Podcast Episode 12

Bias Everywhere

So we have finally reached the end of our 12 episode journey through the case of Adnan Syed and have in turn finally gotten an explicit opinion from Koenig. Now where do we go from there? First, on the immediate and surface level, what effect does Koenig's opinion have on you? My very first instinct at this point when I hear her make an assertion is to take the opposite side, obviously not an ideal unbiased reaction but one I have nonetheless. However, usually I get past that to the point where I develop my own opinion independent of what she's said. I feel as if most people must be influenced in either this way or the opposite; I would think after listening to Koenig's voice for something like 10 or more hours a person's got to either be inclined to agree or disagree with what she says without completely thinking about it on their own. This might be due to multiple reasons from hating Koenig's voice to agreeing with evidence that she might have skewed, regardless I think there is some bias present in everyone at this point. Now with that in mind, how good of an opinion on Adnan's case are we all really developing? Almost all of our information on the case has come from and will continue to come from Koenig--a woman who very clearly seemed to have some bias throughout the podcast and who is a self-proclaimed amateur when it comes to legal processes, the Innocence Project--an organization whose very name indicates their bias toward proving people innocent, and Rabia Chaudry--a childhood friend and representative of Adnan. Are these sources really all that strong when it comes to developing an unbiased picture of the case? In this last podcast, Koenig even voices her doubts to Enright and is brushed off with a "Big picture Sarah, big picture." Clearly there is a lot of bias going around related to Serial and such, but as we've discussed in class, it seems this very bias is what makes the podcast so popular. According to this article, media is "programmed to lean towards innocent no matter what," something that might very well be true. Additionally, (and I don't know where or even if I read this online) it seems as if listeners would far rather listen to the story of a corrupt legal system than of some man who is rightfully placed in jail. In light of this, I think that the blame for Koenig's bias lies in part on the audience and public. I know this might not be too popular an opinion in light of all the Koenig-hating we've been doing, but perhaps some of the blame should be shifted from her and to the public desire for bias that fuels her podcasts. In my opinion, all this bias seems to be so prevalent that it just isn't feasible to develop an opinion on the case. Even if the bias doesn't influence you to side with Koenig, aversion to all of the bias could very well push you to unjustifiably oppose her. With the new appeal, perhaps we should all just agree with Ash and try not to take sides and instead think about the other implications of the podcast.

Verdict

It's over. It's done. We finally have all of the pieces of the case that Serial can offer to us. And it is quite a lot of information to take in.

With that, however, the questions have not lessened, but rather, have increased in number. The Nisha call was addressed once more, a call that should be extremely harmful to Adnan's case, a call that lends substantial weight to Jay's story. However, we are told that there is still ambiguity as to how much this call can contribute to the prosecution's case, as the case of it being an accidental dial was confirmed to be a possibility...which only leaves more questions at the final episode of the podcast.

Yet even if the Nisha call was an accident, even if people lied on the stand, even if, even if, even if, the fact that all these coincidences exist around Adnan cannot be coincidence itself. All of the unlucky coincidences that occurred around Adnan on the day of Hae's death...it bears some thought. There is a story behind each coincidence, not the most ironclad story, but a story nonetheless. Yet either he is the guilty man in the case, one who has crafted a substantial amount of information to account for a variety of occurrences that would pin him as guilty (occurrences that have now just become "coincidences"), or he is simply the most unlucky man in the case, one who is simply a victim of fate. Where does that leave us? What can we trust? Can we really believe the slight possibility that he just happens to be the most unlucky man in the case?

Evidently, because that is the juror's task. All of the facts have been laid out, we are now in the room deliberating on the case of Adnan Syed. And what I myself cannot get away from is that despite all of the coincidences sounding just like coincidence, in spite of the Nisha call, in spite of Jay, in spite of a variety of incriminating prosecution pieces of evidence, the lack of what we know dwarfs all of this by comparison. Far too many things exist that do not add up. What about Aisha? I'm still not convinced that she's out of the picture -- I was quite surprised when Koening did not give it that much weight in this episode. There is simply far too much reasonable doubt in the case.

