Serial Season 2: Deserter Storm

[OnionAhaiReborn]

This podcast seems to be getting a lot of buzz, and I'm enjoying the hell out of it, so I figured I'd start a thread to see if anyone else has been as pulled in by this as I have. And if you haven't, you can catch up easily and get pulled in yourself (you will).

 

 

 

 

It's six episodes in, I'll give a brief description of the show's premise and then move into spoilers for the latest episode.

 

 

 

 

 

Sarah Koenig, a producer for This American Life, is contacted about a corrupt, ultimately disbarred lawyer she once did a story on. Years ago this lawyer had defended Adnan Syed against the charge that he murdered his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. Koenig's contact, a friend of Syed's family, suggests that the investigation was shoddy, the defense was mishandled, and Adnan is innocent. Koenig investigates, and is so intrigued by what she finds that she devotes a year of her time and launches a several hours long (so far), week-by-week podcast exploring the case. She regularly interviews Adnan, whose recorded phone calls from prison appear in each episode so far.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll leave out a synopsis of all the episodes up to this point, but you can find them everywhere on the internet, and here's one. But you should just listen!

 

 

 

 

 

Now, Episode 6:

 

 

 

 

 

This week Koenig lays out what she sees as the most damning portions of the case against Adnan. Last week established that the state's timeline could have worked, and the phone records, though not without their issues, seem to place Adnan's phone in Leakin Park at the time that Jay says they were burying Hae's body. This week we hear a witness to Adnan having a little freak out the day of the murder, learn of a call to Nisha, a person only Adnan, and not Jay, knew. For me the least explainable part- Adnan made no attempt to contact Hae during the time that she was missing.

 

 

 

The big questions I'm itching to discuss:

 

 

 

1) Of course, the big one, is Adnan innocent? I'm torn. The case is weird, I can't imagine anyone being foolish enough to commit this crime the way the prosecution says Adnan committed this crime. It's also difficult for me to believe the person we're hearing on these tapes could do this, or lie so effectively. That said, stupid criminals definitely exist, as do good liars.

 

 

 

2) On the show's form- it's different from anything I've heard before. One thing that fascinates and perhaps troubles me a bit about this as a journalistic endeavor is the way so much is withheld, omitted, or is only felt in the lacunae. We know Koenig is ahead of us, she's carefully constructing this program from fact, to form a narrative of the murder, the initial investigation, and also her own investigation (and she's succeeded wildly at this craft, it's immensely engaging). She tells us she's leaving things out, to get to them later.

 

 

 

Lacunae: will someone accuse Jay already? This is clearly the only alternative, either Adnan did it or Jay did it. Yet for all the skepticism about Jay's account, no one, not even Adnan, has out and said that Jay must have done it. Why not? What does Koenig think? She's ahead of us, she has an opinion, you can sense it, but it goes unspoken. Leading to...

 

 

 

3) What is this show about? This will depend on the result and conclusion, if there is any clear result or conclusion, which there may not be. But to me it seems, if it arrives anywhere other than the uncertainty we started with, it can only be one of two options. 1) Adnan is clearly innocent; investigative journalism uncovers a miscarriage of justice. 2) He clearly did it; Koenig is a sucker, the listeners are suckers. We've been sucked into wanting to believe, perhaps outright believing in the innocence of a sociopathic murderer.

 

 

 

I know I want him to be innocent, and I think it's clear given the effort that Koenig has put into investigating this case that there is a not insignificant part of her which believes he is innocent. She's very open about second-guessing herself on this, but, at least at some point in making this series, she must have believed he was innocent. If it becomes clear he is not, the whole thing becomes more about the investigator and the listener, about our potential to be manipulated, than about Adnan and the crime. It will be about a criminal manipulating a journalist, journalistic construction manipulating an audience, the power of narrative to manipulate us into wanting and expecting a certain outcome. And I don't think the show becomes any less fascinating if that's the case.

 

 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I'm really enjoying this show as well. There a really good subreddit for the show and I enjoy reading a lot of the commentary there.

Without giving anything away, the last episode actually left me more convinced than ever of Adnon's involvement and likely guilt.

I do, also, freely recognize that there is simply no way to capture all the detail and nuance of a trial in a radio show like this, so I'm sure a lot is flying by the audience as well, although I do believe that Sarah Koenig is doing a decent job putting things together (I wish she had a criminal law attorney on staff to to help give her some perspective on some of the factual issues).

