What is suspect on Apple podcasts about?
Suspect on Apple Podcasts An apartment complex hosts a big Halloween party with themed rooms and costumed partygoers. By the end of the night one of the party’s hosts is murdered.
Do you think the podcast was misleading about Emanuel’s criminal history?
I don’t think that the podcast was misleading with regard to Emanuel’s criminal history. Episode 4 about 9 mins 30 seconds in goes over the rape / alleged threat to kill at gunpoint - this is preceded by 3-4 mins of additional background on Emanuel’s criminal record.
What did the jury hear about Johnson's DNA evidence?
The jury heard that Johnson's DNA was on the oil bottle. The jury also heard about Johnson's drive to the border. Johnson, called by Fair as a witness, answered a limited set of questions after invoking his privilege against self-incrimination.
How many halves does Suspect have?
Still, I don’t mean for this discussion of aesthetics to take us too far away from Suspect ’s merits in and of itself. The series plays out in two halves: the first is a deep dive into the mystery of Arpana Jinaga’s murder, while the second walks through the events of Emanuel Fair’s legal trials, which he endured while being wrongfully imprisoned for nine years. Suspect is a lot more successful in the latter mode, if only because the series wraps up with yet another genre convention: the original mystery resolves inconclusively.
What does submitting an email mean?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.
Is Suspect anonymous?
But Suspect is often so uncomplicated in its telling, it almost seems anonymous. Sure, it grapples with several important ideas — discriminatory policing based on race, the limitations of DNA evidence, the thorny relationship between the judicial system and actual justice — but it doesn’t end up being particularly about any of those things, nor does it substantially advance the conversation on any front. This is a series whose internal universe pretty much stops at the very edges of its specific case.
Does the team end up solving Jinaga's murder?
It’s probably a “spoiler” to tell you at this point that the team doesn’t end up solving Jinaga’s murder. If they did, you’d probably see a news cycle about it by now. They do unearth some new information and context, but this remains a story whose outcome can be easily Googled, even as Suspect underlines the details and the stakes with a more prominent shade. That said, the meta value of podcasts like this — along with magazine features, documentaries, and other media formats more generally — tends to be clustered in how it can drum up more real-world interest in the case to a point where it can maybe produce a chance of shaking up more meaningful leads. In that sense, the end of Suspect could very well be the start of the rest of the story. Or it might not.
Is Suspect a true crime podcast?
One of the more intriguing aspects of Suspect, a new nine-part investigative true-crime podcast, is the extent to which many of the people interviewed seem to express outward awareness about the fact they’re on a true-crime podcast — and what that can mean.
Who is the reporter on the suspect podcast?
In a new Wondery podcast series called “Suspect,” career journalists Matthew Shaer and Eric Benson investigate the story of Jinaga’s murder, Fair’s conviction and the spiderweb of details around this story. Since its release on Aug. 31, “Suspect” has vaulted to the top spot on Chartable’s U.S. rankings of most listened to Apple podcasts. Shaer and Benson previously collaborated on another true-crime podcast called “Over My Dead Body.”
Who was the black man who was murdered in Seattle?
In 2008, a 24-year-old Redmond-based software engineer named Arpana Jinaga was found strangled in her apartment after a Halloween party in her building. DNA evidence was linked to three men and ultimately used to convict Emanuel Fair, a Black man from Seattle. After being held in custody for nine years, he was found not guilty of Jinaga’s murder and released in 2019. The case remains unsolved today.
What is the purpose of Shaer and Benson's interviews?
Instead of trying to solve Jinaga’s murder, Shaer and Benson use extensive interviews to weave a complex narrative around race, injustice, the place of forensic DNA evidence in the common perception of guilt and innocence and , ultimately, a tragic story with no real closure.
Does the Seattle Times reflect the views of the author?
The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.
What happened to the first trial in 2017?
The first trial in 2017 resulted in the jury being deadlocked so a mistrial was declared. The State moved the Court for reconsideration of its decision related to the accomplice instruction in view of an impending second trial. The State argued that eliminating this instruction was unfair and voided the possibility of Jack and Fair acting together in the crime for the jurors. The Court upheld its decision and granted discretionary review by the State. Ultimately, the Court ruled,
When was the Redmond woman murdered?