 While I did not like at all that Koening voiced her opinion on the case (it's been quite painfully obvious but still, for the people who were blissfully unaware, now they have been influenced to think "not guilty" as well, given that the one who has spent a year on the case extensively has come to that conclusion), I find myself agreeing with her. Had I been a juror in the case, I would find Adnan Syed not guilty.

Reddit

I'm going to look at some things the internet says is interesting about this episode. Here's the official reddit discussion for episode 12: http://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2pnyf9/official_discussion_serial_episode_12_what_we_know/

And here are the final results from the reddit poll on Adnan (guilty, innocent, or undecided): http://www.poll-maker.com/results196576x5A424da1-7#tab-2

1. Hae's note to Don. The note says: "Hey cutie, sorry I couldn't stay. I had to go to a wrestling match... But I promise to page you as soon as I get home, ok? Till then, take care and drive safely. Always - Hae" This is really strange, right? It suggests that on the afternoon of the 13th, Hae was going to meet up with Don and then go to the wrestling match. But didn't she have to pick up her little cousin at preschool? I think this makes Don a little more suspicious: he says he doesn't know what Hae was talking about, but the note makes it seem like Hae had planned to meet Don (even though he was at work). And obviously he didn't call the police or freak out when she didn't show up. So maybe Don was somehow involved, but I think that's a long shot.

2. Why did we never hear about the alibis provided by the youth leader at the mosque and by Adnan's father? Obviously, his father isn't exactly a great alibi witness, but if the youth leader at the mosque said Adnan was there, then isn't that a potential alibi? And why didn't that check out? Why didn't the defense bring that up, and why didn't Koenig bring that up?

3. Koenig doesn't think that Jay knowing where the car was is enough to think Adnan is guilty. Reddit seems to agree that this fact alone doesn't make Adnan a murderer. But this is also the only solid fact that ties anyone to the murder. So I think Jay was absolutely involved somehow, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the story of how the car got there (and by extension, the story of who killed Hae) is true. It just means that Jay was somehow involved with what happened to Hae. And I think it's easy to believe, then, that Adnan could have been involved somehow, too, even if he didn't strangle her.

As a final, completely tangential note: Adnan tells Koenig that the point of this podcast was to take back control of the narrative, to pry it from the hands of the prosecution and see where that leaves him. Basically, everything we know about this case is tainted by how we came to know it. Which is maybe why Adnan wanted Koenig to present the facts without any input herself. Because if he really is innocent, maybe the way Koenig is presenting him/the case leads us to be somewhat uncertain.

The End...

After twelve weeks of listening to Koenig sift through the murder case of Hae Min Lee and the conviction of former boyfriend Adnan, we have finally come to a conclusion. However, in some ways it felt oddly disappointing to not have an answer, as we have grown so accustom to CSI and Law and Order episodes wrapping the murder neatly into a bow. Thus, this episode worked more as a way to touch on the things that Koenig had covered throughout the series and had either more information on or wanted to expand on. But, to be fair, molding some artificial ending would have been completely unfair to the case.

Overall I felt like Koenig was good at resisting the pressure to neatly wrap up the series. However, I am not sure about how I felt about her personal conclusion at the end. She states that if she were a juror she would have to acquit Adnan. Now although her opinion of Adnan is very clear to her listeners, having her stating it at the end of the finale episode makes it seem as though it is supposed to be a sort of mini wrap up, which is questionable.

One of the most interesting parts of the episode to me was what Koenig said about reporting the presumptions or theories that she and the other producers of the show had considered. She said that about “99%” of what the consider is speculation, which they “cannot report” because they “cant back it up.” But isn’t the majority of Serial about speculation? I thought that although there are some leads that are more based off of conjecture than others, it was perhaps slightly naïve of Koenig to say that they mostly stick to presenting the more plausible pieces of conjecture, especially because she adds in so many asides about her thoughts and personal opinions.