I think there's also a decent chance that Adnon's lawyer really did fuck up the case, and/or that despite the conviction, I might have found the existence of reasonable doubt. Without being there, or having some more information, it's hard to say for sure. But I'm glued to my headphones every week when a new episode comes out.

[UVA]

I'm hooked as well. (Thanks for the suggestion OAR!) But I have yet to listen to the most recent episode so I won't read your spoiler yet.

I do, also, freely recognize that there is simply no way to capture all the detail and nuance of a trial in a radio show like this, so I'm sure a lot is flying by the audience as well, although I do believe that Sarah Koenig is doing a decent job putting things together (I wish she had a criminal law attorney on staff to to help give her some perspective on some of the factual issues).

Have you read In Cold Blood? I think Serial raises some similar questions about 'authorial' presence in the narrative. I agree that Koenig is doing a decent job of unpacking the case, but I had a similar thought as you when I heard about the podcast, i.e., whether the journalist was consulting a legal expert. This kind of crime story perhaps could benefit from some guidance in piecing it all together. Yet the fact that she is not running, for example, the complex testimonies by a criminal law attorney doesn't necessarily detract from the riveting narrative, much like how I found Capote's book.

[Raja]

I do, also, freely recognize that there is simply no way to capture all the detail and nuance of a trial in a radio show like this, so I'm sure a lot is flying by the audience as well, although I do believe that Sarah Koenig is doing a decent job putting things together (I wish she had a criminal law attorney on staff to to help give her some perspective on some of the factual issues).

Based on the latest episode, you seem to have got your wish. I honestly don't know how to feel about the case, like Koenig, I go from one end of the spectrum to another with Adnan. I know we have a bunch of lawyers on this forum, they're probably not criminal lawyers, but it would be nice to read that sort of discussion.

I'm surprised this thread doesn't have more posts, the podcast has been excellent so far. Maybe a change of title to get more people opening up the thread?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The odd thing, for me, about this latest episode is that I come away from it feeling more favorable to the idea that Adnan is innocent, but very few new facts were introduced. The most we got were a few challenges to the thoroughness of the investigation, but no actual new pieces of evidence.

Ultimately my opinion has been moved only by the fact that the experts Koenig brought in were very favorable to the idea that Adnan is innocent. Maybe not everyone heard it quite this way, but it seemed to me that they weren't only saying that they felt the prosecution's case was insufficient to find Adnan guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but they also actively believed in his innocence. That was surprising to me, based on leaving last week's episode feeling pretty down on the possibility that Adnan was innocent, let alone that he might actually be proven innocent. I'm reminded again of Koenig's presence in crafting this as an engaging narrative- we get all the most damning evidence one week, and the next we hear fairly enthusiastic support for his potential innocent.

I suppose the caveat is that the experts Koenig consulted are experts who work specifically on exonerating criminals. I don't think that means we shouldn't trust them or consider them valid experts (in some sense they have the most applicable expertise for Koenig's project), but I think it's also the case that there is incentive for them to want to find people innocent, to want to take the most favorable view. Still, I'm inclined to want to trust in their expertise, and sort of subordinate my own misgivings about Adnan's innocence to their judgment.

I'm surprised this thread doesn't have more posts, the podcast has been excellent so far. Maybe a change of title to get more people opening up the thread?

Sure, what do you have in mind?

[The Iceman of the North]

After hearing this podcast constantly plugged on Norwegian radio, I finally started on this a week ago.

Last month I spent about an hour listening to a rather interesting lecture by a Police Officer who've reformed the interrogation, sorry investigative interviewing methods in Norway over the past 15 years or so, building on the British P.E.A.C.E. Interview Model. The interviewing 'method' used in this case seems rather primitive, even if this took place just 15 years ago. Granted I don't know if this has improved in the US since then. Some of the issues were pointed out by the detective Koening talked to.

So far, with the final episode remaining, I still haven't made up my mind about whether Adnan is guilty or not, but it does appear to be enough reasonable doubt that he should probably not have been found guilty in a court of law.

[Raja]

Final episode? Aren't there going to be around 12 episodes?

[The Iceman of the North]

I got the impression that it was 10 episodes, but if it is 12 episodes, all the better. Looking at the web site, it does appear to be two slots after the 10th episode.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Yea, a lot of the stuff about the police investigation and interrogation of Jay was very troubling. It seems almost certain that the police were guilty of confirmation bias (the thing about "bad evidence" was very troubling), and, perhaps not deliberately, led Jay to fit his narrative around the cell phone records they had.

