0:00

Looking to transform your business

0:02

through better HR and payroll,

0:04

meet Paycore, the powerhouse solution

0:06

that empowers leaders to drive

0:08

results. From recruiting and development

0:10

to Payroll and Analytics, Paycore

0:12

connects you with the people,

0:14

data, and expertise you need

0:16

to succeed. Their innovative platform

0:18

helps you make smarter decisions

0:21

about your most valuable asset,

0:23

your people. Ready to become

0:25

a better leader, visit paycore.com/leaders

0:27

to learn more. That's paycore.com/

0:29

leaders. From

0:43

NBI Studios, this is

0:45

Truth and Justice, a

0:48

crowd-sourced investigation in real time. I'm

0:50

Bob Roth. Hello

1:05

everybody and welcome back to Truth and Justice.

1:07

This is a different episode, different type of

1:09

episode and it's also not the episode that

1:11

was planned for this week at all. Not

1:14

even close to what was planned for this

1:16

week. None even close to what was planned

1:18

for this week. None of this was on

1:20

my bingo card. So before I get going

1:22

with the rest of the intro to let

1:24

you guys know what's going on if you

1:26

didn't catch it live. I am live recording

1:28

this live on YouTube so we got a

1:30

bunch of people in the live chat. But

1:32

this was, it's just, the last 72

1:34

hours have been pretty crazy. And, you

1:36

know, I had actually written a whole script

1:39

that I had to throw out because of

1:41

something else that happened this week,

1:43

which I'm going to talk about here

1:45

in just a second, and that we

1:47

had all the stuff going on with

1:49

Adnon's case, so like the last 72 hours

1:51

have been bananas, which I'm going

1:53

to talk about here in just a second,

1:56

and that we had all the stuff going

1:58

on with Adnon's case, so like, but

2:00

thanks to all of you that are

2:03

participating. And with that, let's go ahead

2:05

and I'll get this thing started. First

2:07

and foremost, the plan for this week.

2:09

I still can't reveal all details. But

2:12

what I was going to do this

2:14

week, it was going to be an

2:16

episode on the West Memphis 3 case,

2:18

and that was because we had, it

2:20

was supposed to happen this Tuesday, the

2:23

25th. We were supposed to get the

2:25

order signed for the DNA testing in

2:27

the West Memphis 3 case on. this

2:29

Tuesday and late Monday night and I

2:32

mentioned this and for those you that

2:34

are listening you know in real time

2:36

are on on Sunday you'll have heard

2:38

this in the follow-up on Friday but

2:40

late Monday night one of the attorneys

2:43

involved got sick and they had a

2:45

postponement this is the second time it's

2:47

been postponed this hearing or would not

2:49

even hearing that the judge was supposed

2:52

to sign the order and we were

2:54

supposed to move forward with next steps

2:56

back in January we should already have

2:58

the DNA results at this point. But

3:00

that one got postponed due to some

3:03

scheduling conflicts with attorneys. This one that

3:05

we were just right on the cusp

3:07

of ready to go to sign the

3:09

order to officially have DNA testing going

3:12

forward. And as I mentioned, there is

3:14

a lot more to there is a

3:16

lot more to that there is a

3:18

lot more to that more than anybody

3:20

knows. And that's what kind of this

3:23

week's episode was going to be about

3:25

is kind of revealing all that stuff

3:27

that we don't want to get into

3:29

any of that until after the order

3:32

signed. thing I want to do related

3:34

to the West Memphis 3 that I

3:36

was thinking of doing in its place

3:38

that's also going to kind of relate

3:40

to our next case. And that just

3:43

didn't seem to play out. And then

3:45

while we were live doing the follow-up

3:47

on Tuesday, we got word that Ivan

3:49

Bates, the state's attorney in Baltimore, has

3:52

withdrawn Marilyn Mosby's motion to vacate Adnon

3:54

Syed's conviction. We were already going to

3:56

have news. on Adnon's case on Wednesday,

3:58

because Wednesday there was already scheduled to

4:00

be a hearing, a JRA hearing, which

4:03

is a juvenile resentencing hearing. where, aside

4:05

from what was going on with Adnon's

4:07

exoneration, there were also, this process was

4:09

going forward to re-sentence Adnon. Since he

4:12

was convicted, you know, the crime happened

4:14

when he was a juvenile, he was

4:16

sentenced to life in prison, and so

4:18

they were looking at, you know, based

4:20

on some new law that's out there,

4:23

well, it's not super new now. You

4:25

know, when juveniles are sentenced to life

4:27

sentences, they can have their sentences reviewed

4:29

and changed. Leading up to this, Ivan

4:32

Bates had already said that he doesn't

4:34

think Adenon should go back to prison,

4:36

that he thinks that the sentence should

4:38

be, regardless of what happens next, the

4:40

sentence should be reduced to time served,

4:43

23 and a half years, which then

4:45

would mean whatever happens next, either way

4:47

Adenon's out of prison. A lot of

4:49

people saw that as a good sign,

4:52

you know, that Ivan Bates came out

4:54

and made that declaration prior to this

4:56

hearing happening, that he is in support

4:58

of him staying on a prison. Personally,

5:00

that statement scared the shit out of

5:03

me at the time. I was very

5:05

concerned about when I saw it because

5:07

I didn't see if he was intending

5:09

to continue on with vacating the conviction,

5:12

why are we even talking about the

5:14

conviction? Why are we even talking about

5:16

the sentencing? That doesn't matter what the

5:18

sentencing is if we're going to overturn

5:20

the conviction. So that was a big

5:23

red flag for me immediately that he

5:25

said anything about that. And it turns

5:27

out that's what happened. what's been happening

5:29

up to this point. So a couple

5:32

years ago, Marilyn Mosby and her team

5:34

looked at the case and determined there

5:36

was, first of all, the first thing

5:38

she did was vacate the conviction. It

5:41

was all done very quickly. The attorney

5:43

working under her. She filed a motion

5:45

based on the cell phone evidence. The

5:47

big one was a big Brady violation,

5:49

that there was notes in the... prosecutors

5:52

file that the defense did not have

5:54

that would never turn over to the

5:56

defense that implicated an alternate suspect. There

5:58

was two of them that were... notes

6:01

that the Eurek had written that indicated

6:03

that the police or he at the

6:05

time way back then had gotten information

6:07

from someone that someone had threatened Hayes

6:09

life that said that they'll make her

6:12

disappear. We know now for sure as

6:14

of now that it was belal that

6:16

was that Marilyn Mosby said that that

6:18

was about and there was also information

6:21

about Alonzo sellers. So they used that

6:23

to overturn the conviction. They pushed it

6:25

through. really quickly and so quickly that

6:27

Hayman Lee's brother Young was not able

6:29

to get to the hearing. And when

6:32

they had the hearing, an attorney showed

6:34

up representing Young and said that he

6:36

doesn't think the hearing should go forward

6:38

until Young can be there in person.

6:41

The judge said, well, we'll wait till

6:43

Young gets off work, we'll let him

6:45

zoom in, he zooms in, makes a

6:47

statement, the judge rules conviction overturned. A

6:49

little while later. that we got some

6:52

DNA results, there was four DNA profiles

6:54

found on Hayes shoes that were in

6:56

her back seat, and none of it

6:58

was identified who it was, but we

7:01

know none of it was, but we

7:03

know none of it was, Adnon, and

7:05

Marilyn Mosby used that to say that

7:07

she's filing a null prosecute, which means

7:09

she's, they've dropped to the charges, and

7:12

essentially made a promise that they're never

7:14

going to prosecute Adnon for this again.

7:16

Like he is, the convictions overturned and

7:18

he's overturned and he's done. who upheld

7:21

the ruling, it went up to the

7:23

Maryland Supreme Court, and the appeal was

7:25

based on the fact that, not on

7:27

the merits, and that's important to understand

7:29

with this, it was not based on

7:32

the fact that the arguments were not

7:34

valid, it was based on the fact

7:36

that Young Lee did not have ample

7:38

notice to be there, the victim's brother.

7:41

And a four to three ruling in

7:43

the Maryland Supreme Court, they ruled that

7:45

to... not overturned but remand the case

7:47

back down to the lower court. They

7:49

agreed for the justice, the judges agreed

7:52

that Young Lee should have been given

7:54

more notice, he needs to have that

7:56

notice, and so they sent it back

7:58

basically undid what was done and remanded

8:01

it back down to the court where

8:03

it originally started to basically go through

8:05

the hearing all over again. It gets complicated

8:08

in the fact that during that time

8:10

span, Marilyn Mosby lost an election,

8:12

Ivan Bates took over, so now we

8:14

have a new guard. So the motion

8:17

still stood in place, that there's still

8:19

this motion from the prosecutor's office to

8:21

vacate Adnon's conviction, which isn't normal. It

8:24

doesn't happen very often. You see it

8:26

happens with conviction integrity units.