Another part that I found interesting was when Adnan “gave his permission” to Koenig to not come down on one side of the story or the other. Perhaps it was just me, but I interpreted it as he didn't want her to come down on one side or the other. This made me think of the end of episode 11, where Adnan says he feels like “people come expecting a monster and the don't find it, and well next they come expecting a victim and when they don't find that, they don't know what to think. And the reality of it is [he’s] just a normal person.” It seems like Adnan favors this position over the position of the victim which inadvertently Koenig sort of presents him. Also, perhaps he wants to separate what conclusions Koenig draws about him from the audience’s conclusions.

Finally, one of my favorite parts of this episode was when Dana spoke. She explained how incredibly unlucky Adnan would have to be to have all of these events happen to him on the day of his ex-girlfriend’s disappearance. I realized that I liked the dynamic of two people narrating the show because it felt like they gave it a more rounded out perspective. Perhaps in Season 2 of Serial they could have two main narrators who have very different viewpoints on the subject at hand? In the meantime here are some possible ideas for the subject of season 2 provided by Buzzfeed: http://www.buzzfeed.com/danieldalton/someone-call-joe-pesci#.wa84OZylp 

Serial: The 112 Files - Episode 11 - "Rumors"

Too Many Theories

After having listened to episode 11, I'm not sure what to think about these new "rumors" about Adnan. When I heard that Koenig said she was going to talk about some game-changing parts of Adnan, I expected something, well, more wild than the stealing incident. Overall, within the episode, I'm still no closer to figuring out whether or not I think Adnan killed Hae, and how/why.

As for the stealing incident, on first impression, I get it - there's something really sketchy about stealing money from one's mosque, money that's coming from the pockets of people who expect the money to go out to help people. It seems like the kind of action that could potentially come from a person who is ultimately a very cold person. On the other hand, the way Adnan admits to the story, about how it happened in eighth grade and it was more shenanigans than anything. The story just doesn't seem significant enough to constitute the big words Koenig said at the beginning of the episode. So, I sat there wondering if it was just Koenig over dramatizing.

Then, there was something that sat with me. There was something off about how emotional Adnan got when Koenig wanted to talk about the stealing. Why get that defensive about an incident that wasn't even that bad? Why didn't Koenig know about this "casual story" about Adnan, if it was as casual and well known? It'd seem suspicious.

Overall, in my little knowledge, I don't see Adnan as a psychopath. I don't see him as that perpetual liar, manipulative guy that those who really felt like Adnan killed Hae. I get the feeling that Adnan's English teacher and friends got, that if anything, it was definitely a crime of passion. It would fit with the way Hae died, the strangling. I'm quite entertained by the Norman Bates dissociative state theory that the forensic psychologist mentioned. In fact, that would seem like a good theory in that it would explain how Adnan could just kill Hae but still be his normal, charming self otherwise. It would also explain why Adnan has these lapses of emotional control when talking to Koenig.

However, the dissociate state thing doesn't fit with Jay's theory. According to Jay, Adnan was talking about the murder, seemingly savoring it. I mean, if he's disassociating to that extent, maybe my Norman Bates joke isn't that off.

Ultimately, I'm so lost in theories, and I'd give anything for this to have a clear cut end. If only it had just been a fictional crime story based loosely on the events of Adnan's case...

Also, if you've got some time and want to read more about crime and amnesia, here's an article:

http://www.jaapl.org/content/35/4/469.full

Episode 11: Remaining Impartial

I know that throughout the past few weeks of our class listening to "Serial" together, we have criticized Koenig for a lot of the choices she has made in her podcast. A common thread that has been brought up is how ethical or unethical Koenig is in terms of the way that she presents the content in her podcast, mostly because it is packaged as an entertainment piece. However, I think she did a fairly good job of remaining neutral in this week’s episode and sticking to her job of being an impartial journalist. As she sifted through interviews with members of Adnan’s community at the mosque, there seemed to be just as many negative reflections on Adnan’s character as there were positive ones. Even some of the people who had good things to say about Adnan also pointed towards details of his duplicitous past that seemed to indicate his ability to murder Hae Min Lee.

