What I thought was most interesting about Ep. 2 of Serial was the theme of viewpoint: over and over Koenig describes how key facts in the case could be used, both for the prosecution and the defense, to either paint Adnan as a vindictive ex-boyfriend or the archetype of a normal, heartbroken teen. Just to name 2 examples:
FACT: Adnan and Hae dated in secrecy, with Adnan's Muslim heritage a point of difference in their relationship
PROSECUTION: The fact that Adnan had to disappoint his parents and choose between a girl and his religion racked him with guilt and caused him to go over the edge when Hae broke his heart
WHAT KOENIG FOUND: Through Koenig's interviews with Adnan and Adnan's friends, it appears that it honestly wasn't that big of a deal - Adnan did drugs, partied, had sex with girls - clearly he wasn't that religious. Apparently, Hae also never made any of her concerns clear to Adnan - her diary was the first time he realized how distraught she was over "causing his sin"
FACT: One of Adnan's high school teachers stated, "Adnan had a dark side that showed through his poetry"
PROSECUTION: This is just one of many examples that confirms Adnan's malicious nature and shows he is capable of carrying out a murder
WHAT KOENIG FOUND: After interviewing the teacher, Koenig clarifies that it was not as if Adnan showed red flags of abnormal or violent tendencies - like every other angsty teenager she taught, he vented about his problems through poetry
The drastic contrast between what the state painted Adnan as and what Koenig discovered through talking to Adnan and other witnesses is disturbing. Did anyone else find themselves over and over easily swayed by evidence the prosecution presented purely because Adnan was the suspect of murder, only to realize subsequently through Koenig's personal investigation that the real picture just wasn't that malicious? This happened to me throughout the podcast and rattled me because I realized just how gullible I am (despite the fact that throughout listening to this podcast I have actively tried to be as unbiased as possible).
What is most frustrating about this is how, as of right now, it seems so unconvincing that the prosecution came to the conclusion of definitively convicting Adnan. After all, our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty, right? To me all the evidence presented thus far is not the least bit conclusive. The facts we currently know are riddled with inconsistencies and conflicting testimonies and for now I have to cling on to a bleak hope that, in order to maintain my faith in the justice system, as Serial continues, more conclusive evidence is revealed to affirm that Adnan was indeed proven guilty.
One last thing - while taking notes, I found myself scatterbrained and confused with the sheer amount of details of the case. I have a hard time, even after poring through my notes, of piecing the evidence together and forming an actual opinion about who is guilty and who isn't. I can only imagine how the detectives, the attorneys, the judge, and the jury must have felt. I guess the main questions that I have after Episode 2 are: given the fact that the facts of the case can so easily be twisted for one argument or the other, how valid does that make them for use in court? Is there any way around this? Can we ever really determine the truth with just he-said she-said?
I think you and the episode itself raise a very interesting point about the problem of perspective and viewpoint. As you astutely show here with you two examples any number of the facts raised by the prosecution can be used to argue the opposite point. What really struck me listening to Koenig explain her personal investigation was how much context matters - for example when I hear the fact that Adnan wrote dark poetry and that his teacher commented on the fact that there was a "dark side" to his personality I immediately saw it as adding to the case against Adnan, however hearing the rest of her statement about how all teenagers write about depressing things adds context and in doing so normalizes this tidbit of information about Adnan.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your line of questing regarding the jury and its ability to reach a decision. While initially the prosecutors arguments seem valid, Koenig's background research consistently manage to make me question and second guess them. For me, the information and the different interpretations of it offered by Koenig highlight just how ambiguous the case was. Additionally, if it is so easy for her to interview all these people and essentially discredit the validity of the prosecutors argument where was Adnan's lawyer and why were they not able to make this same case? Certainly this is my biggest question as of now as I don't see how based off the information revealed this far into the podcast, the jury could have felt they had enough evidence to convict Adnan.