Do you have a suggestion on how they should of ended it while still adhering to journalistic ethics?
Personally, I was fine with the end of the podcast but I'm curious what you think could have been done better.
A build-up to the ending. A better summation of the facts and their take on it. Really, a better summation. If you can't tie the whole case up you can at least tie up the facts and the unknowns and all that. (though you have to be careful here). You are ending a 12-part story, you need a definitive conclusion to your story/reporting/etc.
I was also really disappointed by the ending. They had to have known from the start that the chances of this ending with something conclusive on adnan's guilt or innocence were slim to none. Like earlier posters, what I liked the most about the podcast was the sort of inside look at how a murder case can go as well as the sort of interesting journey koenig took both in what she was thinking as she found new information and the crazy shit people said to her.
I'm supremely disappointed that even though she acknowledges herself, in the podcast, that you'll never know conclusively, that she still feels like the big finish is her giving an opinion on whether or not adnan's guilty. An opinion that she doesn't even let the audience themselves come to by laying out her case as best she can, despite adnan asking for just that. It left me feeling like there was basically no point to the podcast, because I could have told you half way through the first episode that adnan didn't seem guilty enough for a conviction, but that we we're never going to know for sure.
My choice for an ending would have been this:
You start with the summary that adnan was asking for. As best you can you go back over the previous episodes and quickly recap everything you know.
Next, if keonig really wants to state her opinon, then you do it here. But you make it a quick statement about what you think is key and you reiterate whether or not this represents beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction.
Now you spend the bulk/rest of the episode talking about whether or not it's a good idea for such life changing decisions to swing on basically zero evidence. This would be the first time I would talk about how the first jury was headed to acquittal. Really hammer home how little we know either way and ask as many people as possible if they thought this was a case of the system working as intended or totally fucked. This would also be where I would do interviews with the jurors were you really try and figure out why the said he was guilty, see if you could convince them that maybe he wasn't, and find out if they ever think about how shitty it would be if adnan was innocent. Maybe see if they still think this type of system is good or bad.
To me that was the natural ending for this podcast. Some kind of statement on the judicial system, whether or not it has major flaws, and how adnan's case fits in (is it a complete outlier). Those are things you can be far more certain of, and I think it gives the reader a lot more to reflect on, as well as sort of a new way of seeing the whole podcast (rather than as a who done it).
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
The TL;DR version:
The Asia Mclain alibi was key to Adnan's case. Christina Gutierrez(CG) said she contact Asia and that the alibi did not check out. In Asia's affidavit she stated that she was not contacted in anyway by CG or her team. She goes on to explain that Kevin Urick the prosecutor in the case incorrectly informed her about the case and told her not to testify at the post-conviction relief. At the post-conviction relief Urick claimed that Asia's original affidavit from 1999 was coerced by the Syed family something which Asia claims to be patently untrue. Adnan's current attorney is arguing that this is prosecutor misconduct. Because Adnan did not have an alibi for this period of time he asked CG to see if the state would offer a plea deal. CG then told Adnan that they had not offered one but she failed to actually contact the prosecutor to see if they would be willing to offer a plea. There are several notations where a person who claims their innocence still asks to see what a plea deal would offer them. So this appeal claims CG offered ineffective counsel violating Adnan's 6th amendment rights because she didn't follow up on the alibi and didn't pursue a plea deal and then lied about both. The document provides several case examples where a new alibi witness was enough to do post-conviction relief and look at a case again.
In Asia's second letter to Adnan in 1999 she points out that there was surveillance equipment at the library and that should be looked into. To our knowledge CG and no one on her team went to the library to follow up and see if the surveillance footage still existed. Throughout the whole document there is only one mention of Serial and it doesn't bring up any other information about the case besides the points of the alibi, ineffective counsel, and prosecutor misconduct. I was expecting there to be some mention of Jay Wild's change of the timeline during his interview with The Intercept. Since this wasn't an official court proceeding maybe they would have to get him to provide an affidavit or something similar stating the burial occurred around midnight which would also throw off the state's timeline that the Leakin Park cell tower pings at 7/8pm are when the body was burried. It will be interesting to see if this is enough to reopen the case.
________ Susan Simpson who is a lawyer that has been blogging about this case had this to say about CG's ineffective counsel:
No independent cellphone expert. No independent forensic expert. No pulling of security cameras. No pulling of e-mail records. No following up with important witnesses (I'm not even talking about Asia). Failure to conduct effective crosses on any witnesses. Failure to even care about the cellphone records. Failure to request testing of DNA evidence. The list goes on, and on, and on.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Do you have a suggestion on how they should of ended it while still adhering to journalistic ethics?
Personally, I was fine with the end of the podcast but I'm curious what you think could have been done better.
A build-up to the ending. A better summation of the facts and their take on it. Really, a better summation. If you can't tie the whole case up you can at least tie up the facts and the unknowns and all that. (though you have to be careful here). You are ending a 12-part story, you need a definitive conclusion to your story/reporting/etc.
I was also really disappointed by the ending. They had to have known from the start that the chances of this ending with something conclusive on adnan's guilt or innocence were slim to none. Like earlier posters, what I liked the most about the podcast was the sort of inside look at how a murder case can go as well as the sort of interesting journey koenig took both in what she was thinking as she found new information and the crazy shit people said to her.
I'm supremely disappointed that even though she acknowledges herself, in the podcast, that you'll never know conclusively, that she still feels like the big finish is her giving an opinion on whether or not adnan's guilty. An opinion that she doesn't even let the audience themselves come to by laying out her case as best she can, despite adnan asking for just that. It left me feeling like there was basically no point to the podcast, because I could have told you half way through the first episode that adnan didn't seem guilty enough for a conviction, but that we we're never going to know for sure.