Koenig herself seemed to be unsure of what to make of all these conflicting opinions about Adnan’s character. So she brought in an expert witness, a forensic psychology and lawyer who provided some relevant insight into Adnan’s case. But at the same time, I couldn’t help feeling like he makes even less of a contribution to our understanding of Adnan, because he basically says that Adnan could either be innocent or just really good at covering up the truth.

This episode seemed to swing back and forth between providing proof of Adnan’s innocence as well as undermining his good guy ‘act’ and I couldn’t help but feel very confused at its conclusion. However, I would like to commend Koenig for presenting both sides of this case fairly equally in this episode. I stumbled upon this interesting article that serves as a kind of response to the backlash Koenig herself has received since creating the podcast. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/unpacking-the-social-justice-critique-of-serial/383071/

Basically, the writer defends Koenig’s role as an investigative journalist, and forgives her for missing minor details about other cultures and leaving out details about the race of the central characters in the podcast. I think it was a nice perspective to see someone defending Koenig for once, since I think our class has been criticizing her work more than we have been complimenting her.

The only thing that I feel like gave away Koenig’s bias in this episode was when she introduced the 8-page letter from Adnan at the end. I think her intention was to show the audience of listeners his truly remorseful side and sway us towards Adnan’s side one last time before the final episode. I can’t say that it worked on me, but I thought it was an interesting tactic. I’m really looking forward to seeing how this podcast will actually end after the confusion that this week’s episode left me in.

Episode 11: Victim or Monster?

In this episode, Adnan tells Koenig that people either want him to be a victim or a monster. They can’t imagine that he is possibly an average person—someone who has admittedly done some not so great things like pocketing a handful of donation money from his mosque, but also a person who wouldn’t kill his ex-girlfriend out of spite. Averageness isn’t exciting. It’s not story-worthy. Because Adnan has been dragged through some exceptional circumstances, we assume that he, himself, is an exceptional person. And there is a dichotomy to Adnan’s apparent exceptionality: he’s either exceptionally sadistic or exceptionally unlucky.

What is unfortunate for Adnan is that popular culture is much more fascinated with the psychopath than the person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. So when Koenig throws around the word “psychopath” in reference to Adnan. Even though she admits that he doesn’t appear to fit enough criteria for her to diagnose him as being on the psychopathic spectrum, she is still establishing links between the audience’s perception of Adnan and their perception of a psychopath. In linking the word to Adnan, however, Koenig perpetuates the misuse of the label. In the article “Psychopath is a misused word: Psychological Science in the Public Interest,” Jennifer Skeem, a professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California, Irvine notes that “psychopathy tends to be used as a label for people we do not like, cannot understand, or construe as evil.” It’s a go-to for the unfamiliar, and because Adnan’s case is so unclear, it might just be easiest for Koenig to revert to stereotypical, misunderstood labels. Because at this point, it doesn’t look like Koenig even knows where she stands with Adnan.

And maybe that’s why Serial works. It seems like in every new episode, Koenig takes a different position on Adnan. It’s this “now he’s a monster, now he’s a victim,” type of oscillation that is so captivating as an audience member, because there is inherent suspense in the swinging motion of Koenig’s narrative. Koenig has spun this case in circles. So much so that Adnan finally says that he can’t wait for the podcast to be over. As an audience member, I found this unsettling. Here is this guy who could very well be serving life in prison for a crime that he did not commit whose life has just been cracked open for public examination. Adnan didn’t ask for Koenig to examine his case. Rabia Choudry did. So it seems unfair to him that Koenig should be so quick to make assumptions about Adnan and thus, sway her listeners to view Adnan in different lights. Koenig has a lot of influence, maybe more than she realizes. It seems like she should be a little more careful about the labels she tosses around.

