The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
[Serial] podcast. A case study in how our justice system sucks.
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.
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).
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.
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