.[18]

Jay Wilds Jay Wilds was central to the investigation. It is undisputed that he had Syed's cell phone on the day of the murder. He initially denied any knowledge of the crime. He eventually told police that Syed had shown him Lee's body in the parking lot of a Best Buy and that he and Syed buried the body in Leakin' Park at around 7pm that evening. Wilds' testimony was crucial to the prosecution's case.[19]

Evidence Wilds was coached by the police Wilds frequently seemed to lose his way during one recorded interview, only to be rescued by knocking or tapping sounds. After the sounds were heard, Wilds would remember what had happened. According to Wilds, Syed committed the murder. According to the Undisclosed podcast, the tapping was evidence that the police were feeding Wilds with his story. As further evidence, they note that at one point in the interview, Wilds says "top spots", which has no apparent relevance to the case. However, the point Jay makes after saying that appears at the top of page 2 of a police document entitled "Jay's Chronology".[19][20][21][16]

Jay Wilds would eventually go on to make multiple recorded statements to police and at trial. He also gave an interview with The Intercept in 2014. His accounts are inconsistent. In the 2014 interview, he said that the .burial happened at midnight and that he never saw the body at Best Buy.[17][22][23][24]"

The weighting should be determined by WP:DUE. Additionally, if one were to write the article along the lines you suggest, that would be a WP:WIKIVOICE violation. Implicit in your question is an assumption that the police "knew" Wilds was important to the investigation. But that's a disputed assertion. The alternative is that they couldn't have "known" that, and, in fact, didn't, because Wilds wasn't connected to the murder in any way.Adoring nanny (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your bias is quite obvious, Adoring nanny, it's frankly impressive that you're so overtly unwilling to include most of the State's case in this article, where it obviously belongs as newsworthy. It appears El_C has checked out, so I guess I'll keep working to find someone who can actually look at content.

Cynistrategus (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't checked out, you have just failed to convince me and mostly were not concise enough. Focus on what reliable 2ndry sources say and on presenting these with due weight. El_C 07:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C are you not concerned that someone unfamiliar with this case can't read this article in the current state and explain how the police say they found a major witness in the case that leads them to their suspect? That would seem like a basic requirement for an article about a murder.

I'm not also sure how I'm supposed to be concise but convince you I'm representing what 2ndary sources say? Do you want me to quote directly from the sources in the talk page? This quote is from my last version at 0221, 24 May 2019 about Jay Wilds's interview with police:

"The investigating police officers found and questioned Jay Wilds later on February, 27th, 1999; Wilds initially denied knowledge of the crime, but eventually told them a story that generally matched Pusateri's, except for one important piece of information about the crime.[13] Wilds was able to tell police where the victim's car was and lead them to it; the car had been missing despite an ongoing police search. [13]"

And these are verbatim whole quotes from "Serial Episode 4"

Once the detectives talk to Jen, everything happens very fast. That same night the detectives go get Jay at the video store where he works. It's actually a porn video store, which, come trial, Adnan's attorney will stress with relish at every opportunity. Anyway, the cops bring him down to homicide. By the time they turn on the tape recorder, it's one thirty in the morning on February 28.

---

So they get Jay in the interview room and, initially, he pulls a Jen. He tells them nothing, more or less. He says he walked to the mall that day, got his girlfriend a new bracelet for her birthday, hung around with Jenn's younger brother, talked to Adnan sometime in the afternoon, and then, after two pages of notes like that, it says, “All right, I come clean."

---

In any case, around twenty minutes later they start taping and Jay tells them a whole different story, one that more or less matches Jen's – except for one major difference. One major piece of information about this crime that the cops are still missing. They do not know where Hae's car is. They've been looking all over the place for it. They can't find it. Now, Jay tells them he knows where it is.

---

So that's huge for them. Jay will take them to the car. And he does. Once they're finished at headquarters, they all drive out in the middle of the night to where the car is parked, on a grassy hill behind some row houses off Edmondson Avenue. Within a few hours, they'll have a warrant for Adnan's arrest.

---

The timestamps are 11:16-11:41, 11:47-12:06, 12:13-12:37 and 12:52-13:06 in this podcast episode, which was produced by the team behind This American Life

Cynistrategus (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not helping me, at all. There must be someone besides you two who has a glancing familiarity with this article. Maybe launch a Request for comment or pursue other forms of dispute resolution. El_C 16:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In regards to including what Wilds said, I'm still waiting for a response to my above post, dated 10:47, 27 May 2019.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Jay Wilds

Since this has been an area of contention, I want to lay out my reasoning for why I believe something along the lines of the Jay Wilds portion of the current version[8] of the article is correct. Articles about the case consistently bring up Wilds' non-believability. They differ in how they cover it, but they routinely cover it. At Wikipedia, we are supposed to describe controversies, not characterize them. Therefore, we shouldn't say in the article, as I did above, that Wilds is not believable, or even that he contradicts himself. Instead, we need to describe the reasons for that in neutral terms. That's what the current version does.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is Jay Wilds not mentioned in the current version of this article? That doesn't seem very encyclopedic and is, frankly, embarrassing. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Does there need to be more description of the police investigation of this crime?