Here is the link to the article about the misuse of the word “psychopath”:

(http://www.stonehearthnewsletters.com/psychopath-is-a-misused-word-psychological-science-in-the-public-interest/mental-health/#sthash.zXbGADPx.dpbs)

Episode 10: The Factors of Trial

Episode 10 - Plea Bargains, Or The Lack Thereof

I think this episode is very interesting in that it brings up many of the inadequacies in Christina Gutierrez’s handling of the defense. What struck me the most about this episode, however, is how Adnan requested multiple plea bargains, but Gutierrez never organized that for him. 

Though Adnan continues to claim his innocence, his willingness to admit guilt interested me. Adnan has been claiming his innocence for 15 years, and though he stays true to this belief, he does admit that throughout these times, there were times when he was scared. Adnan tells Koenig that he though people would plead guilty only if you are innocent. He would later on realize that the odds are so stacked against you, especially in first-degree murder cases, that taking a plea bargain is your best bet to a less terrible life thereafter. What really struck me as alarming and yet realistic in terms of our justice system is when Adnan stated, “No one really beats cases.” His statement almost makes the comparison that individuals accused of crimes are almost trying to win the justice system over, that there is a winner and loser involved. Compare this to the idea of justice being utilized to ultimately find the truth, not claiming victory over someone else’s loss.

I decided to look up some articles about plea bargains, because I wasn’t too familiar with them, and the whole “innocent-pleading-guilty” concept is intriguing yet also sad. In an article by Jed S. Rakoff titled “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty” (published in November of 2014), Rakoff highlights some important facts about plea bargains in the United States: 

"In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial. The plea bargains largely determined the sentences imposed.” He continues: While corresponding statistics for the fifty states combined are not available, it is a rare state where plea bargains do not similarly account for the resolution of at least 95 percent of the felony cases that are not dismissed; and again, the plea bargains usually determine the sentences, sometimes as a matter of law and otherwise as a matter of practice. Furthermore, in both the state and federal systems, the power to determine the terms of the plea bargain is, as a practical matter, lodged largely in the prosecutor, with the defense counsel having little say and the judge even less.”

This whole idea of the prosecutor having most of the power in terms of the plea bargain seems very interesting. In another article, Natasha Vargas-Cooper summarizes Rakoff’s ideas about what makes our justice system so poor. She highlights three bullet points: 1) By embracing the increasingly-popular plea bargain. 2) Through the use of mandatory minimum sentences, and 3) Via the unfettered rise of prosecutorial power.

Do you see any connection between these points, this episode, and the prosecutor’s power in this case?

Episode 10 — Conflict of Interest

I felt the most important theme in this episode was conflict of interest.  First off, there was obviously the issue of the prosecutor assigning Jay a lawyer.  I was very much opposed to the logic that the judge used to dismiss Christina Gutierrez.  How is the judge to know how Jay viewed the prosecutor appointing him an attorney?  And wouldn't you simply feel safer around the prosecutor in the courtroom if he was aiding you in your pursuit of innocence.  How could Jay not construe it as a benefit?  How could he not see this as an unfair advantage?

To me though, the biggest bombshell was that Koenig had covered Christina Gutierrez's fall from grace and subsequent disbarment back when she worked for the Baltimore Sun.  Koenig told us in the first episode that she had not heard about the case until her friend had brought it to her attention.  In fact, the very crux of this series is based on the fact that Koenig had no previous knowledge or bias involving the case. But, this clearly isn't so.  Koenig is coming in with a bias of thinking Gutierrez was an unfit lawyer.  This changes my whole view of Koenig's investigation.  She is not, to me, a journalist searching for the truth as to what happened to Hae Min Lee and whether Adnan Syed was rightfully convicted, but instead, she's a journalist that came into this story to validate her beliefs and previous journalistic work.  I don't feel I would have been as upset by this if she had stated her bias from the beginning.  If in the first episode, she would have admitted that she had done journalistic research on Gutierrez's disbarment, and said she was aiming to see its effect on cases she was working at the end of her career.  But instead, she claims, as she has time and time again, that she's just an unbiased journalist searching for the truth.