8:28

Oftentimes if you have a

8:30

prosecutor that agrees that a

8:33

conviction needs to be overturned, they

8:35

will join in a motion with

8:37

the defense where the defense files

8:39

a motion and the prosecutor joins

8:41

it basically saying we're not opposing

8:43

this. But in this case, the motion

8:46

was saying we're not opposing this. But

8:48

in this case, the motion was filed

8:50

by the state. So it remanded back

8:52

and we've all been waiting to see

8:54

what Ivan Bates is going to do.

8:56

It's a different judge now. but hopes were

8:59

high that we would get the same

9:01

result just on this redo. But what

9:03

has happened is Ivan Bates reviewed

9:05

the motion to vacate, now that

9:08

he's in office, reviewed the evidence

9:10

that was used to justify the

9:12

motion to vacate, and he came out

9:14

on Tuesday and said he's withdrawing

9:16

that motion. So you have two

9:18

different people, you have Mosby that

9:21

made the motion and Ivan Bates

9:23

that withdrew it. But I understand

9:25

that if you take a step

9:27

back, it's just that office. What

9:29

it looks like is the state's

9:31

attorney's office filed the motion, reconsidered,

9:33

and said, now we're taking it

9:35

off the table. We're not filing

9:37

them. We're not supporting that

9:39

motion anymore. We're dropping the motion

9:42

to vacate the conviction. So that's

9:44

just over. It's done. There is

9:46

no current motion in place anymore

9:48

that says that they're trying

9:51

to vacate Adnon's conviction. I

9:53

was not feeling great about the fact that

9:55

he was talking about the juvenile resentencing.

9:57

I did watch and if you haven't seen it yet, if you

9:59

go on... to Robia's Instagram today, which was

10:01

Thursday. She did a live with Colin

10:04

Miller where they talked about this stuff

10:06

and they also talked about the juvenile

10:08

resentencing hearing that happened on Wednesday this

10:10

week. They're the best source of information

10:13

for that. I wasn't there. I was

10:15

why watched it to get the information

10:17

from them so I could just kind

10:20

of reiterate it back to you. That

10:22

process seemed to go very well from

10:24

Ivan Bates's side and the defense side.

10:26

It sounds like there's some concerns about

10:29

the judge. So essentially, you know, the

10:31

defense came up, there's 11 points that

10:33

they have to hit, I'm not going

10:35

to reiterate all those, you can watch

10:38

Robby his life to get all that.

10:40

But they went through point by point,

10:42

here's all the reasons why Adnon should

10:44

have his sentence changed, basically be resentenced

10:47

to time served, so that even though

10:49

he's still a convicted murderer, he would

10:51

be free and be guaranteed to be

10:53

free for the rest of his life,

10:56

and barringing he doesn't. So the defense

10:58

did their thing and then Ivan Bates

11:00

true to his word from what he

11:02

had said a couple weeks ago made

11:05

the arguments for Adnon to be re-sentence

11:07

you know and the arguments were pretty

11:09

simple other than the legal you know

11:11

the 11 legal points it's you know

11:14

had nothing to do with whether or

11:16

not he committed the crime it was

11:18

you know he was a juvenile when

11:21

he did this or dealing with impulse

11:23

control issues with anybody that age which

11:25

is why the law exists he's been

11:27

an exemplary prisoner. He's never had any

11:30

issues in prison. He's had two write-ups

11:32

in his entire 23 and a half

11:34

years in prison. And those were for

11:36

a cell phone. He's never been in

11:39

fights, gangs, none of that stuff. And

11:41

then the big one is too. And

11:43

it's also he has family connections and

11:45

religious, his faith and everything that he

11:48

has going forward. He has a life

11:50

outside of it. And Adnon's case has

11:52

become very unique because he's been out

11:54

for two years, which is advantageous to

11:57

society. Working under this works under the

11:59

premise. So I'm not saying I believe

12:01

Adnon's guilty, but it's working under the

12:03

premise that he is guilty. He committed

12:06

this crime, he's been rehabilitated. And in

12:08

this case, we're able to, and Ivan

12:10

Bates did, as well as the defense,

12:12

point to, he's been out for two

12:15

years. He's married, he has a job,

12:17

he's been very successful, he's had no

12:19

issues, so we've already gotten a two-year

12:22

look at what it looks like for

12:24

Adnon Syed to be out in the

12:26

free world. All of that went really

12:28

well, but from what I understand from

12:31

Robbie and Colin Colin Colin Colin other

12:33

people that have reported on what went

12:35

on what went on there in that.

12:37

It concerns me. The judge did not

12:40

seem to be buying it really. You

12:42

know, she, you know, when Ivan Bates

12:44

mentioned that there were, you know, juveniles

12:46

were talking about impulse control issues. She

12:49

interrupted him, according to what Robbie has

12:51

said, and to point out that this

12:53

was premeditated murder, it wasn't an impulse

12:55

type of decision. She really stressed the

12:58

fact over and over that Adna has

13:00

a convicted murderer, that this was a

13:02

heinous act on Haman Lee. and that

13:04

Adnan is not a victim, that Haman

13:07

Lee and her family are the victims

13:09

here and she needs to consider that.

13:11

I just, I'm hoping, I'm hoping she

13:13

rules with some, you know, whether you

13:16

believe Adnan's innocent or guilty, I don't

13:18

know, but I don't, I don't see

13:20

how anyone could really think Adnan is

13:23

a violent threat to society at this

13:25

point. So, so the big hope is

13:27

with that that the judge does go

13:29

ahead and rule in favor to the

13:32

resentencing or the resentencing. And then this

13:34

is over for, as far as Adnon,

13:36

risky being at risk, going back to

13:38

prison or not. He'll still deal with

13:41

the conviction. Who knows if he'll even

13:43

continue to fight it from there. He

13:45

did, one thing that he did say

13:47

that he did, one thing that he

13:50

did say that Robby had talked about

13:52

in her live, is that Robby had

13:54

talked about it in her live, is,

13:56

you've noticed, since Adnon's been out, he

13:59

hasn't done any media, any interviews, any

14:01

interviews, and he got out. And he

14:03

said in the hearing that when he

14:05

got out and he saw interviews with

14:08

Hayes family and read about, oh Hayes

14:10

family feels like they're being traumatized by

14:12

Adnon being out, that it's just reopening

14:14

this wound and it's hard on them,

14:17

that he's out of prison, he made

14:19

the decision for their sake that he's

14:21

not going to do any media, that

14:24

he's not doing social media, he's not

14:26

doing media, he's just out and he's

14:28

living his life, but essentially he doesn't

14:30

want to throw that in the face

14:33

of the victim's families because he knows

14:35

that's hard on them. all things that

14:37

I think really should lead to this

14:39

sentence being re-sentence so that he is

14:42

he just gets to be done in

14:44

over with. Like I said, I'm concerned

14:46

the judge did say that she would

14:48

rule faster than normal. Usually takes about

14:51

three months, so hopefully faster than that,

14:53

we'll have a ruling. Robbie and Colin

14:55

Bull said that they think that most

14:57

likely she already knows what her ruling

15:00

is going to be. She's probably already

15:02

decided. She just has to write up

15:04

the order. I think that's where we

15:06

really need to be putting all of

15:09

our hopes and prayers right now that

15:11

she rules to resentence him and then

15:13

that part of it's over and we

15:16

can kind of breathe and know that

15:18

Adnan is going to be out and

15:20

he's not going back to prison. Truth

15:22

and Justice is sponsored by first form.

15:25

Losing weight and getting in shape doesn't

15:27

have to be miserable. Now in order

15:29

to be successful you do have to

15:31

be conscious about what you eat. But

15:34

that doesn't mean you have to live

15:36

a life full of nasty bland food

15:38

and kale. I hate kale by the

15:40

way, but that's beside the point. The

15:43

point is that if you're going to

15:45

lose weight and keep it off, then

15:47

you need to find a system and

15:49

a meal plan that's sustainable. And that's

15:52

first form. The app makes it super

15:54

easy to set your macros and calories,

15:56

and it sets you up with goals

15:58

that are achievable and sustainable. But beyond

16:01

that first form knows that you're not

16:03

going to keep it up long term

16:05

eating but egg whites and freaking and

16:07

freaking freaking kale. Did I mention that

16:10

I hate kale? Because first form knows

16:12

that it... If you like what you're

16:14

eating, you're going to keep eating it.

