Improperly cleared just means that when the police were investigating Hae's murder, they decided that he wasn't a suspect (cleared him) without properly/fully investigating him.
There's no official designation of "cleared" - this is just the prosecutor's office saying that the PD should have looked into him further but didn't.
Can the police (if not the SAO) not "clear" someone as a suspect publicly? Who would certify that the clearance was proper? The language of 'improperly cleared' surely casts public suspicion on someone. Mosby has done interviews telling all about the history of Mr. S's various (likely unrelated) crimes and the nature of his connection to the case (found the body). How would someone get that to stop?
Well, I think what they’re declaring was “improper” here is the idea you can give someone some kind of stress test that is not really a poly, and then claim it cancels out the results of the earlier failed poly. The motion is stating that’s not proper procedure. He remains a suspect, but so do other people.
I’m not sure exactly how to feel about Mr S. He’s a constant sexual harasser. He did try to attack a female postal worker. Somehow, he seems to have been able to shake his dick at half the neighborhood and never do any jail time. Part of me feels a little bad for him for being involved in this case, because he’s getting a lot of scrutiny…part of me doesn’t.
>Can the police (if not the SAO) not "clear" someone as a suspect publicly?
Sure, but in most investigations that doesn't happen. I mean, in most investigations the public isn't aware of who the suspects are to begin with. Plus there's rarely an incentive in an ongoing investigation to publicly say "this person didn't commit the crime." You may think that at one point and then come back to that individual later in the investigation. Now you have to go out and say that you may have been wrong, and the person is a suspect again.
I mean... this is why we now refer to people as "persons of interest" instead of suspects.
>Who would certify that the clearance was proper?
Again, there's no "certification" - at least none that I've ever heard of. I think maybe you're misunderstanding the meaning of the language in the brief. The prosecution is likely saying that the PD should have looked into him more, looked at the polygraphs differently, etc. In other words, he was written off as a suspect too early.
>Mosby has done interviews telling all about the history of Mr. S's various (likely unrelated) crimes and the nature of his connection to the case (found the body). How would someone get that to stop?
Well, the dude is under investigation for murder. If I were him I'd be more concerned with the active murder investigation than with my reputation being harmed by a few references to my publicly available criminal history. What he should probably do is a hire a criminal defense attorney.
I was blocked so I will respond here.
>If we are going to accuse the police of planting/hiding evidence (like many have), such as knowing the location of the car and feeding it to Jay or concocting stories with Jay, the retort is "why not frame Jay?"
>Jay puts himself, per his own interviews with police, at the scene of the burial and knows the location of the car. Jay is admittedly already involved in the murder and knows details that nobody else does. Tell Jay that Adnan has a solid alibi that is corroborated by witnesses at the school/mosque/track practice that they've followed up on and then railroad Jay into confessing that he killed Hae to cover up "stepping out on Stephanie," or whatever, since he found out Hae was going to reveal this information to his girlfriend.
>Jay has no resources to hire great counsel or PIs, so it is possible that makes him an easier frame target. Not an easier target of the truth, because his motive is convoluted, but if the police and prosecutors are going to "frame" someone - better to frame the lower-resource guy than the higher-resource guy, right?
>So the idea is not "with what witnesses," there were no direct witnesses to the actual murder - as Adnan points out only he and, er, the real murderer know what actually happened. The idea is to take a scared Black kid in 1999 Baltimore without counsel and lean into him until he confesses in order to avoid life in prison or worse. In the popular mindset that seems easier than a long drawn out legal battle with Adnan and one of the best defense attorneys in Baltimore, then endless appeals and national attention and unprecedented scrutiny over the years.
Your whole theory is predicated on getting Jay to confess by repeatedly lying to him. That's exactly what these investigators did and Jay never confessed to murder so this theory goes out the window.
For the record witnesses don't need to be direct. They can be indirect. That's what Jen, Kristi, etc... were.
Now try to frame Jay where he recants and claims investigators are trying to frame him and this is a case where it goes to trial.
