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
Now that we’ve finished listening to Serial Season 1, I think it would be interesting to raise a few questions about the podcast’s effect. Is Adnan guilty, innocent, or do we really not know? I think it is very interesting how you bring up Koenig’s mentioning of the “99%” of possible speculation in their research versus the 1% of what they actually air. Could it be possible that those speculations could balance out the differing viewpoints presented in this podcast a little more evenly?
ReplyDeleteI found this really thought-provoking reddit sub feed and wanted to share it with you all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/32jwt8/if_koenig_had_not_been_able_to_air_adnans/.compact
Essentially, some of the most striking parts about it are as follows: If Koenig had not been able to use voice interviews with Adnan, and she just had to read their conversations aloud, would our perception of his innocence or guilt be the same? Are we influenced by the delivery of his defense and explanations of the past? Additionally, one reedited brings up a valid point: It is difficult to want to believe that Adnan is innocent because even he never directly claims this statement to be true, rather he negates the opposite scenario, stating that he was never involved in it and that he can’t believe people would think he would kill Hae. This type of response is very roundabout and evasive, almost as if Adnan isn’t entirely innocent but isn’t morally accepting the outcome of Hae’s death either. I think this relates to your idea of Adnan giving Koenig permission to not come down on one side of the story or another. We don’t know which to choose, nor which to want to choose anymore!
Here is another interesting perspective from a reddit user: "I really dislike how SK started off the podcast with this labored point about how no one could ever remember the details of some random day 6 weeks ago, and sets your mind off agreeing with that idea, then you find out later that it was not a random day at all -- a policeman had called Sayed that night to tell him his ex-girlfriend (who he pretty clearly still cared for) was missing, the policeman asked him where she was, and Sayed never saw or spoke to her again. That would clearly make the day stand out in someone's mind. Not to mention the fact that several other people remember the events of that day, and that it was not that typical of a day if he was skipping school and lending his phone and car.” This redditer goes on to observe that whenever Koenig would build up a point that would usually make Adnan look good, he would respond to her with some weird non-answer that seems contrived or calculated.
Overall, I think that the role of speculation, both in the position of the journalist, the storyteller, the listener, and the subject plays a huge part in swaying our opinions, and the evident lack thereof from the storytelling source can paint the picture of a biased journalist, despite the limitation of truth-sharing.