16:17

So they set out to create some

16:19

of the best supplements in the world

16:21

that actually taste great. Have you ever

16:23

actually craved a protein bar? Probably not,

16:26

unless you're on some kind of starvation

16:28

diet and you were dying to eat

16:30

anything with some flavor. But check this

16:32

out. I've said it a hundred times

16:35

that First Form's chocolate peanut butter pretzel

16:37

protein bar is probably the best candy

16:39

bar I've ever tasted and it is.

16:41

And holy crap is it good? It

16:44

tastes exactly like how you're imagining it.

16:46

So damn good. First form has found

16:48

a way to shift your cravings over

16:50

to great supplements and away from unhealthy

16:53

sugary foods in kale. I hate kale.

16:55

With first form, you can eat delicious

16:57

food that you actually crave and still

16:59

lose weight. Another crowd favorite is the

17:02

red velvet flavored protein powder for shakes.

17:04

And that's just naming a couple. Everything

17:06

First Form has is delicious. And you

17:08

can get started on your fitness journey

17:11

today and fill your coverage with your

17:13

own delicious snacks at firstform.com/truth where you'll

17:15

get free shipping on any order over

17:18

$75 and if you're a new customer

17:20

they'll email you a link to try

17:22

the app for free. And they have

17:24

a 110% money back guarantee on their

17:27

products. So if I'm lying, you can

17:29

send it right back. But I promise

17:31

you that's not going to happen. It's

17:33

all so good. First form can change

17:36

your life like it did mine. So

17:38

one more time, go to the number

17:40

one, ST, P-H-O-R-M, dot com, slash truth.

17:42

Now what I want to spend the

17:45

majority of our time today talking about

17:47

is Ivan Bates' withdrawal of the motion

17:49

to vacate because that's the big it

17:51

doesn't it doesn't equal that this is

17:54

over, the defense can still file a

17:56

motion to vacate with their evidence. It's

17:58

just, we don't have the state doing

18:00

it for us now at this point.

18:03

And truthfully, I think it'll be, it'll

18:05

probably be pretty tough for this to

18:07

come through from the defense side with

18:09

the state arguing against it. So what

18:12

I'm going to do is I'm going

18:14

to go through, I read through the

18:16

order or the motion that I read

18:19

through the executive summary, which you can

18:21

find online easily, which lays out everything

18:23

that I've and Bates Batesates argued. So

18:25

I was going to go through the

18:28

bullet points of that and the reasons

18:30

why he said he dropped the motion.

18:32

Now I'm going to be coming at

18:34

this from trying to be a neutral

18:37

perspective because here's the thing. I don't

18:39

like this any more than anybody else

18:41

does. And I don't know what the

18:43

motivation is. There's a lot of speculation

18:46

that's because of politics and it probably

18:48

is, but I don't know if everybody's

18:50

really getting it right as far as

18:52

why. how this affects the politics. Because

18:55

for most of you to follow this

18:57

case, know that Ivan Bates has been

18:59

very public in the past in saying

19:01

that he thinks Adnon's innocent and he

19:04

supports the conviction being thrown out. So

19:06

as I discuss these things, I'm going

19:08

to approach them from the perspective that

19:10

Ivan Bates does believe Adnon's innocent, but

19:13

he's trying to follow the letter of

19:15

the law and do things right. And

19:17

I'm not saying that I know that

19:20

to be the case. I just don't

19:22

want to sit here and argue against

19:24

this. I want to lay out the

19:26

way he explained it because, the reason

19:29

I say that is because if the

19:31

way Ivan Bates laid this out and

19:33

if the things he put in this

19:35

are accurate, then as much as I

19:38

hate to say it, I can see

19:40

where he's coming from. I can see

19:42

why he feels like, and I guess

19:44

the perspective that I think that someone

19:47

who was, you know, Not bias, not

19:49

doing anything wrong, but they're just trying

19:51

to do their job the best way

19:53

possible. I could see where someone could

19:56

look at this and say, if a

19:58

defense attorney filed this motion, it would

20:00

lose. That's kind of the way I

20:02

looked at it is, is what he's

20:05

saying here that this is not enough

20:07

to overturn a conviction. The big thing

20:09

that I want to point out, because

20:11

you know there are other people, other

20:14

content creators, people on social media, that

20:16

are going to say that because of

20:18

this, this is Ivan Bates saying that

20:21

he thinks that he thinks the add-on

20:23

is guilty. That is not at all

20:25

what he's what he's saying. He is

20:27

not saying in this motion that he

20:30

thinks Adnan is guilty. What he's saying

20:32

is that he doesn't think that the

20:34

evidence that was used in order to

20:36

vacate the conviction was strong enough evidence

20:39

to do so. That's what it says,

20:41

and right or wrong. And it's, Robbie

20:43

had said something about how after the

20:45

hearing Lester Holt was interviewing Ivan Bates,

20:48

and he asked him, if you had

20:50

this case to try all over again,

20:52

would you try it again? And he

20:54

said, absolutely. and Robbie was kind of

20:57

shocked by that. And then when I

20:59

heard that, I was too. I'm like,

21:01

how could he say that? How could

21:03

he say that? How could you, like

21:06

this case is ridiculous? Especially like, meaning,

21:08

like trying it now means you're trying

21:10

it with everything you know about Jay

21:12

Wild's, everything he's lying about, a better

21:15

understanding of the science. You have the

21:17

DNA, there's so much more out there.

21:19

All the stuff we know about, Robbie,

21:22

but then I've had like kind of.

21:24

I've taken this last hour and kind

21:26

of digested a little bit and realized

21:28

that obviously he said that. I think

21:31

that he has to say that if

21:33

that makes sense because you know from

21:35

his position if he were to stand

21:37

up and say no I wouldn't try

21:40

it again well then you're admitting to

21:42

the public and to any defense attorney

21:44

that's going to grab on to that

21:46

later that you don't have a strong

21:49

case here which means you don't think

21:51

that there's integrity in the conviction. So

21:53

if he's not himself trying to vacate

21:55

the conviction if his position is to

21:58

uphold the conviction, then there's no way

22:00

he's going to say anything other than

22:02

yes, I absolutely would try this case

22:04

again. But I did also love how

22:07

Rabi had put it and she said,

22:09

let's do it. That's what we've been

22:11

asking for. Try it again. Let us

22:13

have a new trial. Only reason I

22:16

mention it is because I just wouldn't

22:18

read too much into that. I don't

22:20

think I would, from what I read

22:23

from what he put out here in

22:25

this executive summary, and the statements he's

22:27

made. that Ivan Bates thinks Adnan is

22:29

guilty. And I agree with Colin, I

22:32

think a lot of this is he's

22:34

just kind of going after Marilyn Mosby,

22:36

she had all kinds of problems, and

22:38

I think that, you know, that's definitely

22:41

probably, not definitely, that could be or

22:43

probably is some of what's driving this.

22:45

But with that being said, I'm going

22:47

to go through what he put into

22:50

that executive summary, kind of the way,

22:52

this is my notes on it, how

22:54

I thought it's kind of been my

22:56

non-lawyer layman terms what I'm, what I'm

22:59

reading what I'm reading there, what I'm

23:01

reading there. So once he's in office

23:03

and the Supreme Court of Maryland remands

23:05

this back to him, from the way

23:08

he writes it, his job then is

23:10

to, before he just automatically swings it

23:12

right back into the court and fights

23:15

for this conviction to be overturned, he

23:17

needs to review it and make sure

23:19

that it's legitimate. So he's tasked with

23:21

reviewing the previous filing to see if

23:24

he had any merit. He points right

23:26

out in the first couple pages of

23:28

the summary. that Marilyn Mosby refused to

23:30

communicate with his office, which is problematic.

23:33

You know, I think a lot of

23:35

the things you're going to hear up

23:37

front, I think, probably fed into this.