Many times in the series she criticizes others for their bias, especially in this episode, and yet she admits her own bias.  Koenig came into the case having thought for 15 years that Gutierrez was an unfit attorney, so of course she thinks he's innocent and was a victim of an inadequate defense and that the system has failed him.

Episode 10: Less about guilt, more about discussion

First off, I was glad Koenig finally addressed potential anti-Muslim sentiment in this episode. There were so many blatant stereotypes described by Koenig that I feel it had to have played a negative role in the court for Adnan. For example when his teacher says "Can you imagine the things he has been taught about womens rights?", or the other teacher who said "Maybe my prejudice is showing through, but who in their right mind lets their daughter date a man named Adnan Musud Syed?"
These statements to me sound ridiculous, but I can see at the same time how  jurors could have been swayed by the idea that Adnan's cultural upbringing played a role in his relationship with Hae.

It is also shocking how close Adnan was to being acquitted in the first trial. I feel like it really did just come down to a case of bad luck, especially because I think Gutierrez went with the only strategy she
could: blame the other potential suspects to give Adnan's guilt reasonable doubt. I think that says a lot about our justice system, and how things like prejudice and luck and timing can play a much larger role than facts and truth.

That being said, I think it is also clear how she was falling apart as the second trial went on. Koenig mentions that she had diabetes and MS, and I think that she was no where near in the right state to effectively deal with her cases by the tail end of Adnan's trial. I also agreed with the fact that although she was well intentioned, her execution of her points did not leave the jurors with an effective picture of what she was trying to prove. Maybe in her mind the inconsistencies and irregularities were so obvious, but her failing health and stress made it impossible for her to communicate that effectively to the court.

Finally, I want to talk briefly about Jay's pro bono lawyer. I wasn't too sure about it at first so I googled it, but basically the prosecutor set Jay up with a private practitioner, making it seem as of Jay was paid by the state for his testimony. That was a sketchy point that I feel the judge wrote off too quickly; was it that easy to assume Jay knew nothing about this benefit?

Overall I think this is one of my favorite episodes; it brought up several different threads of discussion that for once focus not on the supposed guilt of Adnan, but on interesting details of the case and real issues in the courtroom relevant to a greater discussion about the overall justice system.

Serial Podcast Episode 9

Podcast: The Deal With Jay

Episode 09: Adnaan Slips?

Within this episode Sara Koenig executes a narrative maneuver that is quite the double-edged sword; it either exonerates Adnaan or validates his conviction. It is quite evident that her intent is to impel the viewers of Serial to empathize with his plight; throughout, she has painted Adnaan as an elegant, suave young man who is clearly outraged at the heinous crime he is said to have committed. And most of us believed, hoped, wished, that this man was innocent. It was easy to fall into this thinking without considering the entirety of the case, for the power of the narrative structure is enormous. Stereotypes (sketchy Jay), the influence of racial bias (contemporary hot-topic issue), and other aspects congeal to form a plot including a tragic hero misplaced in the prison system. Interestingly, Sara reveals the new information that is most helpful to Adnaan's case: the absence of a phone booth around Best Buy, suggesting that Jae was either lying or majorly mistaken. This new information distorts the tenuous timeline that was so imperative for the prosecution's side. Something I find intriguing is how Sara constantly insinuates that the inadequate police are inexplicably missing things that she, as a journalist, is not. This rather lofty assumption of authority has become quite grating by now.
 Following the revelation of the new information, Koenig delves into Adnaan's persona before, during, and after the conviction of guilt for Hae's murder. It's a rather refreshing component of the episode for it dives into the psyche of Adnaan. However, I found his reaction to Hae's death rather stilted. I had expected more shock, more misery, more despondency. Yet I would caution viewers-while that too was my first impulse, it has been a very, very long time since the murder of Hae Min Lee and naturally his inner turmoil has now been largely reduced.