My choice for an ending would have been this:
You start with the summary that adnan was asking for. As best you can you go back over the previous episodes and quickly recap everything you know.
Next, if keonig really wants to state her opinon, then you do it here. But you make it a quick statement about what you think is key and you reiterate whether or not this represents beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction.
Now you spend the bulk/rest of the episode talking about whether or not it's a good idea for such life changing decisions to swing on basically zero evidence. This would be the first time I would talk about how the first jury was headed to acquittal. Really hammer home how little we know either way and ask as many people as possible if they thought this was a case of the system working as intended or totally fucked. This would also be where I would do interviews with the jurors were you really try and figure out why the said he was guilty, see if you could convince them that maybe he wasn't, and find out if they ever think about how shitty it would be if adnan was innocent. Maybe see if they still think this type of system is good or bad.
To me that was the natural ending for this podcast. Some kind of statement on the judicial system, whether or not it has major flaws, and how adnan's case fits in (is it a complete outlier). Those are things you can be far more certain of, and I think it gives the reader a lot more to reflect on, as well as sort of a new way of seeing the whole podcast (rather than as a who done it).
That wouldn't really fit what the podcast was about though. It ending on her opinion is probably the best part of the ending.
The show was never about the horrible nature of parts of the justice system, although that's certainly something that can be taken from it, it was about the ability to know what actually happened that day. What made her obsessed about the case was not the miscarriage of justice (that's settled within about 2 episodes), it was the need to know what happened. It was not about what you want it to be about here. It's not a takedown of the judicial system, it's an examination of all this information, of spending like a year talking to this guy every week for hours and still not being able to pin down whether you even believe him, let alone the truth.
And so that's what ultimately ends the podcast. After all this, there can still be no certainty.
13 sites were tested by the cell expert. Only 2 of these sites they printed out actual data and then just had verbal answers for the other 11. Of the 2 they did have data for the expert either said the wrong thing for one of the towers or they transcribed it wrong. In the other case they tested the wrong location. So we have no way of knowing how accurate the other 11 test sites were.
The data provided by the expert seems to be from good testing and is accurate but this was misrepresented by the prosecution. For example the expert wrote down that while driving down the road next to Leakin park the cell test hit 2 towers. The prosecution used only one of these towers in their arguments while the other tower is over 3 miles away with 5 other towers that are geographically closer.
This testing was done from a car on a near by road but the actual location on that road is not listed. When a test occurred from the actual burial site by someone else it seemed that you could not obtain reception from 698B tower (the Leakin park tower the prosecution used) because of some hills in the way.
The prosecution used GPS data from the testing near Cathy's house but didn't tell us the GPS coordinates for the testing near Leakin park.
This goes to show that the prosecution probably had more evidence that the cell evidence around Leakin park was flimsy and declined to point this out in discovery to the defense or during the trial. It goes to show the adversarial nature of our justice system is kind of fucked up. Sure the defense could have found this information out but it would be nice if the prosecution released all their information without obfuscating it and making it look better for them. If you can't prosecute someone when all the evidence is presented, then maybe your evidence is flimsy and you shouldn't be trying to "win" in that manner.
and some funny comments from the reddit thread
Urick said it was a great case because Jay's testimony and the cell records supported each other. Hmmm, guess not.
Actually he's right, they do support each other - each is a fabrication designed to support the other.
Jay's testimony must be true because it backs up cell tower data that must be true because jay's testimony...
Norelco's razor applied again:
The theory using the most circular logic is the best.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
That theory from the final episode that maybe some totally unrelated to Jay, conveniently released serial killer was involved was the craziest out of left field bullshit, but if it was at all a factor in getting someone official to take another look, guess it was worth it.
That theory from the final episode that maybe some totally unrelated to Jay, conveniently released serial killer was involved was the craziest out of left field bullshit, but if it was at all a factor in getting someone official to take another look, guess it was worth it.
You didn't get the "wink wink nudge nudge" there. They were using the serial killer as a legal excuse to test the DNA. Once they can test it they might actually be able to see if it really matches any of the people actually associated with the case. I think the implication was they would not have been allowed to retest the DNA if claimed they were testing it against Jay.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
+2
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
ARISE!
Rumblings of Season 2 have started, and like was speculated, not a murder case, but super interesting all the same!
This has come from former members of his unit being interviewed by Sarah Koenig. Not 100% confirmed of course, she could just be reporting for This American Life, or putting feelers out for another story for Season 3 or something.
This has come from former members of his unit being interviewed by Sarah Koenig. Not 100% confirmed of course, she could just be reporting for This American Life, or putting feelers out for another story for Season 3 or something.
If true, this actually makes me sad. I'm sure it'll be good and all, but what really hooked me on Serial was the combination of great investigative journalism and a gripping true crime story. That particular combination doesn't really exist in podcast form (or if it has, I haven't found it) outside of Serial, and now apparently it won't be found inside of Serial either.
This has come from former members of his unit being interviewed by Sarah Koenig. Not 100% confirmed of course, she could just be reporting for This American Life, or putting feelers out for another story for Season 3 or something.
If true, this actually makes me sad. I'm sure it'll be good and all, but what really hooked me on Serial was the combination of great investigative journalism and a gripping true crime story. That particular combination doesn't really exist in podcast form (or if it has, I haven't found it) outside of Serial, and now apparently it won't be found inside of Serial either.
Criminal is kinda neat but it's bite-sized in scope comparatively.