23:39

So, sounds like they tried to talk

23:42

to Marilyn Mosby to ask about some

23:44

of these things, and she refused to

23:46

talk to them. She had established what

23:48

they call in the document, SRT, or

23:51

the Syed Review Team. Also failed to

23:53

preserve many of the records. It doesn't

23:55

get into in the summary what those

23:57

records are, but essentially there's documents. that

24:00

he needs that aren't there. He says

24:02

that only one member of that team

24:04

communicated with his office at all when

24:06

they tried to talk to them about

24:09

the investigation, and they only gave very

24:11

limited information to him, and that

24:13

was through an attorney. They wouldn't

24:15

speak to him directly. Throughout his

24:17

process, he's interviewed the defense team,

24:20

the police, the state's attorneys, both

24:22

current and previous, and he says

24:24

in his opening that He threw

24:26

that process, determined that he cannot

24:28

endorse the previous motion to vacate.

24:30

So right up front, I think one of

24:33

the problems is, I think if there was

24:35

going to be a way to preserve this,

24:37

Marilyn Mosby needed to step up and have

24:39

that conversation. I don't know what's going on

24:42

with that, why she refused to talk

24:44

to them, but were you had, so you have

24:46

the two sides here, right? You've got

24:48

Kevin Eurek, you've got the

24:50

police department. A.G.'s office, all of

24:52

them fighting to keep the, to

24:54

advocating to keep the conviction in

24:56

place. And then Marilyn Mosby was

24:58

in the position to advocate

25:00

to continue to press forward

25:02

to get it overturned and she

25:05

didn't do that. So that just, that

25:07

just needs to be said. That's, that's

25:09

part of the problem here. At

25:11

least the way, and again, everything

25:13

that I'm saying is what he wrote. So

25:15

this turns out to be not true.

25:17

That's, that's a different story. But

25:19

based on. the ad non is innocent side

25:22

advocating for this motion to stay in place.

25:24

They wouldn't talk to them. So then he

25:26

goes through there was three there was

25:28

three elements to vacating the conviction, two

25:30

to vacate the conviction and one for

25:33

the null prosecute. So what kind

25:35

of go, and he broke down why he didn't

25:37

think they have merit. So the first were the

25:39

Brady violations. So we're talking about

25:41

those those handwritten notes. about the

25:43

alternate suspects and he says you know in

25:45

order for and you guys know this they've

25:48

been listening for a long time to me

25:50

and everybody else that covers this type of

25:52

stuff in order for it to be Brady

25:54

and to be used to overturn a conviction

25:56

Bates looked at it and said that I need to

25:58

prove one I have to prove that this

26:00

was not turned over to the defense,

26:03

and also that it would have changed

26:05

the outcome of the trial. So then

26:07

they go through what the Brady violations

26:09

were. So there was these two handwritten

26:11

notes. Mosby claimed they identified alternate suspects,

26:14

and that they were withheld from the

26:16

defense. In his review, he found that

26:18

she never once interviewed Kevin Eurek, who

26:20

was the one who authored the notes

26:23

to find out what they meant or

26:25

to ask him if he gave them

26:27

to the defense and discovery, which Keep

26:29

in mind, from our perspective, we know

26:31

all the problems with Europe, we all

26:34

have our feelings about Europe, we don't

26:36

trust Europe, but I would, I actually

26:38

agree with him that that's negligent. Like

26:40

how do you go make it all

26:42

the way to filing the motion and

26:45

going before a judge without ever even

26:47

interviewing the person that wrote the note,

26:49

somebody who used, that came from the

26:51

office that you're, that you're heading up

26:53

right now. And I think that was,

26:56

that was a mistake and I can.

26:58

And this may make some people mad

27:00

about this, and I don't intend to,

27:02

but I'm trying to be as fair

27:04

and unbiased as possible. Could see the

27:07

argument there. Like, you only got one

27:09

side of the story and made no

27:11

attempt to get the other side of

27:13

it. Bates says that he did interview

27:15

Eurek, and he says that Eurek provides

27:18

ample information that the notes do not

27:20

point to any alternate suspects. According to

27:22

Eurek, the make her disappear note was

27:24

actually about Adnon and not about an

27:26

alternate suspect. Now, on that note, I

27:29

can see when he's looking at that

27:31

record why he made that determination. But

27:33

there's more context there, and that's what

27:35

bothers me, because Eurek knows, or Bates

27:38

knows this context. One is the fact

27:40

that the person who that note was

27:42

about, the person that supposedly called in

27:44

the tip that caused Eurek to write

27:46

the note, has not only said but

27:49

has written to come forward and written

27:51

in affidavit. saying they were not talking

27:53

about Adnan. The problem is that affidavit

27:55

wasn't part of this record that he's

27:57

reviewing. That wasn't something that... Mosby did

28:00

before filing this motion. And when I

28:02

get to the end of this, you'll

28:04

see why I think this stuff matters,

28:06

or I'm hoping that it matters, as

28:08

a non-lawyer, just looking at this. And

28:11

we also know that Eurek has a

28:13

history of dishonesty. You know, we have,

28:15

you know, all the stuff with Asia

28:17

McLean, where he testified under oath that

28:19

Asia told him that the Adnon's family

28:22

pressured her and she only signed the

28:24

affidavit because they pressured her to do

28:26

so. And she came forward and said,

28:28

that's absolutely not true. That didn't happen.

28:30

She had her notes from the phone

28:33

conversation, that in no way was she

28:35

pressured to do this and that Europe

28:37

was lying. Now, unfortunately, that's never been,

28:39

you know, it becomes a he said,

28:41

she said, but you can see where

28:44

the motivation comes from for Europe to

28:46

be lying. There's no motivation for Asia

28:48

to be lying. And on that note,

28:50

as far as Asia is concerned, she's

28:53

been posting on some social meetings, she's

28:55

actually commenting during Robbie as live. And

28:57

she said she's met with Ivan Bates.

28:59

And she said in the live chat

29:01

that he told her then in a

29:04

dinner conversation that he knows that Eurek

29:06

has done a lot of dishonest things.

29:08

And she also that he had done

29:10

a lot of dishonest things. And she

29:12

also that he had told her that

29:15

he believed that Adnon was innocent. So

29:17

that's something to have in the back

29:19

of your mind. Because the big thing

29:21

that people are talking about now is

29:23

there's been this pivot. to be trying

29:26

fair and balanced about it, though, too.

29:28

He was saying that when he wasn't

29:30

in the office and had access to

29:32

everything that was there. And also, again,

29:34

this motion, I keep calling the motion,

29:37

this, this, this, him dropping, this motion

29:39

to vacate. And the reason he states

29:41

for it, actually don't contradict what he

29:43

said before. Nowhere in there that I

29:45

read did, is he saying he believes

29:48

that Adan is guilty. What he's saying

29:50

is that he believes there was integrity

29:52

in the conviction. the way this motion

29:54

was filed was not proper. It was,

29:56

there was stuff in here that was

29:59

dishonest, there was stuff that was left

30:01

out, he doesn't like the process, it's

30:03

just, it's not, it's not the right

30:05

way to have done this, is what

30:08

he's saying here. And on that note,

30:10

as he goes on, he said one

30:12

of the things that he did is

30:14

pulled all electronic communications between the Saad

30:16

review team members. Everybody that was working

30:19

on Mosby and everybody's working on the

30:21

case, and everybody's working on the case,

30:23

and everybody's working on the case, and

30:25

everybody's working on the case, working on

30:27

the case, and everybody's working on the

30:30

case, and everybody's working on the case,

30:32

and everybody's working on the case, and

30:34

everybody's working on the case, and everybody's

30:36

working on the case, and everybody's working

30:38

on the case, working on the, that

30:41

was, that was, that was, that was,

30:43

that was, that was, that was, that

30:45

was, that was, that was, that was,

30:47

that was, that was, that was And

30:49

he says that the memo said, quote,

30:52

I am not currently of the impression

30:54

that Balal made any threats in front

30:56

of the witness, end quote. What he's

30:58

saying is that after they reviewed this,

31:00

that somebody on the team had told

31:03

Mosby, I'm not on the impression that

31:05

Balal made any threats in front of

31:07

anybody. Meaning, and what he's getting at

31:09

is that there was information that Mosby

31:11

had that indicated that maybe she wasn't

31:14

right about what that note meant and

31:16

then went forward anyway. But again, I'll

31:18

remind you what's outside of that record

31:20

is the affidavit from the person that

31:23

was about from that witness. Bates says

31:25

in his motion that the alternate suspect,

31:27

the two of them, Boulal and Alonzo

31:29

Sellers, were known to the defense before

31:31

trial and the Gutierrez pursued a defense

31:34

theory that Sellers was the killer in

31:36

front of the jury. And so that's

31:38

that other prong of a Brady violation,

31:40

right? Number one, you have to prove

31:42

that it was withheld. And then two,

31:45

you have to prove that it would

31:47

have made a difference in the trial,

31:49

would have changed the outcome of the

31:51

trial. And what he's saying is, even

31:53

without that note, she already presented to

31:56

the jury that the law was an

31:58

alternate suspect. I disagree with that that

32:00

point. I think that's a weak argument

32:02

that would have been destroyed in a

32:04

hearing because if you're already of the

32:07

strategy that you're putting out in front

32:09

of the jury, that you think Balal

32:11

or Alon, or was not Balalal, it

32:13

was Sellers, was the alternate suspect, was

32:15

the alternate suspect, was the alternate suspect.