Should the "Homicide Investigation" section of this article have more description of the actual police homicide investigation? Cynistrategus (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This article currently does not contain any information about how the police identified Jay Wilds as "central to the investigation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynistrategus (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Any any discussion needs to follow WP:WIKIVOICE, in particular the guideline "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." This editor has been pushing versions of the article which take the police narrative with regard to Wilds and treat it as fact. But that entire narrative is disputed. The alternative possibility is that Wilds simply regurgitated a story fed to him by the police.Adoring nanny (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

We have no WP:RS for your assertions. There are multiple WP:RS that relate to the police investigation. Cynistrategus (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

What about the ones you repeatedly edit-warred out of the article?[9][10][11]Adoring nanny (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Adoring nanny - Your sourcing tends to be speculation from an Undisclosed podcast which is without editorial oversight and attached to the Adnan Syed legal fund, which is a highly problematic source. It is certainly massively overweighted when you don't even allow the story of the police investigation into the story of the murder at all.

Note that evidence of coaching would not necessarily mean that someone is somehow unattached to a crime. Do you have any specifics about this claim?

It also seems noteworthy that the first person to tell the police Syed and Wilds were involved in the murder and burial was not Wilds himself, but his friend Jenn Pusateri, who is nowhere to be found in this article.

Cynistrategus (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The above assertion about Jenn is again a seriously contested assertion. Undisclosed clearly meets WP:USEBYOTHERS. And the Undisclosed analysis of Wilds and the tapping came from Susan Simpson, who who does not have any connection with Syed, and is backed up by the tape of the interview, which easily makes the entire police narrative a "seriously contested assertion."Adoring nanny (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The speculative theories of people attached to the person convicted in this case should not mean that the police narrative of how they found that person is completely cut out of an article about a murder case. The article reads poorly right now because you have completely removed the story of the police investigation from it.

Cynistrategus (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an RfC. I don't know what is to be gained by repeating contentions I've already answered repeatedly. If you want to discuss the tapping, it's not part of the RfC as you wrote it.Adoring nanny (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You've cut out any story of the investigation, because that's supposedly disputed, and kept the tapping, as if that's a settled fact. It's very strange.

Cynistrategus (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume you are unfamiliar with how an RfC typically works. The purpose of an RfC is to have a focused discussion about the issue on which you've requested feedback. Additionally, the idea is to allow time and space for uninvolved users to participate. I've made a brief statement of my opinion, which is how it's generally done. By turning that brief statement into a long thread, we are making it harder for other users to read or respond to the RfC. If you wish to discuss the tapping, which I assume will become another long discussion, I suggest doing so elsewhere on this page.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes Summoned by a bot. In answering the original RFC question, I don't see why additional factual information regarding the investigation would hurt. So long as it the information is coming from reliable independent sources. Comatmebro (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

But when almost the entire police narrative is disputed, how does one handle it without violating WP:WIKIVOICE? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

By noting in the section "the policy narrative is disputed by..." Comatmebro (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

How about you report the narrative with which Syed was convicted, Serial adequately summarizes it, and then the objections that have been raised, so that someone reading this article can actually figure out what's going on without turning to other sources? Cynistrategus (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:STRUCTURE, we are not supposed separate things time-wise, not by POV.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Halbach murder,the subject of the Making a Murderer documentary, somehow manages to be a readable account of the police investigation. Cynistrategus (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not and never have been opposed to a version that explains in a readable fashion what is known, what is disputed and why, and so forth. However, it needs to conform to Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:WIKIVOICE.Adoring nanny (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm removing the RfC tag because the prompt isn't neutrally worded with respect to the issue at hand specifically, it does not provide enough context to understand the content dispute.. Moreover, the discussion in the RfC is just an extension of the ongoing dispute in the rest of the sections of this page. I think that Comatmebro's approach is correct: a description of the disputed events can be included, as long as it is properly attributed and presented with due weight as reflected by its presentation in reliable sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Update

On may 11th, 2020, The Maryland Court of Appeals denied Syed a new trial [12] --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In March 2022, it was confirmed that the University of Baltimore, School of Law Innocence Project Clinic is representing Syed. https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/adnan-syed-serial-podcast-baltimore-dna-test-20220315.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.134.117 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)