I never thought it would actually happen. That Jay Wilds would give an interview. When I saw his Facebook post last week, the one that quickly disappeared, I thought either someone would advise him to not to talk or the DA’s office in Maryland would make sure he didn’t.

Luckily for all of us, neither of those things happened. Jay talked and my head exploded. So did my Twitter feed, because I have trouble not being reactive. Anyhow. Back to the crazy that was Jay’s interview.

I guess we start at the beginning. With lie number one:

A young lady who went to middle school with both Jay and Adnan immediately tweeted to correct this and then emailed me a longer explanation:

Off the bat, Jay is lying about when he first met Adnan. To be fair, he could have meant that he befriended Adnan or got to “know him know him” in high school, but he clearly had already met him. Jay and Steph had been dating since middle school, and Adnan and Steph had been friends longer than that.

Onwards.

I found this pretty fascinating because it essentially confirms the angle Gutierrez was taking with Jay during the trial – that he felt like an outsider to this magnet group, and it fostered jealousy, contempt. All these years later, he still remembers that feeling.

One of the many strange paradoxes in Jay’s story is the idea that while he barely knew Adnan, Adnan would confide in him about his relationship with Hae and call on him to help bury her and cover for him. Based on Jay’s inability to keep his mouth shut (he told at least four people about the murder, Jeff, Chris, Josh, and Jenn) and keep his stories straight, I doubt anyone would rely on Jay to be their go-man in such a situation. Not even his closest friends, much less Adnan who barely knows him.

Having barely known him Jay has remarkably been able to psychoanalyze Adnan to the extent that he can pick up on the pressures he’s dealing with. But the kids who knew Adnan really well, and say they were close friends, never characterize Adnan this way. They say of all the kids in their social circle, Adnan was the least confrontational, the most easy-going, the least likely to hurt someone’s feelings. If you haven’t seen the google hangout video of his close friends, you can see for yourself in this earlier post.

Then there is the contradiction of both being much more than a petty weed dealer (if guys doing less dealing than you were getting 3-5 years, it would seem to indicate you’re a fairly accomplished drug dealer), but having no car, cell phone, or even weed since Jay needed to call around to find some that day. Admittedly I have zero idea how weed dealing works, and at what point you’re legit enough to be considered an actual player on the dope scene, but Jay does sound like he’s posing here. A hardcore dealer? No. A wannabe? Maybe.

There are two things to consider about the pot-dealing: the truth of the matter asserted (zero to nil I think) and the utility of the posing. The utility here is that Jay is making the argument that Adnan was holding his non-petty drug dealing against him, thereby forcing Jay to be complicit in a crime against his will. Let’s restate that. Adnan, who allegedly just killed someone and is now a MURDERER, is holding weed-dealing over Jay’s head. This makes sense only in the twilight zone – if anything Jay had the upper hand here.

These details are small potatoes compared to the brand-spanking-new timeline Jay has now presented to us. A timeline in which the phone record can literally be burned at the stake, along with the State’s case. I have to thank Natasha Vargas-Cooper for her open-ended questions, allowing Jay to ramble himself into perjury.

Yes, Jay perjured himself because twice, at two different trials, he gave completely different testimony under oath. The State could charge him at any time for this because there is no statute of limitations on perjury. Jay could also lose his plea deal because of this. Cry me a river.

A kind soul from Twitter sent one of our volunteer attorneys a fifteen page write up on the inconsistencies in this interview as transposed against Jay’s previous statements. I won’t articulate all those inconsistencies (and later, if I can, I’ll just share that document) but here are some of the major differences (hell, its almost all different but have to start somewhere):

Whether Adnan told Jay or not that he was going to kill Hae that morning/previous evening/ever before at all. This is pretty major because it supports the State’s premeditation charge, which is what Adnan was convicted for and got a life sentence for. Now Jay says Adnan didn’t mention it that morning.