I'm interested in the Bob Bergdahl case in part because it seems like another "unsolvable" riddle-like thing, where there's no real way to ever recover What Happened
yeah, it's not a murder mystery, but imo, the murder mystery aspect of Serial was what made it kind of tacky in terms of the fervor that swept up around it
I think they said at the end of season 1 that the next one was not going to be a true crime story. The intent was never to do that sort of genre, but instead do TAL style reporting but more in depth. Personally, I liked season 1 because it was a case study of the criminal justice system. The whodunit was great but it wasn't my biggest take away.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
+3
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
This has come from former members of his unit being interviewed by Sarah Koenig. Not 100% confirmed of course, she could just be reporting for This American Life, or putting feelers out for another story for Season 3 or something.
If true, this actually makes me sad. I'm sure it'll be good and all, but what really hooked me on Serial was the combination of great investigative journalism and a gripping true crime story. That particular combination doesn't really exist in podcast form (or if it has, I haven't found it) outside of Serial, and now apparently it won't be found inside of Serial either.
yeah, it's not a murder mystery, but imo, the murder mystery aspect of Serial was what made it kind of tacky in terms of the fervor that swept up around it
Tacky is the word, woof. I've been listening to some of this expanded fan stuff - Undisclosed is neat, it's Adnan's friend Rabia and a couple others pointing out minutiae of the case in his favour. Very biased, but interesting listening. The other big one tho, Serial Dynasty, it's bad times. The host just accuses anyone and everyone of being the murderer. Their current campaign is against Hae's current-at-the-time-boyfriend, Don. They've uncovered this evidence that his time sheet was faked. And it's pretty conclusively faked. But they're using this as proof that he must be the killer, cause why else would he fake an alibi!?
Other than, y'know. Not having an alibi and wanting one. >.>
So how does a case that looks so very slim on evidence, only has one witness with an ever changing story that doesn't match facts appear "above average" by an experienced detective? Why do law enforcement officers ignore inconvenient statements and leads in pursuit of building a case? Are the problems shown in this case really common in the way law enforcement handles other cases?
Case loads and case clearance rates.
Like any other corporate environment, when metrics like cases closed are heavily looked at for promotion/positive evaluations closing cases even if on flimsy evidence will be encouraged.
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
This has come from former members of his unit being interviewed by Sarah Koenig. Not 100% confirmed of course, she could just be reporting for This American Life, or putting feelers out for another story for Season 3 or something.
If true, this actually makes me sad. I'm sure it'll be good and all, but what really hooked me on Serial was the combination of great investigative journalism and a gripping true crime story. That particular combination doesn't really exist in podcast form (or if it has, I haven't found it) outside of Serial, and now apparently it won't be found inside of Serial either.
It wasn't much of a news story over here, so it is indeed all new stuff to my ears. I guess it's a tired topic for US listeners though? The general reaction to Season 2 so far has seemed fairly lacklustre, due in no small part to Sarah Koenig not having any first hand contact with Bowe, but rather her commenting on existing audio interview between Bowe and a film maker.
The promise in the first episode was that this story would zoom out, and not be so much about Bowe, why he did what he did, but it is taking it's sweet time to get to the point. Which I assume is "how did the military let this guy get to the frontline?"
Anyway, we're 5 episodes in now (it's gone bi-weekly) and most of the other venues for talking Serial are... unpleasant. Be nice to talk to PA nerds about it. ;D
Sarah Koenig has built up enough brownie points with me that I'll listen to the whole season no matter what. I, too, was hoping for more of the bigger picture. I haven't listened to it yet, but Episode 5 is titled "Meanwhile in Tampa". So I'm guessing this is a bigger picture episode. I think they could have condensed the first 4 episodes into 2 episodes.
As a US listener, a lot of this stuff is new. The extent of my knowledge before this was Berghdal walked off base, got captured, was held for 5 years, then he was released. He was instantly reviled for walking off base. To my knowledge the rest of the details we are learning about DUSTWUN, his captors in Pakistan, and basic treatment were not really covered in basic news.
I've heard on other forums that Berghdal had various mental issues which got him kicked out of the Coast Guard. Also rumors that people knew he had mental issues in the Army but they were really in need of soldiers so it was overlooked.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited January 2016
As predicted, I find this season as well or better produced than the previous one, and Koenig is still a great enough journalist that she can tell a good story, but I'm pretty bored by the subject matter and have yet to listen past episode... 2, I think? Maybe 3?
Obviously this is just my personal preference and Serial doesn't have to be for me. But I'm guessing that a lot season 1's audience is like me--people turned on good true crime journalism who have since switched from Serial to Undisclosed, Criminal, or shows like Making a Murderer or The Jinx.
Edit: I do really like the new version of the theme, though. I hope they continue to change that up every season.
As predicted, I find this season as well or better produced than the previous one, and Koenig is still a great enough journalist that she can tell a good story, but I'm pretty bored by the subject matter and have yet to listen past episode... 2, I think? Maybe 3?
Obviously this is just my personal preference and Serial doesn't have to be for me. But I'm guessing that a lot season 1's audience is like me--people turned on good true crime journalism who have since switched from Serial to Undisclosed, Criminal, or shows like Making a Murderer or The Jinx.
Edit: I do really like the new version of the theme, though. I hope they continue to change that up every season.
I think it's more that this season lacks the implicit hook of "What really happened?" for people to endlessly speculate about. You don't need true crime stories to achieve that, but I don't think this subject does.
shryke on
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
The new theme music is great. Gives it that sequel feeling, just similar enough. The horns are a very nice touch.
Also got a giggle out of the intro this week - "one story told week by week... sort of."