32:18

And then you could have added to

32:20

that. And then you could have added

32:22

to that. Here's a tip that the

32:24

police got about sellers. Then I think

32:26

that, you know, I would like to

32:29

think it would at least have shifted

32:31

the needle a little bit. Now moving

32:33

on, Bates says that he interviewed Europe

32:35

and Kathleen Murray. Murphy, who was the

32:38

other prosecutor on the case, and though

32:40

the interviews, what's it say here, and

32:42

through those interviews, so these are the

32:44

interviews that Mosby failed to do, she

32:46

didn't make any effort to contact them

32:49

to ask him about it, so Bates

32:51

did, and he says that through the

32:53

interviews you determined that the notes were,

32:55

and it says, I quote, probably turned

32:57

over to the defense through discovery in

33:00

a series of open file reviews before

33:02

trial. So, probably sucks, right? So he's

33:04

saying that, you know, there's a good

33:06

chance after talking to him, they're like,

33:08

yeah, they probably were turned over, not

33:11

only through discovery, but also they had

33:13

these open file reviews, where basically they

33:15

lay out their whole file reviews, where

33:17

basically they lay out their whole file

33:19

and the defense can come in and

33:22

go through them. And it's something that

33:24

prosecutors will do sometimes to make sure

33:26

that there's no Brady violations in there,

33:28

you got everything. to prove, you have

33:30

to prove that the documents were never

33:33

turned over through the defense. And what

33:35

he's saying is he talked to them

33:37

and they said they probably were. So

33:39

in his opinion it was left as

33:41

unproven. Bates says that the defense for

33:44

this relied entirely on an interview with

33:46

Adnon's current attorney to determine that the

33:48

notes were not in the file. And

33:50

then he goes on to cite some

33:53

concerns about the chain of custody. of

33:55

the defense file and he notes that

33:57

it has changed hands several times from

33:59

the attorney grievance commission to Robia to

34:01

Susan to add on's attorney Justin Brown

34:04

and his current attorney Erica Souter. So

34:06

he said in the I'll quote it

34:08

here he states quote 25 years after

34:10

the trial it's impossible to rely on

34:12

any representations of the status of the

34:15

trial from 2000. This office can only

34:17

presume that the note could have been

34:19

in the file at one point and

34:21

then lost or misplaced along the way.

34:23

So you're saying that the file got

34:26

passed around all over the place and

34:28

then 25 years later, whoever... has at

34:30

last says, hey, this thing's not in

34:32

here. He says, you know, the defense

34:34

or Mosby, didn't present evidence to prove

34:37

that the file, that the document was

34:39

never in the file. And he points

34:41

out that even in her motion to

34:43

vacate, Mosby even hedged about this, where

34:45

she said that it's possible that Gutierrez

34:48

had the notes, which she says would

34:50

just shift the claim from ineffective assistance

34:52

from Brady to ineffective assistance of counsel.

34:54

So, you know, that's hard to argue

34:57

too, where Mosby in her filing said

34:59

that there is a possibility that it

35:01

wasn't in there. So, by her own

35:03

admission, again, according to what he's putting

35:05

here, she's saying that there's a chance

35:08

that it wasn't Brady. And she, again,

35:10

that was a hedge because she said,

35:12

but if he did, if Gutierrez did

35:14

have it, then it was ineffective, she

35:16

should have used it. But they didn't

35:19

file an ineffective assistance of counsel claim,

35:21

which, again. And I keep stressing, I

35:23

say this all the time, but I

35:25

just want to make sure I'm not

35:27

a lawyer, so some lawyer may come

35:30

and tell me I'm completely wrong about

35:32

this, but that again is a reason

35:34

why he doesn't like this motion, because

35:36

the motion didn't claim ineffective as a

35:38

counsel. It just claimed that it was

35:41

Brady, while noting that it might have

35:43

been there, and if it was, then

35:45

it would be ineffective. And Bates notes

35:47

that this is indicative of the speculative

35:49

nature of the alleged Brady violation. Now

35:52

for me, that's the whole thing on

35:54

the Brady violations. On face value, and

35:56

I'm saying on face value because I

35:58

don't know if all of this is

36:00

true, if all of this is accurate,

36:03

but on face value, if this is

36:05

the case, I can see why I

36:07

would say this is not a proper

36:09

reason to vacate the conviction. This would

36:12

not hold up if a defense attorney.

36:14

made this argument and there was a

36:16

state's attorney that was arguing against it,

36:18

it would not overturn the conviction, is

36:20

the way I'm reading it, where is

36:23

coming from with this. You know, she,

36:25

you know, with the... She never talked

36:27

to the people that wrote the notes.

36:29

There's not the affidavit in there from

36:31

the person who the note was about.

36:34

All the proofs that you would need

36:36

weren't there. And it was just, and

36:38

Mosby herself said that they could have

36:40

been in the file. So it was

36:42

in her own motion, there's speculation there

36:45

as to that. Moving on, the next

36:47

one was the cell phone evidence. There's

36:49

not a whole lot there. Mosby had

36:51

cited Brady for not turning over the

36:53

handwritten notes. Brady for the, well that

36:56

was argued actually in the PCR hearing

36:58

in 2016. So that's a different issue

37:00

where they had argued, you know, as

37:02

far as the facts cover sheet that

37:04

was left out. But Mosby cited that

37:07

Eurek didn't turn over the handwritten notes

37:09

about the cell phone evidence and there

37:11

was ineffective assistance of counsel for a

37:13

good ear is not properly cross-examining the

37:15

cell phone expert. Bates retort to that

37:18

is that he claims that in trial

37:20

the expert didn't rely on the cell

37:22

records in question but rather testified to

37:24

an independent drive test where he went

37:27

to like 13 locations and said which

37:29

towers would connect to what I don't

37:31

know about that argument that seems weak

37:33

to me as far as from his

37:35

perspective you know that you know these

37:38

were these were part of the records

37:40

they were clearly a lot of science

37:42

about cell phone evidence that was argued

37:44

at trial but he's saying that you

37:46

know not having these handwritten notes about

37:49

these reports is irrelevant if they had

37:51

him a trial because the expert didn't

37:53

rely on that stuff at trial. So

37:55

there wasn't, I guess it wasn't anything

37:57

that could be properly cross-examined because the

38:00

question, there was never a single question

38:02

asked about that by the state about

38:04

those documents and therefore it wouldn't have

38:06

opened the door for cross-examination is the

38:08

best I can interpret what he's saying

38:11

there. And then we move on, the

38:13

third one is the DNA evidence. Bates

38:15

says that the DNA evidence to exonerate

38:17

Adnon was problematic for three reasons and

38:19

he lays him out. First reason he

38:22

lays out is that the DNA was

38:24

found on shoes in the back seat

38:26

of Hayes' car, and Bates says it

38:28

was never proven that they belonged to

38:30

Hay. In my opinion, that's a chicken

38:33

shed argument. That's ridiculous. For starters, they're

38:35

girls' shoes in the back of a

38:37

girl's car that was murdered who was

38:39

found dead without her shoes on. So,

38:42

like, we're making this argument that we

38:44

didn't prove they belonged to Hay, but

38:46

also, even beyond that, like, I don't

38:48

think that's a, I think that's a

38:50

ridiculous argument to begin with. They could

38:53

prove it. They know her shoe size.

38:55

They could have checked the shoe size.

38:57

They could have asked her parents or

38:59

brother, anybody, you know, if those were

39:01

her shoes. There's a lot of ways

39:04

they could do it. They could test

39:06

for DNA inside the shoes, which kind

39:08

of leads onto where he goes next.

