Thread by @TheViewFromLL2

At oral arguments today in Syed v. State, the State, once again, brought up its bogus Ja'uan claims. Since the State has already successfully convinced one judge to believe its made-up theory, its worth debunking again.

Judge Graeff, in her dissent from the Court of Special Appeals decision, accepted Thiru's story that Adnan's attorney had evidence from which she could have reasonably concluded that Adnan had asked Asia McClain to provide a false alibi for him.

First, Judge Graeff was wrong to believe Thiru's claim that this was based on "police records to which trial counsel had access."

They were not. The State's Ja'uan story is based on police notes never handed over to trial counsel. They were obtained a few years ago through MPIA.

Second, these notes came from an interview conducted by two detectives. Both detectives took notes. One detective later typed up (or had a secretary type up) his handwritten notes. It is from this typed set that Thiru developed his theory.

What Thiru's claim requires us to believe is that a BPD detective had a witness tell him that a recently-arrested murder suspect *had been writing requests for friends to provide him with a false alibi,* and these are the notes he thought were important to write down.

These detective's notes make no reference whatsoever to the murder suspect soliciting friends to provide him with a false alibi. Neither do the typed ones!

From context, this sounds a lot like a discussion about the letters that were to be used for Adnan's the bail hearing.

What Thiru wants us to believe: two detectives had a witness provide them with some insanely critical evidence that would make this a slam dunk case against the defendant they've charged with murder, and neither thought it was important enough to write down, or follow up on ever.

There's a much more obvious explanation why neither detective wrote down that a witness had told them about a defendant's attempts to prepare a false alibi: what Ja'uan was telling them about had to do with the bail letters, not a false alibi conspiracy.

What was described was one of the form bail letters: 'Ja'uan got one, Justin got one, and Asia got one.'

Typed-up form letters for the bail hearing were passed around far and wide. Here's one version that was used:

Several of Adnan's classmates also took the time to type up individualized letters -- the detectives notes could also be referring to that kind of letter.

On the same day the detectives talked to Ja'uan, they also talked to Adnan's other friends, like Peter, and asked the same questions they'd asked Ja'uan. Their responses make it *unambiguously clear* that the letters we're talking about have nothing to do with fake alibis.

Third, Thiru's claim requires the court to reject the unambiguous statements of the witness himself. Ja'uan's affidavit, admitted at the PCR hearing, is clear: he has no knowledge whatsoever of a fake alibi attempt.

Also worth noting that less than two weeks after the detectives interviews Ja'uan and took those notes, they had another interview with Ja'uan, and they recorded it. In that interview, they never ask Ja'uan about this supposed fake alibi conspiracy.

In conclusion, Thiru has tried once again to convince a Maryland appellate court to reject Adnan's post-conviction claims based on a false and frankly ridiculous interpretation of the evidence, and the equally false claim that this evidence was available to CG in the first place.