Season 1 was kind of my intro to podcasts, (along with This American Life and Welcome to Night Vale), and as such, it wasn't as hard to keep up with it. But in the intervening time I have developed a bit of a habit, and the release of season 2 was during a period where I didn't have time to listen to my normal podcast regiment, so I've fallen behind. Even though I'm catching up, now, it feels like I'm just hopelessly behind, which is frustrating.
But season 2 is good. Very different than season 1, which is for the better: the show shakes off the voyeurs and maintains the people actually interested in the journalism. Serial was, at its core, about doing the best reporting possible, even if it doesn't give you a nice "story" (hence season 1's "lackluster" ending).
As predicted, I find this season as well or better produced than the previous one, and Koenig is still a great enough journalist that she can tell a good story, but I'm pretty bored by the subject matter and have yet to listen past episode... 2, I think? Maybe 3?
Obviously this is just my personal preference and Serial doesn't have to be for me. But I'm guessing that a lot season 1's audience is like me--people turned on good true crime journalism who have since switched from Serial to Undisclosed, Criminal, or shows like Making a Murderer or The Jinx.
Edit: I do really like the new version of the theme, though. I hope they continue to change that up every season.
If you don't have the time I would skip directly to episode 5. They start talking about bigger issues.
Edit: I'm enjoying it a lot more than episodes 1-4.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
In case anyone missed it, Sarah Koenig and Dana Chivis are taking a few days off from season 2 to report on Adnan's hearing. The first 2 days are over and they have small 15 minute podcast recaps of what is going on.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It's fascinating because the Undisclosed podcast is doing the exact same thing, and it's neat to see what they pick up on as people who are way more familiar with the details of the case (they're lawyers, too) versus Sarah as a journalist.
Like there was a point in the testimony where the state brought up an interview that sounded like it might have been suspicious, like Adnan had mentioned to the interviewee that he wrote to a girl asking for a typed letter, just like the letter the alibi witness being cross-examined says she wrote unsolicited. Sarah was like "hmmm, this gives me pause." The Undisclosed people were like laughing, dismissing it because they knew Adnan was talking about something completely different (getting classmates to write letters to support him during his bail hearing), they had the actual interview notes which they read, and they knew the state knew it was just blowing smoke because the state hadn't actually entered the notes into evidence (just referenced them in a question).
Koenig is a brilliant journalist and storyteller, but she's not at her best reacting off the cuff to this hearing. Still it's a good kind of informed layman's view.
Remember that Rabia and the rest of the people on Undisclosed are not exactly an impartial party. I remember in Season 1 there were a few piece of evidence that seemed informative but on Rabia's blog she saw it as amazing proof that Adnan was innocent. Hearing her viewpoint around Season 1 was interesting but I definitely took it with a grain of salt.
Susan Simpson seemed to have a little bias in her posts but she seemed to stick to facts without reaching to draw conclusions.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I am very much enjoying season two, as much as one can "enjoy" the subject at least. Listened to the first five episodes this week.
Some of it is just infuriating to me.
It is nice to get the deep dive into a story that, frankly, I'd largely ignored. Felt the whole thing was so political by the time it hit the mainstream that I didn't care to listen.
Still good so far. It's odd how little conversation I've heard about this year's podcast though, here and elsewhere. Season 1 was a sensation, this is just...there.
So my take so far:
I definitely had some similar experiences to Bowe. I recall specifically having a ridiculous commander who was more worried about minutiae and how we made him look than the actual unit, for instance. I even recall, for a moment, entertaining that thought that he might put soldiers in danger intentionally as retribution (didn't really last though). I do think our commander put soldiers in danger unnecessarily for the purpose of his OER though, and that he gave not one shit about us. In fact, that's the reason I decided he wouldn't intentionally put people in danger maliciously...because that would mean he cared.
And a first sergeant not wanting to hear about issues with a guy from a junior NCO? Figuring somebody should just "fix it" or at the very least let him ignore it? Sounds about right.
Army recruiters ignoring a clearly mentally...iffy...prospect in order to make their numbers, figuring that'll be the drill sergeant's (or the receiving unit's) problem? Yuuuuup.
Heck, I even know guys like Bowe that seemed to fancy themselves ridiculous warrior-philosophers. All of this is just memory lane to me. And that all of that would mix to create a kid who actually comes up with this ridiculous idea? Perfectly believable. Maybe it's bullshit, but honestly it seems spot on.
It's horrifying to me that what seems to have happened here is political intervention into something that would probably have been best handled quietly by the military. I'm infuriated when I think about the hardship and casualties inflicted due to his stupid, stupid act. At the same time, when you get down to it, five years in Taliban captivity is almost certainly sufficient punishment. A quiet separation would have been the proper outcome, IMO. Even now, after a trial, I'd hope that his time in captivity is considered...heavily...in sentencing. But IMO the Army fucked up by ever putting him in that situation, and his chain fucked up by ignoring what seem to be early warning signs of issues. I can't put all the blame on Berghdahl. Not if I take a significant portion of what I'm hearing so far at face value.
Which, to me, seems more realistic than the idea that he was any sort of Taliban defector or even a straight deserter.
*shrug*
I'm mostly curious at this point why this season has failed to make any particularly dent in the popular culture. Guess the previous season really was just popular due to the true-crime nature.
I did also like the bit about trying to take anything he said or wrote during deployment in context, and that most of us see things we said or wrote back then and are like...WTF? It's a fucked-up situation. I did like the "make Ft. Hood look like church" line, and I've totally heard and said similar.
I wasn't in the army or anything, but I think we all know some Bowe-types. He almost seems like a real life Dwight Schrute or something. A sort of dorky, introverted guy who fancies himself a modern day samurai warrior.