39:10

Then the second problematic thing about the

39:12

DNA was that there was four DNA

39:15

profiles found on the shoes. And while

39:17

Adnon's DNA was not included, neither was

39:19

haze. There were her shoes. which he

39:21

says further raises the question of whether

39:23

or not the shoes belong to Hay

39:26

or if she was wearing them on

39:28

the day she was killed. That is

39:30

a little better argument, I guess. But

39:32

again, like whose shoes are we saying

39:34

they are? Like this, again, this is

39:37

pretty far out there. I don't know

39:39

that finding DNA on shoes is enough

39:41

to fully exonerate Adnon, but this argument

39:43

is very weak in my opinion. You

39:45

know, they're really leaning on. these shoes

39:48

didn't belong to Hay, which that wasn't

39:50

proven when there were certainly ways they

39:52

could prove it. And his third point

39:54

was is that the DNA was found

39:57

on the bottom of the shoes, which

39:59

he says could have been transferred from

40:01

anyone, which is true. You can pick

40:03

up DNA transfer from anybody, which is

40:05

true. You can pick up DNA transfer

40:08

from anybody from anybody on the bottom

40:10

of the shoes, which he says could

40:12

have been transferred from anyone, which is

40:14

true. You can pick up DNA transfer

40:16

from anybody from anybody. But did they

40:19

swab the inside of the shoe? to

40:21

see if her, because her DNA absolutely

40:23

should be in there. And so, and

40:25

that's not mentioned in the executive summary,

40:27

whether that was done or not. Now,

40:30

if they had swabbed the inside of

40:32

the shoes and found out there was

40:34

no DNA in there or there was

40:36

not haze DNA in there, then I

40:38

could see his argument. My assumption is

40:41

they didn't, because they know that the

40:43

inside of the shoes is going to

40:45

be full of her DNA, so they

40:47

were probably swabbing only the outside of

40:49

the outside of the shoe looking for

40:52

someone else's, Well I don't know how

40:54

strong that evidence is to just to

40:56

overturn the conviction. I think certainly compiled

40:58

with everything else we know about the

41:00

case it is. His argument here I

41:03

don't I don't buy it. But he

41:05

also reveals and this is you know

41:07

all this stuff should be on the

41:09

record and this is he says that

41:12

in their look at the electronic communications

41:14

he discovered that there was an email

41:16

sent from a team member to Mosley

41:18

or excuse me. on the day before

41:20

she dropped the charges that states that

41:23

the DNA from the bottom of the

41:25

shoes was quote not conclusive evidence of

41:27

innocence. So that was that was internal

41:29

communications within the team. So she you

41:31

know the way he's painting this is

41:34

Mosby gets a you know they do

41:36

the DNA testing the people on her

41:38

team that do the testing whoever it

41:40

is emails and says this is not

41:42

conclusive evidence of innocence by any means.

41:45

And she goes ahead the next day

41:47

and declares Adnon innocent and drops the

41:49

charges afterwards. So at least the way

41:51

he's painting it, he makes it, this

41:53

seems like very much an attack on

41:56

Mosby other than anything else. I think

41:58

Colin Miller hit the nail on the

42:00

head pretty well here when he said

42:02

that, you know, that Adnon seems like

42:04

he's kind of collateral damage here, that

42:07

Bates is going after Mosby and Adnon

42:09

is kind of paying the price for

42:11

it. I'll also say that if everything

42:13

in this in the document that he

42:15

says is true, that I do agree

42:18

with him in the part that you

42:20

know, This was some shady shit the

42:22

way Mosby did it and that's but

42:24

that's not Adnon's fault and that's not

42:27

indicative of his innocence or guilt but

42:29

But if she was personally looking at

42:31

this stuff and again taking it on

42:33

face value and if I'm just assuming

42:35

everything he's saying in here is true,

42:38

then so where is the political motivation

42:40

really? Where is putting it on Bates

42:42

right now, which is probably true too,

42:44

but was there a political motivation on

42:46

Mosby's part with the election coming up

42:49

and all the trouble she was already

42:51

in, was there political motivation on her

42:53

part to... I'm going to exonerate this

42:55

person that millions of people around the

42:57

world all love and believe is innocent,

43:00

and I'm going to be the hero

43:02

of this story. Was that a hope

43:04

to save her political career? I don't

43:06

know, but I could see that happening.

43:08

And this is, and for those of

43:11

you watching live, you're, you know, everything's

43:13

out of order right now, but for

43:15

you just listening on Sunday, you will

43:17

have heard in the follow-up on Friday,

43:19

Janet say, and she was exactly right.

43:22

exactly why everything needs to be done

43:24

right. Two things, you know, a number

43:26

of things can go wrong if you're

43:28

not doing things right and you're not

43:30

following the rules. And that is that

43:33

an innocent person gets locked up because

43:35

of it and the guilty people go

43:37

free because of it. You know, it's

43:39

never good. All of these things are

43:42

easy to argue if everything is done

43:44

properly and it does not appear. And

43:46

again, I just want to I want

43:48

to preface this by saying everything in

43:50

here could be bullshit. I don't know.

43:53

I'm only reading what's in front of

43:55

me, but it seems like from what

43:57

everything's here that Mosby rushed the job,

43:59

she didn't do or do diligence, and

44:01

part of that you can see why,

44:04

right? She had no, there was nobody

44:06

to oppose her. She was the state

44:08

asking to vacate a conviction. She wasn't

44:10

writing a motion in a way that

44:12

she could defend it because there was

44:15

nobody to defend it against. All she

44:17

had to do is present enough of

44:19

an argument to a judge to get

44:21

him to agree with her, and in

44:23

most cases. when you have the prosecution

44:26

and defense both coming together saying we

44:28

want to we don't we don't think

44:30

there's any integrity in this conviction. And

44:32

in most cases, the judge is going

44:34

to agree. They're not going to go

44:37

against the prosecutor. quote, unlike Ms. Mosby,

44:39

we cannot vacate this conviction based on

44:41

the lack of Mr. Syed's DNA on

44:43

the bottom of a pair of shoes

44:45

found in the back seat of Ms.

44:48

Lee's car. I think he has oversimplifying

44:50

it, but I think he makes his

44:52

point pretty well, that he makes his

44:54

point pretty well, that he's minimizing, he's

44:57

saying, like this, we find some DNA

44:59

on a pair of shoes in the

45:01

back of the car, on the bottom

45:03

of the shoe, and we're saying that

45:05

proves he's innocent. how to prove Adnon's

45:08

innocent in 30 days or less. Just

45:10

based on a map and cell tower

45:12

evidence alone, you can prove that it's

45:14

impossible. It's impossible for Adnon to have

45:16

been guilty. But I agree that just

45:19

finding this DNA on the shoes doesn't

45:21

prove it. So I can see the

45:23

point there. I don't know that the

45:25

problem with this for me that frustrates

45:27

me is I don't know that the

45:30

point needed to be made. Like this

45:32

right or wrong, like did this need

45:34

to happen? But at the same time,

45:36

and the reason I'm trying to be

45:38

as fair about this as possible, is

45:41

because ultimately what we're about is truth

45:43

and justice. And the thing we've been

45:45

fighting for for all these years, is

45:47

for the players within the system to

45:49

play by the rules and do things

45:52

right. And even if it's an outcome

45:54

that we don't like, I still can't

45:56

sit back and endorse something not being

45:58

done right. And so if these things

46:01

are all true, then I can see

46:03

the point. There is light at the

46:05

end of the tunnel here though at

46:07

the end, I'm getting to it. I

46:09

want to read the final note though

46:12

that was from that executive stuff. As

46:14

a summary, it's really disappointing. As a

46:16

final note, Ms. Mosby represented to the

46:18

court that this was an open and

46:20

ongoing investigation. This office's review of this

46:23

matter has not revealed that there was

46:25

ever an open investigation into any purported

46:27

alternative suspects in the murder of Haman

46:29

Lee. Baltimore PD similarly reported that it

46:31

did not have an active investigation and

46:34

this office will not ask for one

46:36

to be opened. That's disappointing for me

46:38

for two reasons. Obviously I'm disappointed by

46:40

the fact that Bates is saying that

46:42

he's not going to ask for an

46:45

investigation, but more so the fact that

46:47

Mosby claimed to all of us that

46:49

there was this active investigation going on,

46:51

that her team was doing all this

46:53

work to find justice for Hayman Lee,

46:56

to find her killer, and if this

46:58

is true, she was lying to everybody.

