Because of Double Jeopardy, he now gets one free murder.
1: No. Double Jeopardy means the 2nd person convicted of the murder gets twice the sentence.
No. Double Jeopardy means you have to phrase your conviction in the form of a question.
I don't think high schoolers are generally capable of murdering someone else via strangulation
Every generation goes into middle age thinking the younger generation lacks focus and discipline.
Heebie makes a really good point, but in this case isn't the counterargument just that he hasn't serial-murdered because he's been in jail since his first murder as a teenager?
Anyway a big part of the new evidence is "Ms. Lee's car was also found directly behind the house of one of the [other] suspect's family members." It'll certainly be interesting to see what the new evidence is, if it ever comes out.
It's weird to read that old thread and be like "oh yeah, there was a time where I just knew what 'the Nisha call' meant." I have no idea now who Nisha is, or what call we're talking about.
I don't think high schoolers are generally capable of murdering someone else via strangulation
Because normally that requires at least a bachelor's degree?
Or do you mean physically capable? Syed was 18, and a football player. Presumably fairly physically strong and capable.
but in this case isn't the counterargument just that he hasn't serial-murdered because he's been in jail since his first murder as a teenager?
There seemed to be very little evidence that he was serial-killer-ish at all. (Although good serial killers are probably like good toupees in that way.) And now that I think about it, the podcast name works against him.
(Although good serial killers are probably like good toupees in that way.)
I only dangled this for Moby and others to riff on.
Because normally that requires at least a bachelor's degree? Or do you mean physically capable?
Neither. Because generally that kind of anger towards women turns into violence in a steadily escalating manner. High school kids haven't accumulated enough time for it to escalate that fast.
What if they took AP classes in misogyny?
While we're talking about Serial, Only Murders in the Building is a just such a delight.
I had to take a break because I can't shake the fear that Charles is going to screw up with his ex's daughter in a really cringe way.
What if they took AP courses in horrible omelets?
Let's not just make up things that don't exist.
Sounds like someone needs an AP course in making up things that don't exist.
New Serial episode "Adnan is Out"
https://serialpodcast.org/season-one/13/adnan-is-out
12: Yes, most murderers are over 18, but 18-year-olds do commit murder. And murder is so rare that any argument based on what "generally" happens isn't terribly informative. Generally, high school kids don't murder women, but generally people don't murder people.
The wiki page "list of youngest killers" is informative (and depressing) here. There are kids as young as 13 who seem to have had no problem accumulating the kind of anger towards women (or men or children) that leads them to kill.
The claim wasn't that teenagers don't commit murder, it was that strangling is an emotionally difficult way to do it. Anyone could shoot someone, if they really wanted to, but most people couldn't strangle someone even if they genuinely wanted that person dead.
Generally people don't murder people, and high school kids don't murder women, but those aren't the right points. What you want to know is: who murders via strangulation? My guess is that it's people with a history of violence towards women, of the sort that you can't accumulate by high school.
One of the most famous murder cases in the UK involved a ten-year-old girl who strangled two other children.
Things about "most people" and "most teenagers", as I say, aren't really helpful (I think) when you're talking about something as rare as murder.
People who accumulate that kind of experience young traditionally do it by killing animals.
24: You're arguing that murder is so rare that these denominators aren't meaningful. But fortunately, the world is big enough that the denominators are still plenty big.
24 before reading 23.
And I think 23 is getting things slightly back to front. That's what you want to know if you already have a strangler, but you want to know what age he probably is - not if you already have a teenager and you want to know whether he strangled someone.
I still haven't listened to Serial, but this take seems to have aged well.
Whoever is really guilty, there's consensus that the trial locking Syed up was a gross miscarriage, right?
What you want to know is: who murders via strangulation?
IDK, probably men who are highly upset at being dumped by their girlfriends?
That's what you want to know if you already have a strangler,
This is exactly what we have!! Hae was strangled!
No, as in: you already have a named person whom you know is a strangler.
The NRA has convinced many that guns don't kill people, do kids are using bare hands as a fix.
Much as I dislike disagreeing with heebie (and to be excessively honest, agreeing with ajay) I am puzzled by heebie's argument -- I suppose it is possible that there are sound statistical studies showing that teenagers are less likely to kill by strangulation, but I'm pretty certain that we don't of any.
But then I realized something -- a detective in the movie I watched last night made a very similar argument to heebie's -- that murder by strangulation was only possible for someone whose anger had accumulated over a long time. You haven't seen See How They Run, have you heebie? Or is this a well-known "fact" among murder enthusiasts?
34: I'm going to rile peep up further by agreeing with him (ha!) - and saying that even if these studies existed, so what? Say that only 10% of stranglers are in their teens, or say that only 10% of teenagers who kill do so by strangling. That really doesn't mean a whole lot.
Is See How They Run any good, incidentally? It's just come out over here.
That does sound like a movie I'd like.
I'm feeling kind of vindicated because I remember being pretty sure after the podcast and whatever ancillary reading I did that there wasn't any kind of respectable caae against Syed. Was he actually innocent, who can tell in the absence of a strong case against someone else or a solid alibi, but all the positive evidence against him was soft to the point of nonexistence.
36: Yes, I would think so. Lots of clever and not-so-clever but still amusing one-liners. Just a very fun and silly movie.
I wonder if the downballot candidate sharing Syed's surname is going to get a little boost from this.
: Therefore, the number of offenders in this sample is 61. Nine offenders (15%) were female, of whom four killed their own child. Compared with men, a larger proportion of female offenders used a ligature (56 vs. 30%), although the difference only approached a statistically significant level (P<14). A further examination of the victims of the female offenders revealed that three of the four victims strangled manually were children (1-6 years old), whereas four of the five victims strangled with a ligature were adults (one woman and three men). The mean age of all the offenders at the time of the killing was 34.11 years (SD = 1132, minimum = 15, maximum = 66 years). Four offenders were under 18 years of age. The offender age was not significantly related to the offender gender or to the method of strangulation.
Therefore I'm a more pleasant person than Ajay.
I'm complaining about p less than .14.
With the industrial revolution, peasants might approach significance but .14 won't.
Didn't the Industrial Revolution actually make peasants less significant?
As a class, yes. But some peasants became important through industry.
Anyone could shoot someone, if they really wanted to
I've had trouble shooting birds and I don't even like uncooked birds. But then when I wounded a bird, I couldn't bring myself to wring its neck but I was able to shoot it again.
35.2: I was going to say the movie should have a special appeal to you as your candidate for the most loved person of all time is a character, but it turns out that it's the brother of your most loved person
Shoot peasants, pheasants, and pleasantly.
It's the new follow-up to Eats Shoots & Leaves.
I'm only plucking pheasants 'till the pheasant plucking's done.
I've shot at pheasants but never hit one. I've only hit doves and quail.
I've shot at sunny days that I thought would never end.
I always thought that I'd shoot it again.
I am intrigued by a typo on Josh Marshall's front page right now. Henceforward, if someone with a respectable professional history makes a show of buying into Trump's craziness, they should be known as a "zealout."
(I see that they have now fixed that.)