I thought the best episodes by far were the last few, starting with the one that finally explains why Bowe left (which made for the jaw dropping moment of the season for most people I'm sure.) Like Sarah said, a poorly planned/executed mission that put lives in danger (probably needlessly) and a commanding officer who's a dick? That just sounds like what I pictured the army to be. Then it's followed by the last two, which really help you understand that, yes, someone out there would think that walking off post would be a reasonable course of action, and that person is Bowe, because he's........well, he's unique let's say.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I'm mostly curious at this point why this season has failed to make any particularly dent in the popular culture. Guess the previous season really was just popular due to the true-crime nature.
I think the big difference is that season 1 got a lot of media exposure because it was a new story that hadn't really been reported before. Whereas the Bowe story is something that already has gone through the cultural grinder, even if it hasn't been told with this kind of depth to it.
There's also just a smaller narrative hook this time around. Season 1, the question of the show was really big and easy for people to grasp: did this guy do it, or not? The potential was there that a gross injustice had been committed. The Bowe case, everybody knows basically what happened--he left, he was captured, he was held, he was traded, now he's being charged for leaving--and the question the season is asking is something a lot more nuanced and less dramatic (more kind of, exactly how much should Bowe be held responsible/punished for his actions, based on what may or may not have been his motives).
So while season 2 is still pretty interesting, the stakes are lower, the discussion around it is more nuanced, and most people have already heard about Bowe (the trade, at least, was a huge story for a week or two).
Also I don't think "commander who's a bit of a dick" covers it. I think that, much like the "bond of brotherhood" the recent episode discussed, the relationship with command (and NCOs) that develops can't be fully understood if you haven't been in.
The level of control of your life...and safety...that a commander has is pretty extreme. They really can and do put your life at risk, and sometimes it's for very little reason.
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
edited June 2016
That is surprising. Seems like the IAC claim succeeded for the fax cover sheet, but not Asia McClain's testimony. Basically the opposite of what Adnan's team thought would win it for him...
Wonder if he'll get bail and be out of jail til a new trial?
Would ordinarily assume there would be no new trial, and that he'd take a plea deal, but with how steadfast he's been on not accepting a guilty plea deal, I dunno. He might go for a trial. In which case, would the state even bother retrying him? Jay's credibility is shot, as is the cell phone evidence. They ain't got a lot against him...
That is surprising. Seems like the IAC claim succeeded for the fax cover sheet, but not Asia McClain's testimony. Basically the opposite of what Adnan's team thought would win it for him...
Wonder if he'll get bail and be out of jail til a new trial?
Would ordinarily assume there would be no new trial, and that he'd take a plea deal, but with how steadfast he's been on not accepting a guilty plea deal, I dunno. He might go for a trial. In which case, would the state even bother retrying him? Jay's credibility is shot, as is the cell phone evidence. They ain't got a lot against him...
I wouldn't be surprised if the state tries because letting this case flounder would upend careers. That said, as you pointed out, the prosecutor would not only have an uphill road, as a lot of the evidence that was used to convict the last time has been heavily undermined, but would also be under a magnifying glass by the media.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
They might do what happened with the West Memphis 3 and try to make him take an Alford Plea, which is where, without admitting guilt, he admits the state had a case, and so he can go home but can't sue the state over the case. Kind of a face-saving thing and maybe a safer bet (if Adnan will take it) than a third trial which would be very highly publicized and could easily result in a very public loss for the state.
They might do what happened with the West Memphis 3 and try to make him take an Alford Plea, which is where, without admitting guilt, he admits the state had a case, and so he can go home but can't sue the state over the case. Kind of a face-saving thing and maybe a safer bet (if Adnan will take it) than a third trial which would be very highly publicized and could easily result in a very public loss for the state.
I hope that if they offer that, Syed's team tells the state to go fuck itself.
Adnan’s conviction turned on two things – a state witness, Jay Wilds, who testified to having helped him bury the body, and Adnan’s cellphone records that the prosecution introduced to corroborate Wilds’ story of his and Adnan’s movements on 13 January 1999, the day the victim Hae Min Lee disappeared. The state argued the cell records could be used to track Adnan’s movements and back up Wilds’ story, pointing in particular to two incoming phone calls to Adnan’s phone around 7pm that night, both of which pinged a cell tower that covered the area where the victim’s body was found.
Wilds changed his story during the investigation and trial, and did so again most recently in an interview with the publication the Intercept. In that, he says the burial took place around midnight, negating any significance the cell records had in placing Adnan near the burial site around 7pm.
What further undermined the significance of the cell records was a fax cover sheet discovered by Susan Simpson, an attorney and the co-host of our podcast, Undisclosed. Simpson noticed the cover sheet clearly stated that incoming call information was not reliable for location of the phone. Adnan’s attorney at trial never caught this information, for whatever reason (including the possibility that the state didn’t give it to her). This issue was raised in Adnan’s recent appeal, and ultimately became the reason the judge threw his conviction out and ordered a new trial.
As it stands now, Adnan Syed is an innocent man. He is no longer convicted of any crime but remains charged with the murder of Hae Min Lee, just as he was before trial in 1999. He will remain innocent until and unless the State of Maryland can prove his guilt all over again.
But they can’t because we can prove his innocence with the two pieces of factual information that are irrefutable: that Lee left school after 2.15pm and was intercepted by her killer by 3.30pm on 13 January 1999, after which the family realized something was wrong. Lee picked up her young cousin from elementary school every day by 3.30pm, but that day she never made it.