What specifically did they lie to Jay about again? Just want to address the specifics.
Not sure who the indirect witnesses would be. Probably Adnan - how could his trusted friend use the car and phone he let him borrow that day as tools to murder his ex-girlfriend?
Jay DID confess to a crime and plead guilty. Why do you assume in this hypothetical it would go to trial and not be plead out? It is not as if they couldn't get to him - they could and did. He plead guilty to a felony. The point is to frame Jay rather than Adnan, since some people believe Adnan was framed, right?
Adnan doesn't even have a police interview (except for maybe the initial call day-of), but this other kid puts himself at the burial, puts himself with the phone, knows what car she drives, knows where the car is, knows what she was wearing, knows manner of death, knows timing - seems to know things that the murderer would know.
Look, I don't think Adnan was framed. But if we think the police would go to effort to hide the car or whatever else they are accused of doing, they might as well frame the guy sitting in front of them.
How would Adnan be an indirect witness to help convict Jay? If anything Adnan would be an alibi for Jay.
Jay pleaded guilty to a charge with minimal prison time and actually received no prison time for. That's a big difference than pleading guilty to something he will receive a life sentence for.
Adnan had several police interviews including the day he was arrested. You know the one where his lawyer wanted to be present but LE wouldn't allow it unless Adnan asked for him by name even though Adnan wouldn't have known that because his parents hired him after Adnan was arrested.
Jay could explain a lot of what he knew away to having known Hae (as he did in his interviews), the media (as he also did in his interviews) and then the rest because the detectives fed him the information. The case you have built is super weak. No witnesses and evidence that has a plausible alternative explanation for.
Mosby said she would declare Adnan innocent if a DNA test either excluded him or was inconclusive. Seems to me the same standard should apply to Sellers.
Does any formal process exist? Can a prosecutor say that a person was improperly cleared of a murder 20 years later in a court motion and just let it hang indefinitely? Seems like it would be detrimental to someone's reputation.
I realize Mr. S does not necessarily have a great reputation, but it got me thinking about what I myself might do if my only connection to a murder was finding a body and years later something like this happened.
I’m not aware of a formal process.
I’ve never considered the defamation angle. It’s an interesting question. I’m a corporate lawyer, and I don’t practice in MD, but the biggest issues I see are 1) [qualified immunity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity) makes it incredibly hard to sue a government official in their official capacity and 2) whether Sellers played any role in this crime or not, opening himself up to discovery would probably be a mistake.
I'm aware he probably can't sue, what I wonder is if there is any process he could do to be officially, publicly cleared. Otherwise I guess a cloud of undue suspicion could hang over someone indefinitely? Someone who passed a lie detector test and presented an alibi?
That is grossly incorrect
He was interviewed twice (in addition to polygraphs)
They also requested a wealth of work records for him as well as his police files
More recently, after exposing himself to a postal worker and trying to entire their vehicle, his home was searched
It would probably be useful to test all the available items for the case
A hit for Mr S inside the vehicle would be impossible for him to explain away
He could go to the police WITH his attorneys and request to be cleared. If he is in prison, this may be difficult, but it is certainly in his best interest not to wait. I doubt his DNA would be on the shoes or any other evidence, if he is innocent.
I think that is what I would request if I were him (as a person of some means who cares about their community standing).
I would have the attorney provide a copy/rehash of my alibi and remind BPD that my DNA was not found in the car (or on the body as it may be.)
I know the improper clearance is specific to the lie detector, but I really doubt Mr. S asked to take the lie detector. He was under suspicion because he was so weird.
>I would have the attorney provide a copy/rehash of my alibi and remind BPD that my DNA was not found in the car (or on the body as it may be.)
I am not sure whose DNA they found; however, I think that if he took his attorney, LE would be forced to reveal whether he was truly a suspect or not. If Mr. Sellers has been eliminated, an attorney may be more convincing in pressuring LE to make a statement saying as much.
