Talk:Killing of Hae Min Lee

Extended-confirmed protected edit request - new DNA testing ordered
At the end of the DNA testing subsection add:

On March 10, 2022, the Baltimore City State's Attorney signed on to a motion filed by Syed's defense attorney, Erica J. Suter, requesting that the court order new DNA testing on Lee's clothing, shoes, and rape kit. The joint motion stated that those items had never been tested for DNA. On March 14, a city judge ordered that the Baltimore police send evidence to the Forensic Analytical Crime Lab in Hayward, California, within 15 days.

Thank you! Untitled.docx (she/her) 🗩 15:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. If someone knows how to put in the checkmark, they are welcome to do so. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2022
Under "Appeals" Add:

On September 14, 2022, Baltimore prosecutors submitted a motion to vacate the convition, stating that they had lost "faith in the integrity of the convictions". https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-prosecutors-move-to-vacate-adnan-syed-sentence-20220914-uinmd6pa45cqbfj4fwyvac2tb4-story.html Pfcapp (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Some1 (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This is super minor, but, can we fix the typo in the previous edit? The word 'convition' (sic) should be 'conviction.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.1.160 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ WindTempos (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we add something like: "The Baltimore Prosecutor assigned to the case came to her conclusion partially because of the existence of additional suspects, whose existence constituted the Brady violation, and who are now potentially being investigated for the murder. These two suspects are known to have had means, motive, and opportunity to kill Lee and both have been subsequently and independently arrested for crimes against women. Their names have not widely been reported" Since this page is about the killing itself and not just Adnan's prison sentence, including up-to-date information on the existence of two credible other suspects seems warranted, no pun intended. --Mccartneyac (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Idk, what's the sourcing? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Murder of or Killing of?
Shouldn't the article still be titled "Murder of Hae Min Lee" as she was still murdered? The overturning of Syed's conviction for her murder just means it is now essentially unsolved. Just because Syed has been cleared it doesn't make this a killing, it makes it an unsolved murder surely? Inexpiable (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it should still be "murder". There is a flowchart at WP:KILLINGS that suggests otherwise. However, the flowchart says it should only be used if there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, I think there is a common name, namely "murder". Adoring nanny (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * In February 2023, the Hae family again disagreed with the exoneration. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hae-min-lees-family-demands-appellate-court-reinstate-murder-convictio-rcna68792 --2601:C4:C300:A210:4992:3FCF:9FE3:B08D (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No move UtherSRG (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Killing of Hae Min Lee → Murder of Hae Min Lee – Just because Syed's conviction has been overturned, it doesn't mean Lee wasn't murdered. She was murdered, it's just now the murder is essentially unsolved. The article should be renamed back to what it was, "Murder of Hae Min Lee" as this is still a murder case. Inexpiable (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move Yes, it was a murder, and WP:COMMONNAME applies. Sources talk about the "murder", independent of Syed's now-overturned conviction.  Adoring nanny (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. Most importantly, sources still call it a murder per Adoring nanny; we should honor the reliable sources.  Secondarily, Lee was strangled to death; that seems very unlikely to be a non-murdery killing.  SnowFire (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Would have appreciated a ping here, as mover to the current title. Strong oppose on BLP grounds. Yes, it is common to refer to a killing with unknown perpetrator as a "murder" if it was clearly deliberate. But this killing is strongly, indelibly associated with a specific living person, who was until recently considered Lee's murderer. There is no way to call this the "Murder of Hae Min Lee" without risking the implication that Syed's murder conviction remains valid. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 11:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We can and should say that the conviction is overturned. If that isn't sufficiently clear in the text as it is, I'd be delighted to make it more so. For that matter, the conviction was BS all along, and I'd be delighted to say that as well. But when X is true and Y is false, the fact that X might, to some people, suggest Y . . . is not a good reason to not say that X is true. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe BLP is relevant here. There's nothing in the title that mentions Syed at all.  It seems a leap that merely calling it a murder would throw suspicion on Syed.  If there's any BLP concerns, that can be cleared up in the lead section, but the topic as a whole is still accurately described as "Murder of Hae Min Lee."  SnowFire (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't "accurately" described that way. It is at best colloquially described that way. As a matter of law, nothing is a murder until a jury and judge say it was a murder. We have some discretion what term to use when colloquial usage differs from what is strictly legally speaking true; but to use the colloquial usage when someone has already been convicted of the murder and then had that conviction vacated, is to mislead our readers into thinking that conviction is still in effect. If the last time someone heard anything about this case, they were aware that Syed had been convicted, and then they see a link to this article as "Murder of", will they not then think that conviction stands? "Killing of" is the only way to make clear that no one has been found guilty of murder in this case. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On "accusing" Syed: If a hypothetical reader refuses to read the lead section but only the title, they won't know who Syed is at all. If they read the lead section as well, they'll know the conviction was vacated (and always shaky).  The only way to get a mistaken impression involves a reader who already has that mistaken idea Syed is guilty and who refuses to enlighten themselves by reading the lead section.  Titles are titles, they aren't content, they can't do everything, we don't have The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (actually a fake).  Maybe another title is appropriate on other grounds, but BLP isn't it - it's too much of a stretch, BLP is about avoiding weakly sourced negative material, not about failing to dispel preexisting mistaken notions.  SnowFire (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Tamzin. Similar case to Killing of George Floyd, which was moved to Murder of George Floyd upon conviction. Pilaz (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tamzin. We know she was killed. We don't know that she was "murdered". News coverage the past few days uses the word "killing". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons succinctly laid out by Muboshgu. See also WP:DEATHS, which – while just an essay – nevertheless describes a widely followed norm for articles about killings and similar incidents. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "nolle prosequi" under the vacated conviction subsection
This is legal latin and would be more effective communicated with "voluntary motion to dismiss" which could still be linked to the nolle prosequi article. But since it's actually used in legal proceedings and is explained immediately after, I'm not sure if this counts as jargin. Neil Kumar (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Adnan Syed not exonerated
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maryland-appeals-court-reinstates-murder-conviction-serial-podcast-subject-syed-2023-03-28/