The second fact we have relates to the findings of the autopsy report. According to the medical examiner and other forensic pathologists who have reviewed the crime scene pictures and autopsy reports, Lee’s body showed fixed frontal lividity, the phenomenon in which, after death, all the blood pools to the part of the body closest to the ground. Such lividity could only be present if, after being killed, Lee was left in a face down position, stretched out, for between eight and 10 hours. When Lee’s body was found in Leakin Park, Baltimore, it was twisted and resting mostly on her right side. This means after her body was moved to the burial site after lividity had become permanent. Hae was not dumped in Leakin Park around 7pm. Her body was kept somewhere where it could lay flat for around 10 hours before it was moved to the park.
The killer had to both have the opportunity and means to intercept Hae by 3.30pm and to kill her, leave her body in a flat position somewhere private for eight to 10 hours, then move her later to Leakin Park.
Adnan could not have done these things.
Among the judge’s findings, which we’ve been attempting to get to court for many years, is a confirmation of the credibility of the testimony of an alibi witness, Asia McClain, who was never contacted by Adnan’s defense counsel. McClain testified before the appellate court that she was with Adnan in the public library until around 2.40pm. We have gathered evidence, which is not yet public, that confirms Adnan attended track practice that day and arrived for practice by 3.30pm. After seeing McClain, Adnan had to change for practice and then walk to the other side of the school for it. We have other witnesses who saw him on his way to track practice, meaning the time between when he was seen by McClain and by the time Lee was intercepted is largely accounted for.
The appellate judge further destroyed the state’s case regarding what happened in this timeframe in a lengthy footnote to his 59-page opinion. Judge Welch found that the cell records contradicted nearly every part of the state’s case and Wilds’ testimony in the time frame during which Lee was known to have disappeared.
This, coupled, with Adnan having no opportunity or means to store Lee’s body in a flat position (not in the boot of her small car as the state would have us believe) for up to 10 hours and then move it to the burial spot, is nearly enough for a finding of actual innocence.
That’s not all though. We know that every piece of forensic evidence collected pointed to Adnan’s innocence. From the hairs found Lee’s body, which did not match Adnan, to the dozens of soil samples taken from his clothing, shoes, car, and room, which returned negative results for matching soil from Leakin Park.
The ball is now in the state’s court. It can drop charges, appeal the recent ruling, or offer Adnan a plea deal. One way or the other Adnan is likely to come home soon, but I’ll continue to work with investigators until we make it clear to the world that he is innocent of this terrible crime. And then we must all challenge the state to reopen the investigation into the murder of Hae Min Lee.
Posts
I was also really disappointed by the ending. They had to have known from the start that the chances of this ending with something conclusive on adnan's guilt or innocence were slim to none. Like earlier posters, what I liked the most about the podcast was the sort of inside look at how a murder case can go as well as the sort of interesting journey koenig took both in what she was thinking as she found new information and the crazy shit people said to her.
I'm supremely disappointed that even though she acknowledges herself, in the podcast, that you'll never know conclusively, that she still feels like the big finish is her giving an opinion on whether or not adnan's guilty. An opinion that she doesn't even let the audience themselves come to by laying out her case as best she can, despite adnan asking for just that. It left me feeling like there was basically no point to the podcast, because I could have told you half way through the first episode that adnan didn't seem guilty enough for a conviction, but that we we're never going to know for sure.
My choice for an ending would have been this:
To me that was the natural ending for this podcast. Some kind of statement on the judicial system, whether or not it has major flaws, and how adnan's case fits in (is it a complete outlier). Those are things you can be far more certain of, and I think it gives the reader a lot more to reflect on, as well as sort of a new way of seeing the whole podcast (rather than as a who done it).
The TL;DR version:
The Asia Mclain alibi was key to Adnan's case. Christina Gutierrez(CG) said she contact Asia and that the alibi did not check out. In Asia's affidavit she stated that she was not contacted in anyway by CG or her team. She goes on to explain that Kevin Urick the prosecutor in the case incorrectly informed her about the case and told her not to testify at the post-conviction relief. At the post-conviction relief Urick claimed that Asia's original affidavit from 1999 was coerced by the Syed family something which Asia claims to be patently untrue. Adnan's current attorney is arguing that this is prosecutor misconduct. Because Adnan did not have an alibi for this period of time he asked CG to see if the state would offer a plea deal. CG then told Adnan that they had not offered one but she failed to actually contact the prosecutor to see if they would be willing to offer a plea. There are several notations where a person who claims their innocence still asks to see what a plea deal would offer them. So this appeal claims CG offered ineffective counsel violating Adnan's 6th amendment rights because she didn't follow up on the alibi and didn't pursue a plea deal and then lied about both. The document provides several case examples where a new alibi witness was enough to do post-conviction relief and look at a case again.
In Asia's second letter to Adnan in 1999 she points out that there was surveillance equipment at the library and that should be looked into. To our knowledge CG and no one on her team went to the library to follow up and see if the surveillance footage still existed. Throughout the whole document there is only one mention of Serial and it doesn't bring up any other information about the case besides the points of the alibi, ineffective counsel, and prosecutor misconduct. I was expecting there to be some mention of Jay Wild's change of the timeline during his interview with The Intercept. Since this wasn't an official court proceeding maybe they would have to get him to provide an affidavit or something similar stating the burial occurred around midnight which would also throw off the state's timeline that the Leakin Park cell tower pings at 7/8pm are when the body was burried. It will be interesting to see if this is enough to reopen the case.
________
Susan Simpson who is a lawyer that has been blogging about this case had this to say about CG's ineffective counsel:
That wouldn't really fit what the podcast was about though. It ending on her opinion is probably the best part of the ending.
