Well, it's True Crime, which walks the (Thin Blue) line between journalism and entertainment.

Not true. Jay told his friend Tayyib that when Adnan told him he was planning to kill Hae, Jay said he wouldn't help with the murder, but would help bury the body.

No way man I like Crag Fogsaruen for real.

What's weird about that? Veep is a better show (than basically everything else on TV).

Actually, some of the many, many versions of the story Jay has told have quite different implications: in some stories, Adnan tells him about the murder he is planning before it happens, in others he only tells Jay after the fact.

But Adnan, in this story, isn't trying to secure Jay's silence. He isn't saying 'tell the police about this, and I'll them about your drug dealing'. He's trying to get Jay to help him bury a body. And Adnan is the one threatening to go to the police! And if Jay said 'no, you've got two arms, bury the body yourself',…

This video is pure propaganda. We must not allow our military to be dragged into another intractable conflict between warring Sia states.

*Genji drops mic*

What evidence? The calls to Jenn are certainly evidence that Jay had access to the phone, but nothing around the time the body was buried shows that Adnan had the phone then.

That's a stretch? There are like 500 details in Jay's testimony and the prosecution's case that are less believable than 'kid who lent his phone to people a lot forgot a time when he lent his phone to someone'.

Logic dictates he had the phone when the police called him. Logic doesn't say shit about whether he had the phone when the body was buried.

Yeah, it's reason to believe he had his cellphone back that evening. But the only evidence putting Adnan in Leakin Park when the body was buried is Jay's testimony. Nothing in the cell records proves that is true.

"You're inventing a backup story for him he doesn't even ascribe to so you can exonerate him"

'What's not reasonable? Saying "Well whatever he says about having his cell back, that isn't proof that he really did."'

"This guy said A, B, and C happened. I say he's lying about A & B, but I say he's telling the truth about C, therefore C definitely happened" is the exact opposite of logical reasoning.

"You're the one who says Jay had no motivation for helping while saying Adnan threatened to tell the cops he was dealing."

"Adnan does not deny it. So Adnan had his phone"

What? Jay knowing the time indicates that Jay was there. It doesn't tell us anything about where Adnan was.

You're being super selective here. Adnan says he wasn't at Leakin Park, you don't believe him. But Adnan says he thinks he had the phone, you're all 'case closed that proves he had the phone!'.

Adnan said he was pretty sure he had his phone at that time. But if he was trying to cover his ass by lying about not being in Leakin Park at that time, isn't it weird that he would have still claimed he had the phone on him, when that would be super incriminating?