Seattle Times, New true-crime podcast reexamines the unsolved murder of a Redmond woman killed in 2008.
Was Arpana's Jinaga acquitted?
Since Arpana’s Jinaga’s murder, one man was accused, tried twice, and acquitted. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. In the second trial, the accused was found not guilty. For the purpose of this story, we’re going to respectfully refer to the victim by her first name to raise an incredible person’s memory.
Was Jack a suspect in the murder of Fair?
Before the trial, the state agreed that evidence linking the neighbor (Jack) to possibly being involved with the killing was admissible but explained that he may have participated in the crime with Fair and that evidence incriminating the Jack did not mean that Fair was free from wrongdoing. The state said rather than Jack being the “other suspect,” he can be characterized as an uncharged accomplice. The state Court of Appeals upheld the court’s decision. It was petitioned for review by the state Supreme Court but was ultimately denied review. This restriction, however, allowed the defense to argue that any evidence involving Jack should be reasonable doubt as to whether Fair committed the crime.
What court case overturned the disclosure of TrueAllele?
23 24 Court of Appeals overturned the order of the superior court compelling the disclosure of the TrueAllele source code. See People v. Superior Court (Chubbs). No. B258569, 2015 WL 139069 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2015), attached as Appendix I. In several published decisions, courts have rejected claims that the testimony about TrueAllele should have been excluded because the source code had not been disclosed to the defense. In State v. Wakefield. 47 Misc. 3d 850, 854-55, 9 N.Y.S.3d 540, 543-44 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015), the court held: ■ The Defendant argues that without that code, no outside scientist can replicate or validate Dr. Perlin's methodology and, therefore, Cybergenetics TrueAllele Casework evidence should not be admissible in this case. However, scientists can, and have, validated the reliability of Cybergenetics TrueAllele Casework even though the source code underlying the process is not available to the public. Cybergenetics TrueAllele Casework has undergone 20 unpublished validating studies and 6 published validation studies (People's Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 27) to confirm that the laboratory is producing the same type of reliable results or determining the extent of reliability for the method or technology that's already been developmentally validated. Four of these were independent validation studies-Massachusetts, Virginia, and 2 by the New York State Police as addendums to People's Exhibit 5 (People's Exhibits 30 and 31). Without exception, each of these validation studies found Cybergenetics TrueAllele Casework to be sensitive (the extent to which interpretation identifies the correct person) and specific (the extent to which the interpretation does not misidentify the wrong person). And Cybergenetics TrueAllele Casework was shown to have provided objectivity, achieved greater genotype accuracy, and proved reproducible (the extent to which the interpretation gives the same answer to the same question). 9 N.Y.S.3d at 543-44 (emphasis added). The Pennsylvania Superior Court came to the same conclusion and rejected the argument that the source code had to be disclosed to allow the evidence: Foley's third reason for exclusion is misleading because scientists can validate the ----------relTabfiity-0fia-eompute-rTzed-pr0eess-eve-n4fthe-^sour6e-6ode1,-under-lymg-that-------------- process is not available to the public. TrueAllele is proprietary software; it would not be possible to market TrueAllele if it were available for free. See N.T., Hearing, February 18, 2009, at 54. Nevertheless, TrueAllele has been tested and validated in peer-reviewed studies. One study used laboratory-generated DNA STATE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO COMPEL - 13
What loci did the Y-STR test show?
3 Interestingly, the Y-STR tests gave results at only 3 loci (DYS438, DYS393 and DYS385a/b). Fair and Johnson share the same alleles at those locations and thus they are both included as possible donors.4 Dr. Perlin’s CV is attached as Appendix C. 5 There are two declarations from Dr. Perlin. The first declaration, attached as Appendix A, provides background about Cybergenetics, probabilistic genotyping and the discovery and work in this case. The second declaration, Attached as Appendix B, responds to specific assertions and arguments made by the defense and their experts.
Is TrueAllele a trade secret?