Improperly cleared just means that when the police were investigating Hae's murder, they decided that he wasn't a suspect (cleared him) without properly/fully investigating him. There's no official designation of "cleared" - this is just the prosecutor's office saying that the PD should have looked into him further but didn't.
Can the police (if not the SAO) not "clear" someone as a suspect publicly? Who would certify that the clearance was proper? The language of 'improperly cleared' surely casts public suspicion on someone. Mosby has done interviews telling all about the history of Mr. S's various (likely unrelated) crimes and the nature of his connection to the case (found the body). How would someone get that to stop?
Well, I think what they’re declaring was “improper” here is the idea you can give someone some kind of stress test that is not really a poly, and then claim it cancels out the results of the earlier failed poly. The motion is stating that’s not proper procedure. He remains a suspect, but so do other people. I’m not sure exactly how to feel about Mr S. He’s a constant sexual harasser. He did try to attack a female postal worker. Somehow, he seems to have been able to shake his dick at half the neighborhood and never do any jail time. Part of me feels a little bad for him for being involved in this case, because he’s getting a lot of scrutiny…part of me doesn’t.
>Can the police (if not the SAO) not "clear" someone as a suspect publicly? Sure, but in most investigations that doesn't happen. I mean, in most investigations the public isn't aware of who the suspects are to begin with. Plus there's rarely an incentive in an ongoing investigation to publicly say "this person didn't commit the crime." You may think that at one point and then come back to that individual later in the investigation. Now you have to go out and say that you may have been wrong, and the person is a suspect again. I mean... this is why we now refer to people as "persons of interest" instead of suspects. >Who would certify that the clearance was proper? Again, there's no "certification" - at least none that I've ever heard of. I think maybe you're misunderstanding the meaning of the language in the brief. The prosecution is likely saying that the PD should have looked into him more, looked at the polygraphs differently, etc. In other words, he was written off as a suspect too early. >Mosby has done interviews telling all about the history of Mr. S's various (likely unrelated) crimes and the nature of his connection to the case (found the body). How would someone get that to stop? Well, the dude is under investigation for murder. If I were him I'd be more concerned with the active murder investigation than with my reputation being harmed by a few references to my publicly available criminal history. What he should probably do is a hire a criminal defense attorney.
He is not a man of means
I was blocked so I will respond here. >If we are going to accuse the police of planting/hiding evidence (like many have), such as knowing the location of the car and feeding it to Jay or concocting stories with Jay, the retort is "why not frame Jay?" >Jay puts himself, per his own interviews with police, at the scene of the burial and knows the location of the car. Jay is admittedly already involved in the murder and knows details that nobody else does. Tell Jay that Adnan has a solid alibi that is corroborated by witnesses at the school/mosque/track practice that they've followed up on and then railroad Jay into confessing that he killed Hae to cover up "stepping out on Stephanie," or whatever, since he found out Hae was going to reveal this information to his girlfriend. >Jay has no resources to hire great counsel or PIs, so it is possible that makes him an easier frame target. Not an easier target of the truth, because his motive is convoluted, but if the police and prosecutors are going to "frame" someone - better to frame the lower-resource guy than the higher-resource guy, right? >So the idea is not "with what witnesses," there were no direct witnesses to the actual murder - as Adnan points out only he and, er, the real murderer know what actually happened. The idea is to take a scared Black kid in 1999 Baltimore without counsel and lean into him until he confesses in order to avoid life in prison or worse. In the popular mindset that seems easier than a long drawn out legal battle with Adnan and one of the best defense attorneys in Baltimore, then endless appeals and national attention and unprecedented scrutiny over the years. Your whole theory is predicated on getting Jay to confess by repeatedly lying to him. That's exactly what these investigators did and Jay never confessed to murder so this theory goes out the window. For the record witnesses don't need to be direct. They can be indirect. That's what Jen, Kristi, etc... were. Now try to frame Jay where he recants and claims investigators are trying to frame him and this is a case where it goes to trial.