Where the “trunk pop” happened (is this a meme yet?) – from a pool hall, to a gas station, to Best Buy, to Edmonson Avenue, to Jay’s Grandma’s house, to “Cathy’s” house, Jay has covered nearly every possible place Adnan could have popped that trunk. I don’t even know how to explain it other than he can’t get his lies straight, but dang he had 15 years to write them down and that’s a pretty simple detail to nail. Also, grandma would have been under no threat if the trunk pop happened in front of her house.

Gardening tools v/s shovels. What the what. So Jenn lied about the shovels too?

Whether Jay was present during the burial. In previous statements he literally describes the body next to where they are digging, and it’s eventual position in the shallow grave. Now he says the body was still in the car while they were digging, and he wasn’t there when Adnan actually buried her.

The time of the actual burial. A head-whipping revelation to say the least. The State’s case rested heavily on pointing to two calls made around 7pm that “pinged” a cell phone tower in Leakin Park as calls made while Adnan and Jay were there burying Hae. That’s what Jay testified to. And now he says this:

The list goes on. In pretty much every way possible, Jay has destroyed the State’s timeline of events for that day. I know his full trial testimony hasn’t been available but I’ll remedy that soon.

There are some folks who think its ok that Jay’s got some inconsistencies in his story (some?). But when he is literally the only evidence against someone who is presumed innocent you cannot gloss over dozens of “inconsistencies” and lies. You cannot rely on a “Adnan killed her, I helped bury her, the details don’t matter” story, that is NOT sufficient to support a premeditated murder charge or conviction absent any other evidence.

But that’s what the State did. From the police to the prosecutors, they relied on a witness like Jay, someone considered a suspect who was facing the murder charge himself, to put away a young man for life. Not a witness who was reliable, solid, credible. But a witness who lied repeatedly to the police, and admitted those lies. A witness the police and prosecution knew had a story built on quicksand, continuously shifting, parts disappearing, parts appearing. I am full of rage that the State would perpetuate such a travesty, knowing that there never was a reason to rely on Wilds. Knowing that they tore up Adnan’s room, his car, his clothes and shoes, tested his hair and blood, and found nothing that tied him to the murder or the crime scene. I am disgusted by the people who pushed this shoddy case, enabled Wilds and rewarded him for his false testimony.

ON THE BRIGHT SIDE

We’ve raised close to $42,000, which is amazing. We still need your support. If you’re as outraged as me about Jay’s changing stories, please donate here to help exonerate Adnan.

My blog has gotten over a million views, and that’s pretty amazing too. It means people want to hear Adnan’s story, thank you for allowing me to tell it, and thank you for listening.

I owe some more transcripts. I’ve gotten dozens of offers to help redact the trial transcripts, which are very much appreciated, but because of how sensitive this case is (and how public it is), I really can’t be sending around transcripts to people I don’t know. No hard feelings, just bear with me as I redact them.

I spent all night redacting the remaining transcripts from the first trial. I was bleary eyed, so if I missed something, sorry. don’t have a fit. Don’t dismiss the first trial because it ended in a mistrial. All of the testimony here was still under oath and still stands. Its useful in future legal proceedings and for our own comparisons to the second trial and other witness statements. You’re welcome to start mapping the differences in the first trial, the police statements which I posted before, and Jay’s new interview. If you turn it into a chart or graph or info graphic, that would be pretty awesome.

I’m also sharing expanded phone records, with as many names as I can identify in the margins. You’ll note that the 5:14pm call we’ve seen on other records doesn’t appear on the ATT bill. It was a voicemail call, maybe that’s why.

Dec10redact : NOTE – it was just pointed out to me today (January 26, 2015) that I missed posting the Dec 10th transcript. I checked, it seems like I had already redacted it, and then just missed posting it. No conspiracy folks, just human error, as is probable because I was traveling and exhausted. So as not to delay any longer, I’m posting the document immediately and if it has redaction errors, I just don’t really care anymore)

Dec13redact

Dec14redact

Dec15redact

ATT billredacted