21 22 23 24 *j| 68. TrueAllele is a trade secret , and has never been disclosed to the public.12 Id. at ^69. It is not even distributed to employees of Cybergenetics, and copies are not provided to individuals, businesses or government agencies that use or license the software. Id Cybergenetics operates in a highly competitive commercial environment, and at least five other groups have developed similar software. Id at 71-72. Disclosure of the TrueAllele source code would cause irreparable harm to the company, enabling competitors to easily copy the company's proprietary products and services. Id. at ^74. The defense argues that a protective order would provide sufficient against the disclosure of the source code.13 As Dr. Perlin notes, protective orders are violated.14 Perlin decl. at ]f 83. As a matter of logic, if the defendant in this case is entitled to the TrueAllele source code, then every defendant in cases involving TrueAllele is also entitled to the source code. If the TrueAllele source code is disclosed hundreds of times, the danger that it will be leaked certainly rises. If a leak occurs, it is unlikely that Dr. Perlin would be able to establish who leaked the source code, or recover any damages for any financial loss. The risk of harm outweighs the usefulness of the source code. Finally, as a practical matter, defense has not explained who and how they would examine the source code. TrueAllele is written in MATLAB (for MATrix LABoratory), a high
How many jurors thought Fair and Johnson committed the murder?
Even with the restrictions at the first trial, the defense later reported that, according to their polling of the jury, at least five jurors thought Fair and Johnson committed the murder together. CP 253-54. The Court of Appeals' ruling erroneously permits the defense to mislead the jury into believing that evidence two people committed a crime necessarily means that one of them must be acquitted. This restriction has the effect of adding another element to the State's burden of proof: that Fair acted alone in committing· the murder. This is not required under the law for good reason: the fact that there is not sufficient evidence to charge an accomplice should not and does require the State to prove principal committed the crime alone. This Court should accept review to correct this error. 2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT THE JURY SHOULD NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON THE LAW OF ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY. The State has argued and will continue to argue that Fair is the principal in murder. Ms. was strangled, and Fair's DNA was found on her neck. His DNA is on the duct tape that was used to gag her. His DNA is mixed with her blood on bathrobe. -15 1810-18 Fair SupCt
What is an accomplice in a criminal case?
77180-9-1/5 A person is an accomplice in the commission of a crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she either: (1) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime; or (2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing the crime. The word "aid" means all assistance whether given by words, acts, encouragement, support, or presence. A person who is present at the scene and ready to assist by his or her presence is aiding in the commission of the crime. However, more than mere presence and knowledge of the criminal activity of another must be shown to establish that a person present is an accomplice. Typically, when accomplice liability is an issue, the instruction defining "accomplice" will be accompanied by a reference to that term in the to-convict instruction explaining that the jury must find that "the defendant or an accomplice" committed the criminal act. State v. Teal, 117 Wn. App. 831, 835, 73 P.3d 402 (2003), aff'd, 152 Wn.2d 333, 96 P.3d 974 (2004). Here, the State's proposed to-convict instruction did not include the words "or an accomplice" or any other language that would have allowed the jury to convict Fair on a theory of accomplice liability. The prosecutor asserted that the reason for including the definitional instruction was to counteract the anticipated defense argument that jurors faced a "bi~ary choice" between Fair and Johnson. The prosecutor wanted to use the accomplice definition to suggest that the two men might have acted together to kill Jinaga, not to prove that they actually did. As support for the proposition that the two men might have acted together, the prosecutor observed that they spent time together during the party; their DNA was on items relevant to the crime found in the same bag; and they were both awake in the middle of the night calling and texting women. 5
Does evidence of Johnson's guilt exonerate Fair?
Therefore, under the Court of Appeals' opinion, while the prosecutor can say, "evidence of Johnson's guilt does not exonerate Fair," she cannot explain why that is so. This restriction strips away the legal and theoretical underpinnings of the prosecutor's argument. It continues to force a binary choice on the jury: either Fair committed the murder or Johnson committed the murder. The possibility that Johnson assisted Fair, that the two committed the crime together, and the legal underpinnings for this possibility, is apparently verboten, although the jury will undoubtedly ponder this possibility, as it did before, because it is so obvious.7 The testimony at trial established that Fair and Johnson were alone together at the end of night, and no one saw them again. Both men's DNA was found on several incriminating items 7 During the first trial, the prosecutor's simple act of recounting the basic facts about Johnson and Fair led the defense to move for a mistrial, claiming it ran afoul of the court's prohibition suggesting they committed the crime together. RP(2/14/17) 285-86. The trial court denied the motion, noting the facts recounted were accurate. ~ at 286. -14 1810-18 Fair SupCt
Is Johnson an accomplice?