The show was never about the horrible nature of parts of the justice system, although that's certainly something that can be taken from it, it was about the ability to know what actually happened that day. What made her obsessed about the case was not the miscarriage of justice (that's settled within about 2 episodes), it was the need to know what happened. It was not about what you want it to be about here. It's not a takedown of the judicial system, it's an examination of all this information, of spending like a year talking to this guy every week for hours and still not being able to pin down whether you even believe him, let alone the truth.
And so that's what ultimately ends the podcast. After all this, there can still be no certainty.
The TL;DR highlights
This goes to show that the prosecution probably had more evidence that the cell evidence around Leakin park was flimsy and declined to point this out in discovery to the defense or during the trial. It goes to show the adversarial nature of our justice system is kind of fucked up. Sure the defense could have found this information out but it would be nice if the prosecution released all their information without obfuscating it and making it look better for them. If you can't prosecute someone when all the evidence is presented, then maybe your evidence is flimsy and you shouldn't be trying to "win" in that manner.
and some funny comments from the reddit thread
You didn't get the "wink wink nudge nudge" there. They were using the serial killer as a legal excuse to test the DNA. Once they can test it they might actually be able to see if it really matches any of the people actually associated with the case. I think the implication was they would not have been allowed to retest the DNA if claimed they were testing it against Jay.
Rumblings of Season 2 have started, and like was speculated, not a murder case, but super interesting all the same!
This has come from former members of his unit being interviewed by Sarah Koenig. Not 100% confirmed of course, she could just be reporting for This American Life, or putting feelers out for another story for Season 3 or something.
That could be interesting.
If true, this actually makes me sad. I'm sure it'll be good and all, but what really hooked me on Serial was the combination of great investigative journalism and a gripping true crime story. That particular combination doesn't really exist in podcast form (or if it has, I haven't found it) outside of Serial, and now apparently it won't be found inside of Serial either.
Criminal is kinda neat but it's bite-sized in scope comparatively.
I'm interested in the Bob Bergdahl case in part because it seems like another "unsolvable" riddle-like thing, where there's no real way to ever recover What Happened
yeah, it's not a murder mystery, but imo, the murder mystery aspect of Serial was what made it kind of tacky in terms of the fervor that swept up around it
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Tacky is the word, woof. I've been listening to some of this expanded fan stuff - Undisclosed is neat, it's Adnan's friend Rabia and a couple others pointing out minutiae of the case in his favour. Very biased, but interesting listening. The other big one tho, Serial Dynasty, it's bad times. The host just accuses anyone and everyone of being the murderer. Their current campaign is against Hae's current-at-the-time-boyfriend, Don. They've uncovered this evidence that his time sheet was faked. And it's pretty conclusively faked. But they're using this as proof that he must be the killer, cause why else would he fake an alibi!?
Other than, y'know. Not having an alibi and wanting one. >.>
Or maybe I'm just a dirtbag who really liked that extra $6 I could squeeze out of claiming I worked an extra hour in high school.
Case loads and case clearance rates.
Like any other corporate environment, when metrics like cases closed are heavily looked at for promotion/positive evaluations closing cases even if on flimsy evidence will be encouraged.
The rumours were true, Season 2 is indeed about Bowe Bergdahl, and none of us are talking about it here. :<
It wasn't much of a news story over here, so it is indeed all new stuff to my ears. I guess it's a tired topic for US listeners though? The general reaction to Season 2 so far has seemed fairly lacklustre, due in no small part to Sarah Koenig not having any first hand contact with Bowe, but rather her commenting on existing audio interview between Bowe and a film maker.
The promise in the first episode was that this story would zoom out, and not be so much about Bowe, why he did what he did, but it is taking it's sweet time to get to the point. Which I assume is "how did the military let this guy get to the frontline?"
Anyway, we're 5 episodes in now (it's gone bi-weekly) and most of the other venues for talking Serial are... unpleasant. Be nice to talk to PA nerds about it. ;D
As a US listener, a lot of this stuff is new. The extent of my knowledge before this was Berghdal walked off base, got captured, was held for 5 years, then he was released. He was instantly reviled for walking off base. To my knowledge the rest of the details we are learning about DUSTWUN, his captors in Pakistan, and basic treatment were not really covered in basic news.
I've heard on other forums that Berghdal had various mental issues which got him kicked out of the Coast Guard. Also rumors that people knew he had mental issues in the Army but they were really in need of soldiers so it was overlooked.
Obviously this is just my personal preference and Serial doesn't have to be for me. But I'm guessing that a lot season 1's audience is like me--people turned on good true crime journalism who have since switched from Serial to Undisclosed, Criminal, or shows like Making a Murderer or The Jinx.
Edit: I do really like the new version of the theme, though. I hope they continue to change that up every season.
I think it's more that this season lacks the implicit hook of "What really happened?" for people to endlessly speculate about. You don't need true crime stories to achieve that, but I don't think this subject does.
Also got a giggle out of the intro this week - "one story told week by week... sort of."
Season 1 was kind of my intro to podcasts, (along with This American Life and Welcome to Night Vale), and as such, it wasn't as hard to keep up with it. But in the intervening time I have developed a bit of a habit, and the release of season 2 was during a period where I didn't have time to listen to my normal podcast regiment, so I've fallen behind. Even though I'm catching up, now, it feels like I'm just hopelessly behind, which is frustrating.
But season 2 is good. Very different than season 1, which is for the better: the show shakes off the voyeurs and maintains the people actually interested in the journalism. Serial was, at its core, about doing the best reporting possible, even if it doesn't give you a nice "story" (hence season 1's "lackluster" ending).
Let's Plays of Japanese Games
If you don't have the time I would skip directly to episode 5. They start talking about bigger issues.
