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.

Jay: Finally a Reliable Witness?

This week's episode was especially important because we finally get to hear more about the key witness who ultimately put Adnan behind bars. I came into the episode with high expectations for what I would find out about Jay, and I wasn't disappointed. Most of my questions while listening to this podcast have been centered around him and I think that Koenig's interviews with his friends helped me get a better picture of who he actually is. Adnan's portrayal of him is twisted at times and does not seem to accurately reflect the man who was presented in this episode.

However, something that stood out to me was the fact that we don't get an "official" interview with Jay. Rather, Koenig and Snyder recount their conversation with him after they visit his house, since they promised Jay they wouldn't tape the conversation. This makes sense to me, but I was still incredibly curious as to what that interaction must have been like. Listening back to the audio from the car ride over to Jay's house, Koenig says she wants to give her past self a Xanax because she is clearly so hyped up to finally talk to the star witness of the case. So, I was naturally also hyped up to finally hear from this mysterious character who we've only heard in pre-recorded conversations at trial or with the police.

I remember hearing that Jay had officially done an interview with an outside source, so I looked it up. It is split up into three parts but I found the most interesting information in the second part here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/30/exclusive-jay-part-2/ . In this portion of the interview, Jay describes the interview from his perspective and it paints a very different picture than Koenig does in the episode.

Jay received phone calls from his friends that a reporter was looking into the details of the Have Min Lee case. When Koenig showed up at his house, he was more worried about his privacy than anything else, especially because his wife wanted to keep his name off the internet in regards to the case. So Koenig represented their worst nightmare when she first arrived at their front door.

Jay describes Koenig as "harassing people" connected to the case and that he felt like "she was lying" when she came to talk to him at his house. I think it makes sense then that he didn't want to talk to her at all, especially considering that Jay and his wife had put his past to rest and had no intention of re-earthing it.

Jay's full interview provides further insight into this man, who seems to be a loyal friend and fiercely protective of his family. In fact, Adnan seems even less believable now and it makes sense to me that the jury would completely trust Jay. Koenig has previously portrayed Jay as a stoner who got into trouble, but hearing Jay explain it makes it seem like just a normal experience for a black youth living in Baltimore. He comes off incredibly believable, which I think is a reason why he agreed to this outside interview in the first place. He mentions that he feared that Koenig would twist his words and that even without talking to him she was able to demonize him in her podcast, according to him. In the interview I looked at, Jay is clearly in control, telling his version of the story, and it's hard to argue against him.

Jay and Hearing About his "Normal" Side

I feel like I can't quite give an objective blog post because I felt like instead of listening this episode as an objective viewer, I listened to the podcast the way I feel a casual listener would listen to it. Namely, I was totally engrossed in the section of the episode where Koenig talked about Jay and all the different impressions that people who knew him had.

Coming from the previous episodes, Jay didn't seem to me so much as a real person, but rather a player in this case. However, this episode, I finally got an image in my head of Jay -- that line about the "black guy with the lip ring"; how he was a "stoner" and "goofy" to some kids but "tough" and "scary" to others. I feel like hearing these anecdotes about Jay really help give us the impression of Jay that we need to fully understand what role he could play in this case. Just hearing those differing impressions of Jay makes me think that there could be many theories about his involvement in the case. On one hand, if Jay is the "goofy stoner kid," then maybe he was just a guy caught up in Adnan's killing. On the other hand, if he's "dangerous," the kind of guy who would want to stab his friend so he could "have the experience of being stabbed," then maybe he is capable of helping to frame Adnan for Hae's murder. Also going along with the "dangerous" idea, maybe Jay was involved with some dangerous people that were involved in framing Adnan for Hae's murder.

I suppose, by the end of the episode, I don't really have a different theory with Jay. Actually, I think I more firmly believe that either theory, that Jay is an unwitting accomplice or that he's got darker role, is likely. But, I did enjoy hearing about a different side of Jay, the more "normal" side shall we say. It got me thinking, wondering about how classmates respond in hindsight when they find out that one of their classmates was involved in a major crime/murder. Do we remember different aspects about people when we suspect/know they were involved in a crime? Are the little details, like Jay's fashion sense, important enough that it may contribute to an explanation as to why he did what he did? Another crazy thing I came to realize as I listened to this episode is that this experience, this looking back at a person knowing they committed a crime, isn't just something that exists in Serial--it exists in real life. In fact, a few days after I listened to Episode 8, my mom called me and told me this wack story about how a first grade teacher in my elementary school was involved in a 50+ person deep car theft ring. Now, all I can do is think back to every encounter I've ever had with this teacher and try to see if there were clues that this was going on.