That said, I lean towards thinking Adnan did it. Unless some new piece of evidence comes out- which will require a legitimate real-world plot twist, or for Koenig to have been lying to us all along about what she knew when- I don't think my opinion will change. On the other hand, I'm not convinced Adnan had the most able legal representation, and I'm not sure if the evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (and it's clear that jurors held his failure to testify against him when they were specifically instructed not to).

[The Iceman of the North]

On the other hand, I'm not convinced Adnan had the most able legal representation, and I'm not sure if the evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (and it's clear that jurors held his failure to testify against him when they were specifically instructed not to).

There's a reason I consider juries a relic when it comes to justice systems.

[Teng Ai Hui]

According to the Wikipedia entry, there are going to be 12 episodes.

[Gears of the Beast]

I don't think this needs to be in spoilers since we don't really know what happened and there really isn't a plot per se. Regardless I don't want to be that guy so I will follow suit. I think Anon did it. Jay didn't really have motive and it would be pretty brazen to attempt to murder someone and frame someone else. I don't think a 17 yo could pull it off.

Yeah probably didn't need spoilers I just didn't want to colour anyone's view of what happened before they listened to it.

Anyway, yeah it would a pretty brazen but think about what we have to accept about Jay as a person even if we believe his bullshit story:

-he knows Adnan wants to kill her, does nothing about it

-he even helps Adnan dispose of the body and get away with the crime

-then he's brazen enough to go to the police and admit to basically being an accessory to murder while frequently lying and contradicting himself in his statements to police.

Jay has no obvious motive but Adnan's motive is pretty shaky, motive in general in a case like this is overrated imo. I'm not 100% convinced Jay did it, I'm not 100% convinced Adnan is innocent either but I think that's most likely the case. I am 100% convinced however that there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that beyond reasonable doubt Adnan murdered Hae and therefore he should have been found not guilty.

[The Iceman of the North]

Adnad's case moves through appeal

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals asked prosecutors to respond to the post-conviction appeal in September to see if they too believed Syed had ineffective counsel in a move Brown said is highly unusual. Ultimately, as millions of listeners try and parse the evidence for themselves, what happens next is up to the judges.

Seems the main sticking point is that the witness who allegedly spoke to Adnad in the library (episode 2) were never called to give testimony in any of the court cases.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I read a couple of interesting blog posts about the case last week. One argued that Jay's testimony was objectively not credible, the other went through the cell phone record call by call to pull apart the state's narrative, and to argue that the timeline was consistent with Jay having committed the murder. I found them very persuasive as I was reading them, but that feeling faded after I'd finished, in consideration of some things that still stick out to me, and the fact that this is just a random blog I probably saw linked on reddit or somewhere else. Still worthwhile.

Jay's (and Jenn's) stories are obviously fucked, but to me it's more plausible that Jay is trying to lie to minimize his involvement than it is that he had the audacity to try to frame Adnan. That is an insane risk to take, when you're giving the police information that only someone involved with the murder could have had (Hae's car and body location). I'm sure crazier things have happened (and I guess if he's a murderer he's already crazy as hell), but it's really tough for me to wrap my head around someone doing that and getting away with it.

The cell phone was definitely in Leakin Park at the time Jay says the body was buried. So either Adnan had given Jay his car and phone again while he was at Mosque (which I think he says he doesn't specifically remember doing), or Adnan was there. Adnan never paged Hae after her disappearance, when all of her other friends were frantically trying to get in touch with her.

I really have trouble with the whole lending out your cellphone thing. On this one, I just don't know, because it's a before my time kind of thing. I can absolutely see myself lending my car to a friend (and have), but lending my phone would never come up, if only because everyone has phones today. Was this actually a thing before cell phones became so ubiquitous, people lent them? And then, in Adnan's case, what we'd be saying is he bought the phone and then lent it out for a whole day very shortly after. Strikes me as extremely strange, but I don't know how things worked at the dawn of the cell phone age.

None of this, I guess, gets beyond reasonable doubt as I understand the term. But to really know how I'd feel about that specific standard I think I'd have to be a juror sitting in the court and instructed on its meaning. Casually, I'm still pretty convinced Adnan did it.