47:00

There wasn't an active investigation. which leads

47:02

me back to what I was saying

47:04

earlier is I think that there's a

47:07

good chance this was politically motivated. I

47:09

think that she rushed to exonerate Adnon

47:11

to save her political career and didn't

47:13

actually care, give a shit at all

47:16

about Hayman Lee and her family. And

47:18

I say that because if she did,

47:20

then there would have been an active

47:22

investigation. She would have actually been doing

47:24

this instead of just providing lip service

47:27

to everyone. Now, again, Ivan Bates could

47:29

be a big old liar and all

47:31

this could be not be true. I'm

47:33

just basing enough on what he said,

47:35

but if that's true, that is so

47:38

disappointing that that's where we're at and

47:40

to put us through this whole roller

47:42

coaster, to put Adnon and the Lee

47:44

family and everybody through this while cutting

47:46

corners and not doing thing right is

47:49

frustrating. Now I'll get to why I

47:51

was kind of laying things out the

47:53

way that I did. I don't think...

47:55

that this is over, putting myself in

47:57

the position of if I were a

48:00

defensive. working for Adnan right now. To

48:02

me, reading through the lines of

48:04

this order, again, the order doesn't

48:06

say Adnan is guilty. The

48:08

order says the way that Marilyn

48:10

Mosby went about this to

48:13

try to overturn this conviction

48:15

was improper. She was dishonest.

48:18

She didn't do her due diligence.

48:20

And the evidence presented

48:22

here is not enough as a state's

48:24

attorney to say I'm comfortable

48:27

overturning the conviction.

48:29

based on this. The way I would read that

48:31

as a defense attorney is to say,

48:33

okay, and actually at one point

48:35

he says, like, what he's doing

48:38

here is returning this back to

48:40

the normalcy of an adversarial situation

48:42

within the court system, right, where

48:44

you have a defense and a

48:46

prosecutor both arguing both sides in

48:48

front of a judge. Him saying that, and the

48:50

way this is laid out and what we

48:53

know about the case, I think that if

48:55

I was a defense attorney... what I would

48:57

be doing is saying, okay, he just

48:59

gave us the playbook, he just told

49:01

us everything we need to know that

49:03

was done wrong here, so that we can

49:05

do it right, and then file the motion

49:08

in a normal way, where the defense

49:10

comes in and files a motion to

49:12

vacate based on these things. So

49:14

imagine a new motion to vacate,

49:16

go back to the Brady violations,

49:18

right, with the handwritten notes.

49:20

And you actually do provide all

49:23

the evidence. We have, we do

49:25

your due diligence, interview Kevin York,

49:27

interview Kathleen Murphy about them. Also,

49:29

include the affidavit from the person

49:32

who said they called. Include, if

49:34

you can, again, not a lawyer, I

49:36

don't know if you can, but include

49:38

the evidence that's been presented in other

49:40

situations where Kevin York has been

49:42

found to be, or has been

49:44

alleged to be, being dishonest within

49:47

this case, with the DNA. you know,

49:49

maybe try to try to push for

49:51

more DNA testing. Find out. Was there

49:53

any more DNA done? Find out what

49:55

size the shoes were. Find out if you

49:57

can, because I think a lot of people's

49:59

need jerk's reactions are that they're

50:01

hearing, well, you can't, you can't overturn

50:03

the conviction on the DNA because we

50:06

don't know that they're haze shoes. So,

50:08

screw you. What I hear when I

50:10

read it is, the reason I can't

50:13

do this is because we can't prove

50:15

their haze shoes. So maybe if you

50:17

filed a motion where you did the

50:19

work and did prove they were haze

50:22

shoes or at least give present evidence

50:24

that they were. then you might have

50:26

something to work with, if that makes

50:29

sense. So, and I don't know that

50:31

this is Ivan Bates, you know, hoping

50:33

that happens, but I do think that

50:36

all things considered to be true in

50:38

this, that it was a fair decision.

50:40

I don't like it, you don't like

50:42

it, most of the world doesn't like

50:45

it, but I think that it was

50:47

a fair decision, because of all that's

50:49

true. then that's not the kind of

50:52

motion you would expect to find that

50:54

would actually overturn a conviction. So I

50:56

think I would be taking that information

50:58

as a playbook and say, okay, here's

51:01

where the prosecutor found the holes and

51:03

he's now explained to everyone where all

51:05

these holes are at, because keep in

51:08

mind too, as far as I know,

51:10

he didn't have to do that. It's

51:12

his office, it's his motion. He literally,

51:15

as far as I know, someone correct

51:17

me if I'm wrong, I'm withdrawing the

51:19

motion to vacate. And that's it, and

51:21

not set a fucking word about it.

51:24

But he didn't. He laid out everything

51:26

that he saw wrong with that motion.

51:28

So these are all things that can

51:31

now be corrected in a new motion

51:33

by the defense. So this is not

51:35

over. This doesn't have to be over.

51:37

The defense now can go back to

51:40

what would be a normal operating procedure,

51:42

file their motion to vacate, based on

51:44

what is now new evidence. The DNA

51:47

on the shoes is new evidence. It

51:49

wasn't included in the PCR hearing. The

51:51

handwritten notes, that is new evidence, so

51:53

these are opportunities to open the door

51:56

again to file another motion. motion to

51:58

vacate from the defense side. So I

52:00

don't think that it's all gloom and

52:03

doom here. I want to believe and

52:05

part of it is just, God damn

52:07

it, I just want to believe that

52:10

Ivan Bates is what I think everyone

52:12

thought he was. I mean, Robbie talked

52:14

about it today. Like she's met with

52:16

him, she's talked to him, she helped

52:19

campaign for him and believes that he's

52:21

a good guy and he's an honest

52:23

guy and he's a long or a

52:26

guy. And I think that the take

52:28

on this that... I was wrong about

52:30

him and he's an asshole. I don't

52:32

know, but I want to believe that

52:35

that's not the case. I want to

52:37

believe that because he's a good guy,

52:39

even though he believes Adnan is innocent,

52:42

that he's insisting that this process be

52:44

done correctly. That's what I am choosing

52:46

to believe. I'm not saying that that

52:49

is the case. Because it really is

52:51

when you break it down, it's hard

52:53

to argue with the arguments that he

52:55

made there. So where does that leave

52:58

us? It leaves us in kind of

53:00

a scary spot. I'm less concerned about

53:02

that and more concerned about the juvenile

53:05

resentencing hearing that we just had yesterday.

53:07

Like I said on the outside of

53:09

this thing, I think that's where we

53:11

need to be focusing any, you know,

53:14

whatever you do, whether it's prayers or

53:16

good thoughts or good vibes or whatever

53:18

it is, that's where we need it

53:21

because Ultimately, Ednon can't go back to

53:23

prison. The idea of him being out

53:25

for two years and finally getting his

53:27

life together and living a good life

53:30

and just keeping to himself and just

53:32

trying to spend time with his wife

53:34

and his family, him having to then

53:37

go back into prison for the rest

53:39

of his life is something that I

53:41

just can't stomach right now. So I'm

53:44

really, really hoping that that judge rules.

53:46

to stop that from happening. Then if

53:48

that happens... then we can breathe. And

53:50

then it's up to add none. He,

53:53

from what I understand, he, through his

53:55

testimony or his statement that he made

53:57

at the hearing yesterday, he cried through

54:00

a lot of it. He's been really

54:02

emotionally taxing on him. He's really exhausted

54:04

by this, I think, as you would

54:06

expect. And I wouldn't be surprised if

54:09

the judge rules to re-sentence him to

54:11

time served, and this is over for

54:13

him, if that's it. He has this

54:16

conviction on his record. He has millions

54:18

of people around the world that believe

54:20

he's innocent, regardless of that. He has

54:23

a great job. He's got a great

54:25

family. It's not, it's, I mean, it

54:27

is obviously negatively affecting his life, but

54:29

he's able to function. I think of

54:32

like Damien Eccles in the same way,

54:34

where Damien who desperately wants to clear

54:36

his name, but at the same time

54:39

Damien made a decision years ago to

54:41

push forward and live his life, to

54:43

not live his life in those prison

54:45

malls anymore, now that he's outside of

54:48

them. So I wouldn't be surprised, but

54:50

also it could be they could resentence

54:52

him, he could stay home, and then

54:55

his defense could go ahead and file

54:57

this motion to try to get this

54:59

conviction or return. The other thing that

55:01

could happen is the judge could send

55:04

him back to prison, which is just

55:06

be just absolutely devastating, but then the

55:08

fight has to continue. It has to

55:11

continue. Add on is innocent. He is

55:13

100% innocent. This is the reason why

55:15

I did the reply brief series last

55:18

year. after that other podcast put out

55:20

a bunch of lies to try to

55:22

sway public opinion and my opinion just

55:24

simply for ad dollars which is disgusting.