Also, if you'd like to read more about people reminiscing about their classmates who later committed crimes, here's a cool reddit thread I found: http://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2qp5oh/have_you_ever_known_someone_who_committed_murder/

The "Truth" About Criminal Investigations

This week, in Sarah Koenig’s quest to get to the bottom of the murder of Hae Min Lee, Koenig turned to an expert on criminal investigations: Jim Trainum. A former Washington D.C. police detective, Trainum has some first-hand experience in the interrogation room, and can speak to tactics that Detectives Ritz and MacGillivary employ when they question Jay, the key witness in the case against Adnan Syed. And these tactics don’t always seem to be the most ethical. After all, Trainum says that in an investigation, a detective’s goal is not getting to the truth; the goal is to build a strong case. I found this particularly disturbing.

I wanted to find some context around Trainum’s claim that getting to the truth is not the ultimate goal of any given investigation. It turns out that Serial is not Trainum’s first encounter with podcast programming. In 2013, he appeared on a This American Life episode focused on “Confessions.” There, he discussed his experience as a police detective, and the ease with which he could extract a false confession from a witness or a suspect. And this type of confession manipulation landed Trainum in a tricky spot when he realized that he and his fellow investigators had pinned a crime on an innocent woman. It took ten years for Trainum and his colleagues to right their investigative mistake. I found Trainum’s take on the investigation process fascinating, especially as I have been on the fence about the genuineness of the interrogations we hear about in Serial. I came across an article on USA Today’s website detailing the release of the man Trainum and his colleagues coerced into a wrongful confession. The article includes a quote from Trainum on the investigation process I found interesting as it could illuminate the reason behind Ritz and MacGillivary’s apparent loyalty to Jay’s side of the story:

"It's like you're on this speeding train going down the track and it's extremely difficult to get that train to stop," Trainum says. "While you're on that train, you might be getting other leads coming in, other clues about the killer, but because we're so fixated on the suspect, often times those clues go undocumented."

This quote makes me think that the story the detectives are extracting from Jay is not necessarily the whole truth. That is not to say that I think Jay’s whole testimony is untruthful. I don’t know about that. But, I think there is something more to this case than the detectives are letting on.

Here is the link to the USA Today article: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-26/false-confessions-interrogation/52236364/1

The 112 Files Episode 7: Second Chances

Episode 7: Enter Enright

The introduction of the Innocence Project in this episode is a very interesting addition. We have Enright stand staunchly on the side of Adnan's innocence, and she points out the various things that should make Adnan innocent, foremost being the forensic evidence and how it does not seem to add up properly. Another interesting factor that she brings in (and one I've personally wondered when/how it will be addressed) is the racial bias issue. From the very first episode, I've had worries about Adnan's case, simply because Muslims are still receiving unfair distrust from the public. It may be likely that Adnan's conviction may have possibly been, in part, due to an unfair prejudice that a Muslim would be likely to commit a violent act. This is also in conjunction with another fact noted by Enright, that jurors who see the defendant automatically assume that he/she is guilty for something. It is very surprising that these have not been addressed in Koenig's episodes so far, but are one of the first set of points to be brought up by Enright when she looks over the case. Enright seems from the beginning to believe that Adnan is innocent, and her firm belief, along with the rest of Innocent Project, all  who express their own disbelief that Adnan was convicted over so little compelling material, has an infectious effect on the audience.

I also found Enright's claim of starting with assuming the client is innocent and working the case out from there to be an interesting method. It seems that the prosecution did exactly the opposite in this case. While it may seem as if that is their goal, the standard for the justice system is innocent until proven guilty, which seems to be exactly what Enright's method embraces. If her method finds that there are already serious flaws in the prosecution case against Adnan, serious issues in how he was proven guilty, then it therefore raises serious questions as to how thorough the prosecution's case against Adnan was, and how much did they actually prove their case, and not rely on a witness like Jay who changes his story too often, or on bias, or on selective evidence. I appreciate how Koenig plays the devil's advocate for each side, poking holes in the prosecution case in the previous episode and doing the same for the defense in this episode. I doubt it is for entertainment value -- it is simply an attempt to ensure that all the flaws are ironed out from each side, and to see which side can present a stronger case in the end, which is, of course, the ultimate goal of Serial, to reinvestigate the case of Adnan.