However, Sara's underlying appeal for Adnaan's charismatic resonance is struck down in this episode. He breaks. He slips. He stutters. He fails, in spite of the long pauses and considerations, to answer a very crucial question. He makes what I could only call a Freudian slip, saying that he is only in jail because of his actions. Saying that he is responsible, at the end of the day, for everything. Sara asks him perplexedly why he doesn't blame Jae for his predicament, and he answers, rather bemusedly, that he must have some responsibility. It's almost as though he's struggling to grapple with something his subconscious impulsively spew out. It is at this point that I start to truly doubt Adnaan's story. Previously he was very adept at smoothing over the very ambiguous parts of the case, involving evidence and so on, but now something has happened. Something has broken through. And it's very, very disconcerting, particularly for those (like myself) who hoped that Adnaan wasn't a perverse psychopath.

Episode 9: To Be Back to Rambling Speculations

I was initially deterred by this episode as it appeared to return to Koenig’s meandering style in which she “speculates” on many a thing but reaches a factual conclusion on almost nothing. While I have certainly been vocal about my disenchantement with Koenig and the podcast the last couple of episodes invovleing the Innocence Project and a discussion on Jay actually appeared to be concrete and moving the series forward so I was a little bit disappointed and the inconclusiveness of this episode. There were several smaller components of the episode however that definitely piqued my interest, most prominently actually, was the conclusion of the episode in which Adnan is discussing his life in prison.

I was struck by how genial he sounded about his life and the fact that even in prison he appeared to be sticking to the “nice kid” persona which so many people in the community believed. Koenig points to his certificates of gentlemanly behavior and lack of infractions as a way to further cast doubt on his ability to murder Hae. However, I thought that these facts, coupled with his claim of becoming a “better Muslim” and the discussion about his parents perceptions, could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Firstly, one could see it, as Koenig positions it, as further proof that Adnan is not the kind of guy who would be a murderer. Essentially, he is innocent. He is an all around good kid who happens to be a victim of the American justice system. The other way it could be looked at is that he did murder Hae and thus, he has been so accepting of his prison sentence and become a better Muslim out of regret and the realization of his wrongful actions. There were definitely points in this episode where I leaned towards the second explanation – especially when he was discussing the fact that he was in jail because of his own “stupid actions”. To me, this is the closest he ever comes to admitting guilt and it almost seems like a Freudian slip of the tongue because when Koenig presses him on this comment he is unable to explain it in a coherent manner – something we have not seen before from Adnan.

Another aspect of this episode that I found intriguing and I am looking forward to hopefully hearing more ahout is the attorney and lawyer situation. In this episode Koenig seems to almost casually throw out the tidbit that Adnan fires his attorney for a new one. I was surprised that this was only being mentioned now near the conclusion of the podcast. Additionally, based off of the small clip in this episode in which the new attorney begs the judge to see this as “a crime of passion” aka saying Adnan was guilty coupled with Adnan’s own descriptions of the man, I am left with a severe impression of incompetence or at least confusion as to what the direction of the case was... Also, I was wondering, if anyone has legal knowledge what the difference between the attorney and lawyer is and what are their different responsibilities in the case? Or is this man Gutierrez’s replacement?

Also last tangential comment: Can we all just appreciate that this episode's title and synopsis, more than any other, really appeared to have nothing to do with the actual content discussed...

Serial Episode 9 Post

Serial Episode 9 Post

        Wow, what an episode! Koenig certainly throws a lot of new information at us. I personally found it to be far more engaging than most of the content from previous weeks. For once, she makes a declarative statement regarding her opinions on the case when she confesses to having  "reasonable doubt" about Adnan's guilt at the end of the episode. There were several things from the episode that stood out to me. 

        Koenig mentions the idea of guilt on several occasions, concluding that it is impossible for one to truly jump to conclusions by analyzing how someone behaves after a traumatic event. For example, we can choose to see Adnan's reaction to Hae's death as either being compassionate or sympathetic, depending on how we feel about him as an individual. The fact Adnan contacts the authorities and cries with a group of friends is an obvious indicator of his innocence for those that fall in his camp. For the opposition, however, Syed's actions are merely further examples of a psychotic killer who has proven himself to be a master at manipulating other human beings. Overall, however, it is nearly impossible to judge one's character in this situation. Everyone responds to death in a different way and nobody can be held accountable for what may be deemed odd behavior due to the subjective nature of the human grieving process. 