55:27

But my big concern then was a

55:29

bigger picture. It wasn't just that this

55:31

is my case and it upsets me

55:34

or that an emotional response to someone

55:36

attacking my work or Robbie or Susan

55:38

or Collins work or anything like that.

55:40

It was the big picture I saw

55:43

back then was we're in the middle

55:45

of litigating this case. and public pressure

55:47

is going to be important and regardless

55:50

of the way we want to think

55:52

about it, facts are facts. The state's

55:54

attorney's office position is a political opposition,

55:57

and politics are always going to be

55:59

part of it. And when you have

56:01

99% of the people that filed the

56:03

case and are vocal about it, screaming

56:06

to let Adnon out, I think that

56:08

it's a lot easier for the prosecutor

56:10

to be open to doing that. when

56:13

all of a sudden you start to

56:15

get this groundswell of people fighting back

56:17

the other way that number grew after

56:19

that podcast came out that's what I

56:22

was concerned about it's possible we wouldn't

56:24

be in this position that we're in

56:26

right now had that not been done

56:29

had that not been done and that

56:31

not been done and that's the reason

56:33

that we're in right now had that

56:36

not been done and that's the reason

56:38

that I did it so we're going

56:40

to take to get through it hope

56:42

that made sense to you guys Nobody's

56:45

mad at me, but this is the

56:47

way I feel about it. Sunday in

56:49

the chat asked if it's been a

56:52

long time, but didn't I meet with

56:54

Eurek? No, I did not. I met,

56:56

that was, that was, that was David

56:58

Dobbs in at age case, different prosecutor.

57:01

Oh, Kathy asked if I'm going to

57:03

do a reply brief on the West

57:05

Memphis 3, they're doing it now. I'm

57:08

not. I don't want to feed any

57:10

more auction into it. And as I've

57:12

been Nothing anyone is going to say

57:14

is going to solve this case. It's

57:17

going to take science and that's what's

57:19

happening right now That's what was supposed

57:21

to go out the door on Tuesday

57:24

and hopefully very soon We'll be going

57:26

out the door or we'll be going

57:28

out the door or we'll be going

57:31

out the door or we'll do DNA

57:33

testing and the results will speak for

57:35

themselves. They can I have no idea

57:37

what they're saying about it or that

57:40

other podcast or what they're going to

57:42

conclude. I don't give a shit. that

57:44

are going to prove without question what

57:47

happened here. Jenna asked, think that Adnon's

57:49

team could sue the state because it

57:51

isn't legal for them to allow the

57:53

victim's family to appeal the vacatur of

57:56

his conviction? I don't think so. Again,

57:58

that's a lawyer question. I don't know,

58:00

but because they did, so the Hayes

58:03

brother and his attorney spoke at the

58:05

at the hearing for the resentencing yesterday.

58:07

And of course they played a role

58:10

to send this back down and it

58:12

was based on victim's rights, but I

58:14

don't I don't think that comes down

58:16

to suing the state. I mean it

58:19

was decided by judges, you know, by

58:21

it was a four to three margin

58:23

that decided to send it back based

58:26

on that. They cited case law the

58:28

way they see it. That's their job

58:30

is to interpret the law. I don't

58:32

see how anybody could be sued for

58:35

that. If you're talking about the West

58:37

Memphis 3 case, nothing is being tested

58:39

right now. That's what we're trying to,

58:42

that's where we're trying to get. All

58:44

parties involved are on board with the

58:46

testing. It's just literally, we're at a

58:48

point where the document has to go

58:51

before a judge to sign off on

58:53

it, and it's just literally, we're at

58:55

a point where the document has to

58:58

go before a judge to sign off

59:00

on it and it's going off the,

59:02

I think we're doing the reply brief.

59:05

Grayson, buddy, I agree with you 100%

59:07

something needs to, something needs to happen

59:09

here. So I'll just leave you with

59:11

this, pray or hope to whoever you

59:14

pray or hope to, that the judge

59:16

rules to re-sentence Adnon to time served,

59:18

and then at least we can all

59:21

take a breath of fresh air and

59:23

relax knowing that Adnon at least is

59:25

home in... the threat of going back

59:27

to prison is finally behind him. And

59:30

with that guys, I'm going to go

59:32

and wrap this thing up. We can

59:34

talk a lot more about it on

59:37

the follow-up on, we'll be recording live

59:39

on Tuesday night. If you guys want

59:41

to join on the YouTube chat, I'll

59:44

be Tuesday night at 7 p.m. or

59:46

8 p.m. Eastern time. If you want

59:48

to join the chat and we'll have

59:50

an Erica, get a post. up this

59:53

week for anybody asking any questions. So

59:55

we'll talk about it a lot more.

59:57

Thanks everybody for joining me that's here

1:00:00

in the live chat. I know I

1:00:02

didn't get to the chat a whole

1:00:04

lot because I was yapping about everything.

1:00:06

But I hope that clarified things for

1:00:09

everybody. And those you that are listening

1:00:11

on Sunday, hopefully this doesn't sound like

1:00:13

a gobbled up mess when it gets

1:00:16

put together because I haven't done anything

1:00:18

like this in a really long time.

1:00:20

With that being said, I'll let you

1:00:22

guys go and we'll talk to you

1:00:25

guys next week. Love you guys next

1:00:27

week. Love you guys. Truth

1:00:33

In Justice is an FBI studio's production, co-written

1:00:35

and produced by Erica Bergenheim. Music for season

1:00:37

15 is created and composed by Caden lattice

1:00:39

law. Follow-up episodes are co-hosted by Janet Barney

1:00:41

and Zach Weber. Our logo font was created

1:00:43

by Tate Krupa of Red Swan Graphic Design.

1:00:46

Our website is created, managed and maintained by

1:00:48

Katie Ross of Creative in Tandon. Thank you

1:00:50

to our volunteer transcription team. Erica Cantor, Kathy

1:00:52

Mcallaney, Courtney Wimberly, Kaywood Yomnick, Daniel Ror, Jennifer

1:00:54

Athi, and Caroline DeWire. Truth and Justice provides

1:00:56

all investigative and advocacy work for the wrongfully

1:00:59

convicted completely free of charge. We're able to

1:01:01

do that in large part thanks to you,

1:01:03

our listeners, through your generous pledges on Patreon.

1:01:05

For just $5 a month you'll get all

1:01:07

episodes ad-free, a bonus pre-game episode every Wednesday,

1:01:09

and also a video version of the Friday

1:01:11

follow-ups exclusive to our patrons. Patrons also get

1:01:14

to participate and join the chat live in

1:01:16

many of our interviews and get early access

1:01:18

to much of our content. Just go to

1:01:20

patreon.com/truth and justice to sign up. You can

1:01:22

also help us out by going to iTunes

1:01:24

and leaving us a five-star rating and review.

1:01:27

Doesn't cost you a penny and goes a

1:01:29

long way towards making making the show more

1:01:31

visible. If you have a new case that

1:01:33

you'd like us to consider, you can submit

1:01:35

your cases. on our website truth and justice.com.

1:01:37

on click on the

1:01:40

case submission button and

1:01:42

fill out the form. form.

1:01:44

can always keep in

1:01:46

touch with us through

1:01:48

our touch with us through our email

1:01:50

at theories at truth and justice.com. like our

1:01:53

can, like our Facebook

1:01:55

page, or join in

1:01:57

on the conversation on

1:01:59

the official Truth and

1:02:01

Justice podcast fans page. You You

1:02:03

can also connect with

1:02:06

us on social media

1:02:08

social media platform X at justice pod

1:02:10

And to follow our

1:02:12

personal accounts on social

1:02:14

media, I can be

1:02:16

found can be found at Bob rough

1:02:19

Janet can be found

1:02:21

at Janet Barney. and is at

1:02:23

Z Z the the However you

1:02:25

do do it, stay

1:02:27

engaged and stay in

1:02:29

touch. touch. But as for

1:02:32

now, we're signing off.

1:02:34

I'm Bob Ruff. Bob Ruff.

1:02:36

I'm Zach And I'm Janet

1:02:38

I'm Janet this has been

1:02:40

And this is Justice. and Justice.