Episode 7: Presumption of Innocence

I agree that this week's episode was very compelling. Koenig's introduction of the Innocence Project team brought a lot of new insights to Adnan's case, specifically about how his evidence was dealt with and the concept of presumption of innocence. I was also interested in the effect that the introduction of this new team had on Koenig and her role as narrator.

One of the key points that Enright, head of The Innocence Project at the University of Virginia Law School, brings up regarding Adnan’s case is the concept of presumption of innocence. In our courts, we adhere to the idea of “innocent until proven guilty.” However, Enright claims that although juries are meant to be objective, when one is called into court and sees a suspect on the stand, the members of the jury are likely to assume that he or she is guilty of something. Therefore, while on paper we claim innocent until proven guilty, often the people making the decisions are influenced by preconceptions.

It was particularly fascinating that the first thing Enright claimed she had to give back to Adnan was his “presumption of innocence” and go from there. Serial has been framed since the beginning around the idea of whether or not Adnan is guilty. While this is for the most part due to the fact that he has already been convicted, Enright’s comment is still quite profound. As opposed to trying to determine that he is not guilty, she starts from the basis that he is innocent until proven guilty, an extra step that has the potential of being lost when looking into the case of a convicted subject.

Another interesting part of this episode is Koenig’s role in it. While in the last episode she presented the case of the prosecution, she framed it in a way that still left space for reasonable doubt. She seemed to be playing devil’s advocate, attempting to soften every blow from the prosecution’s case. Conversely, in this episode Enright and her team are clearly are on the side of Adnan’s innocence. Suddenly, Koenig’s doubts begin to show, prompting Enright point out that she “sound[s] really down on Adnan today.” From then Koenig begins to unravel some doubts that she holds, even questioning if he “is this amazing sociopath” who is “play[ing]” her. She again plays the role of the devil’s advocate, but this time, for the opposite side. This sudden reveal of her doubts makes me question if she is deliberately trying to maintain this state of constant doubt in her listeners for entertainment value or if she is truly this confused?

In an NPR interview with Koenig, she answers a question about if she was worried about the podcast and Adnan’s story being treated as entertainment rather than investigative reporting. She maintains that the producers of the series and herself worried a lot about the content becoming “entertainment” and they needed “to treat [it] with the utmost professionalism and care.” However, doesn't it sometimes seem that the structure of the show promotes this story as a form of entertainment? Is this simply a natural phenomenon of a podcast or is there more that could have been done to draw a line between the “entertainment” and “investigative reporting?”

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/23/372577482/serial-host-sarah-koenig-says-she-set-out-to-report-not-exonerate

Serial: The 112 Files - Episode 6 (Is Adnan a Psychopath?)

Episode 7:The Innocence Project and Some Interesting Interviews

So this week's podcast was pretty interesting in that it brought some new perspective to the table in the form of Enright and the Innocence Project. However, in the end what we get from the entire thing is the implication that the police did not do enough detecting in their initial investigation and that they failed to test everything they could have possibly tested. We do also get Enright's super optimism suggesting Adnan's innocence, but honestly this seems like it can be discounted for now. This is for two reasons. First, Enright might be the spokesperson for the Innocence Project's actions into the case, but as Koenig said, Enright is one of the busiest people she's met and she therefore isn't likely to be too involved in the actual investigation of the case. Additionally, Enright says herself that she has a "tree-hugger, everyone's innocent" instinct. This sort of threw me off; did anyone else think Enright was a bit quirky? Not only does she mention this tree-hugger thing, but she calls one of her students a "pro-government right-wing Republican operative," and then laments the fact that she's never had a psychopath as a client. Not sure how I feel about that.

Anyways, since we're getting what seems to be a slightly biased view from this episode in the form of Enright (though I'm sure the Innocence Project will ultimately be unbiased and will support their conclusions with evidence), I decided I would pull in some outside information that I think is pretty biased in the opposite direction. However, I do think there's some pretty compelling evidence here and there in these links as well, so I would encourage you guys to read them if you have time.

