What about Intolerable Cruelty?

Okay, I'll be more specific. In the world in which Adnan was the victim of an elaborate conspiracy, the following facts don't make sense:

The other direction is that the world in which Adnan is innocent requires a conspiracy theory of Hollywood proportions, and is not grounded in a sober view of reality and how things actually work.

This feature definitely brings out the crazy. I think it must funnel in from other sources as many I don't even recognize as regular commentors.

Where is it established that the two police officers have a history of misconduct and sketchy convictions? Where was it established that the prosecution failed to provide evidence, since that would be a pretty solid ground for overturning the conviction and yet was not the subject of the application. People have…

The interview with the juror was interesting - ultimately what they couldn't wrap their heads around was why Jay would lie, and this was apparently compelling to them. They just couldn't see why he would have stuck his neck out like that, and at that stage there were already known issues with the various versions of…

My only real beef is that the characters talk like they're in their twenties. I can't buy a couple in their sixties/seventies having the style of banter these two have - not so much with what they're saying but how they're saying it.

Lambs is in the title, and yet I see no lamb furries. Worst comic ever.

He can be considered uncredible but still have his testimony on the key issues accepted. Look, if there was some sort of comprehensible explanation offered for why he would make it up I would take it more seriously. But a wild conspiracy theory wherein two police officers blackmail him to lie about the whole thing…

Your comment that 'people completely fabricate testimony all the time' is not common knowledge such that we should accept it's a reasonable conclusion in this case. Citation please.

Do they have anything upon which to base this theory? Also, why was Jay telling his coworker and girlfriend that he was involved before the cops even spoke to him the first time if he only said this because he was blackmailed? And how did he know where the car was?

This does still raise some odd questions though, like why did Jay know where the car was? And why did he tell people he was involved before ever being contacted by the police?

They won it once, no reason they couldn't do it again.

Contrary to what everyone else is saying, I really liked it and thought it got really engaging as it advanced. I highly recommend sticking it out, you just need to accept it's a different kind of story.

But that still doesn't address the crux of what he is saying: if Jay is lying, it's because he is the killer. And this version of the story far more bizarre and confusing than the one in which Adnan is the murderer.

Your theory for why Jay would lie is a big hurdle for me. In terms of how we legally assess credibility, his story is problematic (although it nevertheless convinced a jury). But in a more grounded, practical sense, there is a huge issue with the theory that the cops blackmailed him into pinning it on him. For example…

If Adnan did it, he's a clear sociopath and probable incapable of rehabilitation.

A jury of his peers, tasked with assessing Jay's credibility disagreed.

Jay's statements to the police, and the comments from his friends and associates, clearly show Jay had an image of himself, and perhaps one he was proud of. For example, he talks up his 'rap sheet' to the detectives, one of whom calls him on it by essentially telling him he's a petty con at best. And there is the…

The ads on mine are so oppressive that my computer lags like a son of a bitch, and it's a fairly decent machine. Not to damn it with faint praise, but for a site like this it should at least qualify as adequate. But today there's so much shit happening on the page at any given time that it's hard to load and scroll.