This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Maryland: Baltimore Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Baltimore Task Force. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Korea Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Killing of Hae Min Lee: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-05-07 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : Expand the trial section. Currently, there's very little information on the evidence presented during the trial. Most egregiously, there's no discussion of Wilds's claims regarding having assisted Syed hide the body (relatedly, nor does it discuss his accessory-after-the-fact conviction), and the cell tower evidence is only discussed in the post-conviction relief section.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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.[1][2] The joint motion stated that those items had never been tested for DNA.[3] 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.[4]

Thank you! Untitled.docx (she/her) 🗩 15:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request to Murder of Hae Min Lee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

 Done Some1 (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: One of Syed's friends, Jay Wilds. 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)[reply]

@Some1: 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)[reply]

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 [7] 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)[reply]

@Some1: 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)[reply]

I'm fine with including your revision below to the main article. Some1 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possible text to add some context

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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#Vacatur_and_reinstatement_of_conviction section.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]