Regardless, the links I included at the bottom of this post are to several rounds of interviews conducted by an internet magazine called "The Intercept" with Jay and the main prosecutor in Adnan's case,  Kevin Urick. Honestly, I'm sure we could discuss these things for a while, but I'll stick to talking about what I found interesting in them. Also, I want to mention that someone included the first part of Jay's interview in a previous podcast, but I'll be focusing on the third part because that's where some real controversy is at.

So first I'll start with this third Jay interview. Click on the link below and you'll 
immediately be confronted by a large picture of a Reddit thread titled "Pictures of Jay's last home and new address." Can you see where this is going? Essentially, this portion of Jay's interview focuses on the negative attention he's received since the podcast came out; people have showed up at his house, there's the possibility that the podcast caused him to lose his job, and he fears for his family's safety (he has kids now too). All this Jay says is a result of Koenig painting a sensationalized and evil image of Jay. Of course, the interviewer seems to hint at times that this might be Jay's fault in some degree; Koenig offers to let Jay tell his side of the story several times but Jay declines every time. Jay justifies this by saying that he didn't think she would really talk about him in the podcast and voices concerns that she might have twisted his words. 

Next we come to Urick's interview and some of the bias The Intercept seems to have. You can see this most clearly in this quote,"So, Koenig dismissed the decision of the 12 jurors who heard the case, and even though she found nothing that would exonerate Syed, she shifted the burden of proof back onto the state." Anyway, The Intercept's interview with Urick is overall quite interesting in that he dismisses Adnan's innocence and says that the corroboration of Jay's story with cell records is certainly enough to incriminate Adnan despite the two not being enough on their own. He also says that Adnan's attorney did her absolute best in trying to defend Adnan and put a full effort into it, something that is in accordance with what Casey posted that the Enright said. Which makes me also wonder; how in the world Adnan was granted that appeal for ineffective counsel?

Jay Part 1: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-wilds-star-witness-adnan-syed-serial-case-pt-1/ 
Jay Part 2: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/30/exclusive-jay-part-2/
Jay Part 3: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/31/jay-speaks-part-3/

Urick Part 1: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/07/prosecutor-serial-case-goes-record/
Urick Part 2: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/exclusive-serial-prosecutor-defends-guilty-verdict-adnan-syed-case-part-ii/

Episode 7: Girl Talk

This episode felt much like two girlfriends chatting over coffee, one new to a field and frustrated by her findings, wanting to know someone else is having similar experiences. Koenig repeatedly asks Enright "Do you ever have that feeling where..." or "Do you ever have a case..." questions, showcasing her frustration with the case and for the first time, in my opinion, her annoyance seems genuine. In fact, much of the episode seems very natural, in part because half the episode is just a conversation.

I was curious about the Innocence Project's investigation of Adnan's case, so I did some research. It turns out Enright's team did a podcast of their own! Here is the link (there are spoilers): http://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/news.nsf/pp/podcastfrontpage . If you're interested in listening, it's the podcast from 12.22.2014, titled "UVA Law Project Innocence on What's Next for 'Serial' Investigation."

In their podcast, Enright and her team express surprise over what Koenig focuses on in every episode (details involve spoilers, so I will refrain). Koenig points out the lack of physical evidence, yet she barely touches forensics at all in the podcast, whereas Enright and her team are doing what is done at the beginning of each investigation: testing everything from the crime scene.

Interestingly, the team mentions a few things that aren't at all mentioned in this episode, though they were relevant. Apparently, Koenig told them about a strangulation the year prior to Hae's murder and told them that anti-Muslim sentiment was very strong at the time of the trial. I'm curious as to why these things are never mentioned in the podcast itself. They seem relevant to Enright, so why wouldn't they be relevant to us? Does this mean Koenig is hiding information she deems irrelevant that may very well be the key? And if so, is it to up the entertainment value or just because she's not a professional investigator of any kind?

Lastly, Enright mentioned that the case itself, compared to other cases they get at Innocence Project, is not that unique. What is different, though, is that Adnan's defense attorney made a serious effort. Enright says most defense attorneys are "asleep at the wheel" but Christina Gutierrez did a significant amount of work in the case, though she did miss some important things. She said she doubted Gutierrez could be called "ineffective counsel" because, if anything, she overdid her argument, she "battled too hard where she didn't need to" and lost the battles because of it. For me, this begs the question, how did Adnan get an appeal for ineffective counsel?