Physical Evidence In Hae Min Lee's Case

When Hae Min Lee disappeared on January 13, 1999, all of her friends (including the subsequently charged killer, Adnan Syed) thought that she moved to California. Hae’s body turned up a few weeks later on February 9, and the police later charged Adnan Syed, her ex-boyfriend with her murder. Jay Wilds, an alleged accomplice to the crime, confessed to the police that he knew that Adnan killed Hae and Adnan tasked him with burying her. The state later used Jay’s testimony as the foundation for their case, even though it contradicted some of the state’s own physical evidence. While Jay’s eyewitness testimony does identify Adnan Syed as Hae Lee’s murderer, it is self-serving and inconsistent, with no physical evidence to corroborate it. Therefore,

He says that it was because he “figured there was cameras there or somebody had spotted him doing what he was doing.”

This however is completely nonsensical, he was unable to explain himself.

Jay also narrates an entire side trip which was supposed to happen between 4:35 and 5:05 however his narration about Patapsco state park disappears by the trial.

It’s such a vivid scene that you would think it could not be fabricated “But it doesn’t fit the timeline” that the police offer him so it is not testified to.

“The 3:21 to Jenn, 3:32 to Nisha, 3:48 to a dude named Phil, 3:59 to Patrick, none of these calls pinged a tower near where Jay tells the cops they were driving that afternoon. Not a one.”

In the first taped statement, Jay says he refused to help dig a grave for Hae. Two weeks later, he says they both dug the hole.

“In the first taped interview, Jay says Adnan only told him that same day that he was going to kill Hae. Two weeks later, Jay says that Adnan had started talking about it beforehand – four or five days

Because the rest of them, didn’t really help their argument.”

“The towers, the times, and Jay’s story are not matching- anywhere within that six hour period” and resultantly,

Physical evidence doesn’t even support Jay’s testimony

On the other hand, the call records also undermined what Jay tells the cops about that same trip to Leakin Park.

Jay’s testimony describes a series of events that take an hour and twenty minutes “Twice as long as, in other words, than the call log accounts for.”

The call log “don’t exactly align with your witness’s narrative.”

Not only is Jay’s story inconsistent, therefore, but it also does not fully support the prosecution’s narrative, timeline, or physical evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily bad in it of itself, however when the state relies mostly on circumstantial evidence to lock someone away for life plus thirty years and especially when their only circumstantial testimony is riddled with holes, it is simply unfair to lock someone up based on Jay’s inconsistent, ever-changing testimony.

Jay’s changing story, moreover, is evidence that it was manufactured to fit a specific