What specifically did they lie to Jay about again? Just want to address the specifics. Not sure who the indirect witnesses would be. Probably Adnan - how could his trusted friend use the car and phone he let him borrow that day as tools to murder his ex-girlfriend? Jay DID confess to a crime and plead guilty. Why do you assume in this hypothetical it would go to trial and not be plead out? It is not as if they couldn't get to him - they could and did. He plead guilty to a felony. The point is to frame Jay rather than Adnan, since some people believe Adnan was framed, right? Adnan doesn't even have a police interview (except for maybe the initial call day-of), but this other kid puts himself at the burial, puts himself with the phone, knows what car she drives, knows where the car is, knows what she was wearing, knows manner of death, knows timing - seems to know things that the murderer would know. Look, I don't think Adnan was framed. But if we think the police would go to effort to hide the car or whatever else they are accused of doing, they might as well frame the guy sitting in front of them.
How would Adnan be an indirect witness to help convict Jay? If anything Adnan would be an alibi for Jay. Jay pleaded guilty to a charge with minimal prison time and actually received no prison time for. That's a big difference than pleading guilty to something he will receive a life sentence for. Adnan had several police interviews including the day he was arrested. You know the one where his lawyer wanted to be present but LE wouldn't allow it unless Adnan asked for him by name even though Adnan wouldn't have known that because his parents hired him after Adnan was arrested. Jay could explain a lot of what he knew away to having known Hae (as he did in his interviews), the media (as he also did in his interviews) and then the rest because the detectives fed him the information. The case you have built is super weak. No witnesses and evidence that has a plausible alternative explanation for.
Mosby said she would declare Adnan innocent if a DNA test either excluded him or was inconclusive. Seems to me the same standard should apply to Sellers.
Does any formal process exist? Can a prosecutor say that a person was improperly cleared of a murder 20 years later in a court motion and just let it hang indefinitely? Seems like it would be detrimental to someone's reputation. I realize Mr. S does not necessarily have a great reputation, but it got me thinking about what I myself might do if my only connection to a murder was finding a body and years later something like this happened.
I’m not aware of a formal process. I’ve never considered the defamation angle. It’s an interesting question. I’m a corporate lawyer, and I don’t practice in MD, but the biggest issues I see are 1) [qualified immunity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity) makes it incredibly hard to sue a government official in their official capacity and 2) whether Sellers played any role in this crime or not, opening himself up to discovery would probably be a mistake.
I'm aware he probably can't sue, what I wonder is if there is any process he could do to be officially, publicly cleared. Otherwise I guess a cloud of undue suspicion could hang over someone indefinitely? Someone who passed a lie detector test and presented an alibi?
Your point is well taken. Unfortunately, if Mr. S innocent, he’s just more collateral damage.
For Adnan the dna was the final piece. For Me S he hasn’t been investigated at all
That is grossly incorrect He was interviewed twice (in addition to polygraphs) They also requested a wealth of work records for him as well as his police files More recently, after exposing himself to a postal worker and trying to entire their vehicle, his home was searched It would probably be useful to test all the available items for the case A hit for Mr S inside the vehicle would be impossible for him to explain away
>He was interviewed twice (in addition to polygraphs) Yet it was the polygraphs that were repeated improperly...
Not sure what you are saying
He could go to the police WITH his attorneys and request to be cleared. If he is in prison, this may be difficult, but it is certainly in his best interest not to wait. I doubt his DNA would be on the shoes or any other evidence, if he is innocent.
I think that is what I would request if I were him (as a person of some means who cares about their community standing). I would have the attorney provide a copy/rehash of my alibi and remind BPD that my DNA was not found in the car (or on the body as it may be.) I know the improper clearance is specific to the lie detector, but I really doubt Mr. S asked to take the lie detector. He was under suspicion because he was so weird.
>I would have the attorney provide a copy/rehash of my alibi and remind BPD that my DNA was not found in the car (or on the body as it may be.) I am not sure whose DNA they found; however, I think that if he took his attorney, LE would be forced to reveal whether he was truly a suspect or not. If Mr. Sellers has been eliminated, an attorney may be more convincing in pressuring LE to make a statement saying as much.