Who really did it? Has anyone ever accused you of doing something wrong, even something small like losing your car keys or breaking a vase. Now imagine being accused of something much more significant, like the murder of your ex-girlfriend. Well, this is what happened to 17-year-old Adnan Syed in 1999. Here's how the story goes, on the afternoon of January 13, 1999 Hae Min Lee, who was the ex-girlfriend, was supposed to pick up her little cousin after school but she never showed up. Hae Min, along with Adnan, was a popular, intelligent, and athletic senior student at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore, Maryland. Lee's Korean parents and Syed's Pakistani parents were both very strict and did not approve of their dating, so they continued the relationship in secret. Which would later be used as the reason why Adnan would kill Hae. Continuing the case, Hae's body was found about a month later in a huge Baltimore park called Leakin Park. The autopsy stated that the injury was caused by manual strangulation. About two weeks later, Adnan was arrested for the murder of Hae Min Lee. To properly analyze the case and decide whether Adnan was guilty, not guilty, or wrongly convicted, I had to ask several other classmates what they believed, listen to the Serial podcast that covers everything about this case, many times, and look for evidence online. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Now, this case is quite difficult to solve because there is not much evidence to analyze, almost none. There are some connections with cell phone antennas, a testimony that comes from an unreliable source and some words from some individuals. No DNA, surveillance video, or compelling evidence linking Adnan to Hae Min's death. However, here are some findings I uncovered. First, we'll start with the lack of physical evidence. Investigators compared the soil from the area where Hae's body was located to the soil under Adnan's shoes, fingerprints in Hae's car that belonged to Adnan, or any hair or fibers that might have belonged to Adnan but none matched (www.viewfromll2.com). Now it could be possible that Adnan was simply very careful not to leave any evidence, although very unlikely because he was not an experienced criminal or perhaps he was just very lucky that the investigators found no physical evidence. The fact that no DNA was found IS a good sign for Adnan, meaning it will only be harder for prosecutors to connect him to the murder, but they're not done fighting yet. The second piece of evidence would be Jay, Adnan's friend and alleged accomplice, and his testimony which essentially made the entire case possible. Jay stated that Adnan had already told him that he wanted to "kill that bitch." Thus, implying that this murder was premeditated and painting a picture of Adnan as someone capable of such a gruesome crime. Jay's story changes significantly from his first interview to his testimony at the second trial. To start, he first says that they went to Westview Mall and there Adnan tells him that he will kill Hae. In her testimony, she says they go to Security Square Mall and on the way Adnan says he will kill Hae (www.serialpodcast.org). Plus, his whole timeline is that his testimony is about an hour behind his first interview, so how could the state rely on this timeline based on Jay's testimony if he doesn't even seem too sure about it? First, he claims that Adnan introduced him to theHae's body in the trunk of his car on the Edmenson Avenue "strip." Then, he changes the story to a meeting at Best Buy, after Adnan calls him from a pay phone in the parking lot (which doesn't exist, by the way), and shows Hae's body to Jay in the parking lot. In his stories, events simply don't happen at the same time or place, as they do with cops, from the police to Adnan, to McDonald's, but then it happens while they are at Jay's friend's house. But it's troubling that Jay knew the approximate measurements of the grave that Adnan dug himself because prosecutors have debated how else Jay would have known. One juror said she gave credibility to Jay's testimony because "it struck her that 'why would [Jay] admit to doing something so drastic if [Adnan] hadn't done it?'" You know what I mean? For what reason? What would he get out of it? (www.viewfromll2.com). However, Jay had stated that he would have lied to save himself from going to prison, otherwise he would have been convicted of murder police used Jay to place the blame on Adnan and that Jay's story changed because the police were guiding him on what to say and he agreed because they had a plea deal Also, Jay never took a polygraph test, he was present a factfinder that is supposed to act as a human polygraph machine. How accurate is this person's ability to distinguish lies from the truth? Jay had lied in all his police interviews, so why did he suddenly become honest at trial? ? (www.viewfromll2.com). They believed that Jay would not admit to being connected to the crime if he had not actually taken part in it because he would get in trouble. But he never would have gone to prison if he had followed the police story, which he did. Furthermore, the prosecutor painted a picture of Adnan as an angry, possessive and embarrassed young man. He was angry because Hae broke up with him and it hurt his pride which filled him with anger and motivation. They used his Pakistani ethnicity to say that he was possessive of the women he was with because that's how his culture is. So when Hae left him he felt disobeyed. Finally, he was embarrassed because he had to hide his relationship with Hae due to their religious background, both of them were not allowed to date and once Adnan's parents even showed up at the homecoming dance and forced Adnan to go back to house. His friend said he received a phone call from Adnan after what happened and they laughed about that ridiculous night, but he wasn't angry looking for revenge. (www.serialpodcast.org). Finally, many of my classmates said they couldn't say Adnan was guilty because there was no evidence or "ah-hah" moments that actually proved he did it. However, they couldn't even say he didn't do it because it seemed possible that they said they wouldn't vote guilty in a jury simply because there wasn't enough evidence. Please note: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay There is more evidence and this case could be talked about for days without end. But, with these few faults that I have presented in the case, I say that Adnan was wrongly convicted because there was not enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which I believe Adnan's lawyers failed to do. Clearly there wasn't enough to lock him up, but they didn't argue this point enough and the prosecutors didn't stop fighting and ultimately emerged triumphant. I can't say that &.