his conviction was reinstated 75.58.48.104 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME
I reverted the removal of Clinedinst's and Wilds's names. I think Wilds, in particular, belongs in the article—he was the state's chief witness and his name is all over reliable sources discussing Syed's conviction. Clinedinst I'm less sold on, although it's somewhat futile to edit out the name, as the editor did, since the source that's relied on uses his name in the reference title.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPNAME says that Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
 * Lee's then-current boyfriend is a low-profile individual; his name is not "widely disseminated" in reliable sources; and he is not directly involved in the article's topic (he was not a suspect nor a person of interest in the case). Omitting his name does not result in a significant loss of context or value. BLPNAME also says The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.
 * In regards to Jay Wilds, the version that had his name only says: . No context is lost to the readers by omitting his name either since he's not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Some1 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't feel strongly on Clinedinst. But, as to Wilds, Wilds has been widely disseminated and has even given media interviews. Buzzfeed News (calling him the "primary witness"); Rolling Stone (calling him the "star witness"); New York Times (noting prosecutors relied heavily on Wilds). I agree the article needs expansion on the trial evidence and Wilds's testimony—but the fact that his name was widely disseminated makes the BLPNAME point moot. Since, notwithstanding that point, you're invoking WP:BLPRESTORE, I've gone to WP:3O. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As of now, the way the article is currently written, there isn't a significant loss of context in removing his name. It seems like from this interview he did that he's protective of his privacy. Once this article gets expanded to include more regarding the investigations, trial, etc., then I think discussion regarding Wilds' name could be revisited later. Some1 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy's plain text—as you quoted—says it preferable to omit the "name[s] of a private individual [that] ha[ve] not been widely disseminated or ha[ve] been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations". An exception is made if doing so would "result in a significant loss of context". You're arguing whether the exception applies while skipping over the question of whether the policy applies. Wilds's name has been "widely disseminated" and it has not been "intentionally concealed". As such, there's no need to debate the exception.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with including your revision below to the main article. Some1 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey I just realized I was being boneheaded during this discussion. Wilds was convicted for his actions related to the death. (We, somehow, don't have that in the article yet, but I'll expand it.) That should've been the main reason his name should be included. Only leaving a note here so future editors know.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible text to add some context
 * One of Syed's friends, Jay Wilds, told the police that Syed had expressed intentions of killing Lee and stated that he had helped Syed bury Lee's body after Syed confessed to killing her on January 13.[28] Wilds's statements to police would ultimately be heavily relied upon in the state's criminal case against Syed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Frank Disciple (talk • contribs)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2023
Conviction has been reinstated which is not reflected in the synopsis which reads “exonerated”. In March the MD Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. 97.141.65.95 (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with the IP here: As the lead notes, Syed was effectively exonerated by the prosecutor's decision to drop the charges against him after his conviction was thrown out. But then the conviction was reinstated. (Sources throughout the Killing_of_Hae_Min_Lee section.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)