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