Edit: I'm enjoying it a lot more than episodes 1-4.
https://serialpodcast.org/season-one/adnan-syeds-hearing
Like there was a point in the testimony where the state brought up an interview that sounded like it might have been suspicious, like Adnan had mentioned to the interviewee that he wrote to a girl asking for a typed letter, just like the letter the alibi witness being cross-examined says she wrote unsolicited. Sarah was like "hmmm, this gives me pause." The Undisclosed people were like laughing, dismissing it because they knew Adnan was talking about something completely different (getting classmates to write letters to support him during his bail hearing), they had the actual interview notes which they read, and they knew the state knew it was just blowing smoke because the state hadn't actually entered the notes into evidence (just referenced them in a question).
Koenig is a brilliant journalist and storyteller, but she's not at her best reacting off the cuff to this hearing. Still it's a good kind of informed layman's view.
Susan Simpson seemed to have a little bias in her posts but she seemed to stick to facts without reaching to draw conclusions.
Some of it is just infuriating to me.
It is nice to get the deep dive into a story that, frankly, I'd largely ignored. Felt the whole thing was so political by the time it hit the mainstream that I didn't care to listen.
So my take so far:
I definitely had some similar experiences to Bowe. I recall specifically having a ridiculous commander who was more worried about minutiae and how we made him look than the actual unit, for instance. I even recall, for a moment, entertaining that thought that he might put soldiers in danger intentionally as retribution (didn't really last though). I do think our commander put soldiers in danger unnecessarily for the purpose of his OER though, and that he gave not one shit about us. In fact, that's the reason I decided he wouldn't intentionally put people in danger maliciously...because that would mean he cared.
And a first sergeant not wanting to hear about issues with a guy from a junior NCO? Figuring somebody should just "fix it" or at the very least let him ignore it? Sounds about right.
Army recruiters ignoring a clearly mentally...iffy...prospect in order to make their numbers, figuring that'll be the drill sergeant's (or the receiving unit's) problem? Yuuuuup.
Heck, I even know guys like Bowe that seemed to fancy themselves ridiculous warrior-philosophers. All of this is just memory lane to me. And that all of that would mix to create a kid who actually comes up with this ridiculous idea? Perfectly believable. Maybe it's bullshit, but honestly it seems spot on.
It's horrifying to me that what seems to have happened here is political intervention into something that would probably have been best handled quietly by the military. I'm infuriated when I think about the hardship and casualties inflicted due to his stupid, stupid act. At the same time, when you get down to it, five years in Taliban captivity is almost certainly sufficient punishment. A quiet separation would have been the proper outcome, IMO. Even now, after a trial, I'd hope that his time in captivity is considered...heavily...in sentencing. But IMO the Army fucked up by ever putting him in that situation, and his chain fucked up by ignoring what seem to be early warning signs of issues. I can't put all the blame on Berghdahl. Not if I take a significant portion of what I'm hearing so far at face value.
Which, to me, seems more realistic than the idea that he was any sort of Taliban defector or even a straight deserter.
*shrug*
I'm mostly curious at this point why this season has failed to make any particularly dent in the popular culture. Guess the previous season really was just popular due to the true-crime nature.
I did also like the bit about trying to take anything he said or wrote during deployment in context, and that most of us see things we said or wrote back then and are like...WTF? It's a fucked-up situation. I did like the "make Ft. Hood look like church" line, and I've totally heard and said similar.
I thought the best episodes by far were the last few, starting with the one that finally explains why Bowe left (which made for the jaw dropping moment of the season for most people I'm sure.) Like Sarah said, a poorly planned/executed mission that put lives in danger (probably needlessly) and a commanding officer who's a dick? That just sounds like what I pictured the army to be. Then it's followed by the last two, which really help you understand that, yes, someone out there would think that walking off post would be a reasonable course of action, and that person is Bowe, because he's........well, he's unique let's say.
I think the big difference is that season 1 got a lot of media exposure because it was a new story that hadn't really been reported before. Whereas the Bowe story is something that already has gone through the cultural grinder, even if it hasn't been told with this kind of depth to it.
There's also just a smaller narrative hook this time around. Season 1, the question of the show was really big and easy for people to grasp: did this guy do it, or not? The potential was there that a gross injustice had been committed. The Bowe case, everybody knows basically what happened--he left, he was captured, he was held, he was traded, now he's being charged for leaving--and the question the season is asking is something a lot more nuanced and less dramatic (more kind of, exactly how much should Bowe be held responsible/punished for his actions, based on what may or may not have been his motives).
So while season 2 is still pretty interesting, the stakes are lower, the discussion around it is more nuanced, and most people have already heard about Bowe (the trade, at least, was a huge story for a week or two).
And it's important, at least if you care to talk about the case.
I guess that's what I love about Serial. It's the opposite of our sound bite culture.
The level of control of your life...and safety...that a commander has is pretty extreme. They really can and do put your life at risk, and sometimes it's for very little reason.
Wonder if he'll get bail and be out of jail til a new trial?
Would ordinarily assume there would be no new trial, and that he'd take a plea deal, but with how steadfast he's been on not accepting a guilty plea deal, I dunno. He might go for a trial. In which case, would the state even bother retrying him? Jay's credibility is shot, as is the cell phone evidence. They ain't got a lot against him...
I wouldn't be surprised if the state tries because letting this case flounder would upend careers. That said, as you pointed out, the prosecutor would not only have an uphill road, as a lot of the evidence that was used to convict the last time has been heavily undermined, but would also be under a magnifying glass by the media.
I hope that if they offer that, Syed's team tells the state to go fuck itself.
That's all I've got for now.
Except that yeah, I hope Syed stands firm.
Despite the State's timeline issues, I feel like that won't happen unless the finger can be conclusively pointed at Jay or some other party.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State