In an effort to avoid summary I want to focus on three issues that really jumped out at me during Episode 1 of Serial: the fallacy of human memory, the extreme limit placed on impartiality by previous knowledge and the the role of morality in professions that work with the vulnerable
The opening passage of the episode discussed the problems that arise when one is asked to recall an event 6 weeks ago. After hearing her talk to some example teenagers I stopped the podcast and actually tried to think about where I was six weeks ago. I had to open my calendar to even find the day - Monday, December 8. Similar to one of the teenagers Sarah Koenig interviewed I remembered part of the day because it was important - it was the night of the UCLA/USC Athlete invite, but beyond the event I remember nothing of that day because in my mind it was highly normal. I know I had swim practice but I couldn't tell you what we did. However, if I went back in my texts I could probably deduce the layout of the rest of the day. But in 1999 that wasn't an option - and other potential verifiers - like the library computer or camera were unusable as they weren't logged... I'd always wondered before this episode why alibis were so highly contested but actually stopping and trying to recall a completely average day made me realize just how fallible human memory actually is! [I don't know if questions can be put in blog posts but... did anyone else try to recall what happened exactly 6 weeks ago? if so could you?]
Another aspect of Episode One I found very interesting is that it showed just how much preconceived knowledge impacts ones ability to form opinions. In this case, given the lack of evidence it completely comes down to people's assessments of Adnan's character and how his personality is portrayed. For example, the woman who is the attorney and is good family friends with Adnan's family [I can't spell her name] is convinced that he is completely innocent based off of her interactions with him, however the court was able to use Adnan's personality, almost exclusively, to convince the jury that Adnan was capable of murder. Hence, within the case one sees how preconceived ideas lead to different conclusions being drawn, one also however approaches this podcast with ones own previous knowledge. I did not have any knowledge about this particular case, however, I had a friend in high school who came from a very similar family, from the sounds of it, to Adnan's as her parents were Pakistani immigrant who were firmly against dating, alcohol, drug and were incredibly strict. But, she like Adnan dated in secret, drank and smoked like any normal teenager. Hence, the fact that the prosecutors used this as evidence to prove that Adnan was a liar and capable of murder seems preposterous to me as I know someone who was in a very similar situation.
Finally, I think this episode also raises the very interesting question of morality in professions that work with the vulnerable - in this case lawyers. While as a society we like to think that people like doctors, lawyers, social workers etc... are motivated by altruism and genuinely want what is best for the people they are working with and helping this case points out just how much they can be motivated by personal gain and the holes in the system that allow for professionals to take advantage of their clients. In Adnan's case the defense lawyer was later convicted of fraud hence, people who believe Adnan is innocent claim that she "threw the case" in order to make more money for her own personal appeal. However, this is far from an isolated instance, there are many more that one sees on a daily basis - even in the basic fiscal model of lawyers as they are frequently paid by the hour - hence their aims and the clients are opposite for the client wants the work done as quickly as possible while the lawyer, presuming they want to maximize income, have a vested interest in dragging it out.
Lindsay Lauder
You make some very interesting points. First of all addressing the fallacy of human memory, I completely agree. In trying to remember what I was doing six weeks ago, I was amazed at the difficulty of this task. In fact, apart from the fact that I got a flu shot that day (which I had on my calendar) I have no idea what I was doing then. I have a hard time even remembering what happened three weeks ago! I also felt that your emphasis on the importance of checking our electronic footprint, so to speak, was hugely profound in our memory of the events. Therefore, unless someone had a diary entry or a major event that day to help remember, the lack of records in the case makes the testimonies shaky at best.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I agree with your assessment of our personal perceptions getting in the way of our being completely objective observers. However, I felt like the various portrayals of the same event also played a large role in persuading the audience. For instance, the same information and character trait, as you noted, could be spun as something that was the behavior of a healthy teenage boy from a strict household or the actions of a psychopath and a liar.
Lastly, you point out that certain professionals, such as lawyers, often run a fine line between moral and immoral. There is the case of Adnan’s defense lawyer who Sarah Koenig, the narrator, points out may have hidden evidence for her own benefit. However, there is also the case of the prosecution’s lawyer, who although the immense amount of doubt and lack of evidence in the case is so intensely adamant on convicting this boy. Despite it being his job, the morality of fighting to convict a boy of murder in a case that is so precarious is questionable.
All of these points that you made in conjunction show just how difficult it can be to paint an even semi-accurate picture of the events that took place during “an hour after school one day in 1999.”