Good morning….

Even though the prosecution tried to offer the answer to many questions, such as
by trying to demoralize Adnam, there is only one question that needs to be answered by
your honours today. One that is at the same time extremely simple and complex. However,
this answer shall not be taken lightly, because this is going to determine the life of a man.
It is the answer that your honours give to this solely question that can result in death or in
freedom and justice. The question that faces us all today is: whether Adnam Sayd killed
Hae Lee.
Your honors, I don’t want to bore you with known facts, but in a murder trial I feel
compelled to do one observation. The evidentiary threshold at this stage of the proceeding
is whether we can say with beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Sayd committed the
crime. That means that beyond providing a logical explanation from the facts, it is
necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate that all the others logical explanations are
false. There must remain no doubt, whatsoever, when it’s the life of a man that is at stake.
In light of what was presented, this cannot be concluded in the present case. The
prosecution limited itself to circumstantial evidences and the testimony of one man, who
was a drug dealer and was directly involved in the murder. It even ignored the many
changes and inconsistencies of Jay’s story. As an example, Jay changed three times his
version of where they went shopping that afternoon. It ignored that Jay’s timeline does not
match the one used by the prosecution. For example, the DA’s affirm tha Adnam called Jay
at 2:36, while Jay in one of its testimonies says that he only received the call at 3:45. This
might seem banal your honours, as he had simply forgotten something, but is there any
real chance that someone would have forgotten where he went with the defendant and
what time the defendant called for his help in such a shocking and unusual day as the one
he buried a body? Moreover, It ignored that the evidence from the cell phone towers is in
direct contradiction with Jay’s version. Jay’s version of the facts put them at a location
where the cell phone records establishes that it is impossible for them to be there at that
time.
It ignored that Adnam had no reason to kill his former girlfriend and close friend Hae, that
they continued being friends after they broke up and that Adnam already had moved on.
The prosecution ignored that a serial killer with a similar modus operandi had been
released from jail a few months before Hae’s death, and that her death is not the only one
in that period which matches his profile. It ignored Asia Mclain testimony that provided an
alibi for Adnam.
 It is interesting in this sense to analyse the timeline. That is, the prosecution affirms
that the murder happened between 2:15 and 2:36. First, there is one problem with that: it’s
an extremely short period of time for Adnam to leave his classroom, reach his car, wait for
all the school buses to leave, to drive to Best Buy’s parking lot and strangle Hae. He would
have to be as fast as he could, he couldn’t commit not even one mistake to fit in that
timeline. So by this very first aspect, it already seems that it iwas not Adnam. But more
important than that. Asia Mclain a girl who didn’t have any kind of close relationship with
Adnam, and her at the time boyfriend clearly remember talking to him at the high school
library at that afternoon between 2:20 and 2:40. And she remembers that so vividly
because of one reason: her boyfriend got extremely jealous of she and Adnam and they
even had an argument after that. Therefore Adnam has a clear and solid alibi for the time
of the murder, he was in the library, he couldn’t by any means be in the place of the crime
or even near Hae. This your honours is enough to dismiss the entire prosecution’s case,
there is much more here than reasonable doubt.

However, if you find that is not enough I would like to point one thing, the
prosecution did not bring any, and hear I must emphasize that I don’t mean to say few
evidences, but precisely no evidence at all, any piece of proof that directly links Adnam to
Hae’s murder, or to the place of the crime, or to anything. The prosecution did not bring
any direct and material evidence. It completely based its case on Jay’s testimony, who by
the way received a great deal from the DA’s office. Even though, he is an accessory to
Hae’s murder, he not only got no time in jail, but had the prosecution arrange him a lawyer.
In which fair criminal justice system your honours, does the prosecution find a lawyer for
an accessory murder and essential witness at a high-profile case? Doesn’t that resound, at
least, an exchange of favours? And just one more thing, during Jay’s interrogatory the
taper was turned off for 3 hours and then Jay tells exacty everything that the police and the
prosecution needed. Doesn’t that sound convenient? I am not accusing the police of telling
the witness what he had to say to get free because when we deal with serious crimes,
such as that, they first need to be througly investigated, what surely didn’t happen in Hae’s
murder.
It seems reasonable, here to say, that the prosecution beyond making justice, was
concerned with giving a public solution to the case, and the easier one was to point fingers
at the former immigrant and muslim boy, at the one who didn’t really belong to the
Baltimore community, the one who frequented mosques and had strange customs. This
solution might at first appease the public, but the real murderer is still free, and the life of a
bright young man is being taken away.
I strongly urge your honours to acquit Mr. Sayd because this is not a trial about social
customs, or about the moral wrongs that he might have committed in the past, as we all
had, nor this is a trial about how much emphatic we are with Hae’s death, because that is
a tragedy that the life of an innocent girl was taken so early and that deeply shocks our
consciences, but it is a judgment to determine with beyond any reasonable doubt if Adnam
committed this crime. Let us not incur in the mistake of letting life take away one more
innocent boy. In Hae’s case, we couldn’t do anything to prevent that from happening, but
now you can your honours.