       Another thing that caught my attention was the fact that Koenig finally mentions Hae's family. She relates the heartbreaking story of Hae's mother reciting a Korean proverb (through a translator) during the trial. After painting this emotional picture of the Lee family, Koenig next mentions that she tried tirelessly to interview them for the program. Understandably, they choose to remain quiet rather than talking about a horrific case from 16 years ago. This seems to again pose an ethical question about the nature of Koenig's investigation. Is she demonstrating the necessary respect for the Lee family in creating this podcast? Is it possible that Koenig's professed attachment to Adnan could have influenced the family's decision to not speak in public about the case? 

    The final thing that caught my attention involves Adnan's belief about confession. He states that it would actually be an easier situation for his family if he admitted to his parents that he was guilty and allowed them to move on with their lives. Despite that fact, he still maintains his innocence to this day. Do you agree with Adnan's statement? Might he also be motivated by the fact that his parents are said to visit him often in prison and he doesn't want to lose their support? His behavior while in prison seems to support those who have strongly believed in Adnan's innocence. He is said to have found a deeper connection with religion and to have received countless accolades for his good behavior. What did you guys make of his sterling track record since his incarceration? 

Finally, I want to draw attention to the acclaimed HBO docu-series The Jinx. I have attached an article that explains its similarity to Serial. What do you guys make of these real-life based crime investigations? Is this the sign of an emerging popular genre or might this just be a passing craze? 

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/03/the-jinx-hbos-twisted-compelling-answer-to-serial/387712/

A Study on Jay's Character

When I was listening to this week's podcast I was intrigued by the statements made about Jay's character. Why did it matter how people perceived Jay? These accounts are retrieved from fifteen years ago so would they really be helpful? I'm not so sure. In this post I am going to explore the validity of a distanced observation that has aged over time and the importance of prejudice in statements.

Koenig in several instances in the episode interviews people who knew Jay back from high school. What these now thirty something people now recall are varying degrees accounting for the multiple facets of Jay's personality. I know that what we learn isn't as surprising as it could have been since we have heard of glimpses of Jay's personality in previous episodes but we still learn a lot from these accounts. I question these accounts however because people's ideas can definitely change over time. For example when I was twelve I used to really want to wear black all the time, it was a normal thought at the time. Now when looking back on it the fact that I wanted to wear nothing but black clothing is rather strange and I can't help but wonder if this same kind of reflection influenced those people who knew Jay. Sure they might have found Jay unique or intimidating at the time but no one at that time was probably thinking about how likely the kid was to kill someone. Just because Jay isn't normal and wears a belt buckle doesn't make him ALL that weird at the most socially tense time of high school, especially in the nineties. I think when these grown ups looked back on the time Jay stood out because of these features that they describe him as while when they were actually experiencing him in high school it wasn't so strange.

When I first heard of the other accounts of Jay I will admit there were some biases on my end. For one thing Jay didn't seem to have the strictest of upbringings, plus he seemed a bit off especially when he tried to knife his older friend. That in itself seemed strange to me but I guess what keeps Jay from becoming a weird knifing social outcast is his confidence and popularity among his fellow students. That and the fact that he has a girlfriend. Although the girlfriend part was weird too because Koenig made her out to be this perfect athletic girl, the good brightness to Jay's shadier side but I still feel like there was something missing there.

In the end I feel like there was a lot of manipulation in this episode. Koenig right out says how she's "playing detective." I think after taking a little closer look at the accounts of Jay's character we are seeing only a few sides of Jay much like we only have seen a few sides of Adnan. Koenig really is playing detective here in Serial because the entire picture is hard to get, not possible to uncover, or not dramatic enough. A key to story is contrast and if everything was out in the open it would just be boring.