Rather than an 'other suspect,' Johnson can also be characterized as an uncharged accomplice." CP 97. However, before opening statement, the trial court granted the defense motion to prohibit the State from discussing the possibility that Fair and Johnson committed the crime together. RP(2/1/17) 15-16. After the prosecutor's opening statement, the defense moved for a mistrial, claiming that the prosecutor violated this ruling when discussing facts that linked Fair and Johnson. RP(2/14/17) 285. The court denied the motion, observing the prosecutor's statement of the facts was accurate. kl at 286. Prior to argument, the defense moved to prohibit the State from arguing that Johnson may have acted as an accomplice and opposed the giving of an accomplice instruction. The defense insisted that "it's about whether they have proven their case against one person to the exclusion of everybody else." RP(4/4/17) 95 (italics added). The State stated that its position was that Fair was the principal in the murder and that any prohibition on arguing that Johnson may have been involved resulted in a false binary choice: that either Fair or Johnson committed the crime. kl at 48, 78-79. The prosecutor asked that the State be allowed to argue that the -8 1810-18 Fair SupCt
Does the case of Johnson's guilt preclude a finding of fair's guilt?
No. 77180-9-1/11 of Johnson's guilt does not preclude a finding Fair's guilt, so long as the State does not assert that the two were accomplices. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. WE CONCUR: See-kR,, J. I ~~ 11
Did State v. Fair and Johnson commit murder?
defense opposed any change in the ruling, but also noted that, according to their polling of the jury, at least five jurors thought Fair and Johnson committed the murder together. CP 250-54. The trial court denied the motion, though it acknowledged that the jury had recognized on its own that Johnson and Fair may have acted together. RP(7/7/17) 29-32; CP 270. On August 18, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted discretionary review. In an unpublished decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to not provide an accomplice instruction, holding there was insufficient evidence. State v. Fair, No. 77180-9-1, slip op. at *3-4 (Wa.Ct.App. Div. I, filed October 8, 2018). The Court further upheld the restrictions on the State closing argument, holding "it was proper for the trial court to prohibit the State from arguing accomplice liability." kl at *5. · However, the Court of Appeals opined that the trial court's restrictions "went too far" and held that "[t]he State must be allowed latitude to rebut the defense argument. The State may argue that the evidence of Johnson's guilt does not preclude a finding of Fair's guilt, so long as the State does not assert that the two were accomplices." kl -10 1810-18 Fair SupCt
How long does it take for a Washington State crime lab to test for evidence?
In the weeks to come, it would be reported that several items had been sent to the Washington state crime lab, but it was estimated that it could take weeks - if not months - for items to be tested for any possible forensic evidence.
Where do suspicious deaths occur?
Suspicious deaths, such as homicide, very rarely happen in Redmond: one of the wealthier suburbs on the outskirts of Seattle, which is known internationally for housing the U.S. headquarters for both Microsoft and Nintendo.
What did Arpana do as a teenager?
As a teen, she participated in an IEEE Hardware Design Contest that earned her some attention from universities and potential employers, and seemed to cement her down the path of computing. Her younger sister, Pavitra, would begin to follow in these footsteps as well, and later pursue a career in computer engineering after Arpana.
Who is Phil Skelton?
Phil Skelton, a member of the PNW Riders, spoke to the Redmond Reporter and said about Arpana:
Did Arpana Jinaga call back?
Even though Arpana Jinaga had not been back home to visit her family in India in more than two years, she still talked to them over the phone regularly and had spoken to them the night before the Halloween party (Thursday, October 30th). However, the weekend after the party, Arpana would not answer any of their calls and would fail to call them back, which was very unlike her.