[Quoth]

Thanks for posting this, Onion! A while ago I unknowingly tuned into the middle of this broadcast on NPR in my car. I only caught about 10 minutes of it but I was very intrigued. Unfortunately, I was never able to find out more about it. Suddenly, voila! Here it is. Can't wait to dive into the podcasts. :)

[JonArryn]

Thanks for the tip about this. I just listened to the first episode and it was really engaging and quite haunting stuff to, to be honest. I'll definitely listen to the other episodes, but after the first episode I am kind of leaning to Adnan being guilty. There's just something about his story that doesn't add up to me and he do seem kind of manipulative when Sara spoke to him. He is very conveniently not remembering certain things, which she also brought up as a double edged sword kind of thing in the pod. The main thing this episode was Asia (I think that was her name) claiming she had met Adnan in the library and talked to him during the time time the murder was commited. I'm not really sure she is the most reliable witness, since she didn't state a specific time first, and that came later. She has certainly met him in the library, but the big question is what the exact time was.

Anyway, stuff like this is incredibly interesting to me. Court cases mishandled and persons who you don't know are innocent or guilty.

I really have trouble with the whole lending out your cellphone thing. On this one, I just don't know, because it's a before my time kind of thing. I can absolutely see myself lending my car to a friend (and have), but lending my phone would never come up, if only because everyone has phones today. Was this actually a thing before cell phones became so ubiquitous, people lent them? And then, in Adnan's case, what we'd be saying is he bought the phone and then lent it out for a whole day very shortly after. Strikes me as extremely strange, but I don't know how things worked at the dawn of the cell phone age.

In 1999 I don't think it's a big stretch that people could lend their phones to friends. The thing is that it wasn't any private information on phones during that time, people probably didn't even text that much. While nowadays we have all this personal information on our phones, back then it was merely a device you called with, which makes it much less personal, and not a big stretch to assume that someone could have a friend's phone for a whole day. Especially if they were marijuana buddies.

[JonArryn]

So instead of sleeping I listened up to episode 6 tonight. Really riveting stuff.

I agree with a poster above who said Jay couldn't have been able to frame him. It takes enormous chameleont and planning skills to pull off a move like that, and from the interrogations Jay doesn't sound really smart. That framing would need a criminal mastermind of some sort.

Adnan on the other hand sound very smart and always manage to come up with good answers to Sarahs questions. I think Adnan did it, and his biggest mistake was involving Jay. A textbook psychopath I think, but maybe my cynisism is speaking too much now.

No doubt the court case seemed like a complete clusterfuck, but I would be very surprised if he isn't guilty.

Another thing that's quite disturbing is how some places of note to the crime are places where Adnan had been with Hae. The old saying about revisiting crime scenes seem to be true here.

And this makes op's first post all the more interesting. Is this really a show about manipulation in different forms, but for me it doesn't matter. It's just as interesting no matter what.

[Gears of the Beast]

Framing Adnan does not require him to be a mastermind at all. Probably just a desperate move from a clearly stupid person. It fit with the police's preconceived notions about the vengeful ex-boyfriend scenario and from there all it took was a ton of clear confirmation bias from the police as they sifted through Jay's rambling collection of contradictions, lies and inconsistencies in order to cobble together some kind of plausible sounding scenario which conformed to the facts of the case. Which isn't difficult to do; someone on Reddit began with the conclusion that Jay did it and went through all the info and made a very convincing scenario.

[Ken Stone]

In 1999 I don't think it's a big stretch that people could lend their phones to friends. The thing is that it wasn't any private information on phones during that time, people probably didn't even text that much. While nowadays we have all this personal information on our phones, back then it was merely a device you called with, which makes it much less personal, and not a big stretch to assume that someone could have a friend's phone for a whole day. Especially if they were marijuana buddies.

I was in my early 20's in 1999. There is absolutely no way you would be lending your phone to a friend. First off making calls was much more expensive then it is today. You might loan it to make a call but not to carry around for a whole day. Also if Jay is the neighborhood weed supply, he should have his own damn cell phone. What kind of shitty drug dealer doesn't have a cell phone?

Also don't forget the huge sticking point with the cell phone. There is that girl whose name I don't remember that Anand called and put Jay on the phone with.

I wonder if what happened was Jay was looking out while Anand killed her, or something. Or maybe was even a little more active, like holding her down.

[Gears of the Beast]

New episode is out, focuses on Adnan's defense. I found this episode pretty depressing, the whole situation just becomes more and more depressing the more Sarah sheds light on it. Anyway, great work as always from Sarah.