That's God telling you it's time for a second listen. And to convert your friends.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Serial: Season 01 Discussion - This American Life meets True Detective
- Thread starter Malyse
- Start date
- Status
lol.. I doubt this would have nearly the appeal if it were fiction.
Hah you clown.
"Serial is a new podcast from the creators of This American Life, hosted by Sarah Koenig. Serial will follow one story - a true story - over the course of a whole season"
MAN that driving-around-town and talking-about-cell-towers episode must have SUCKED if you didn't think it was a real story.
"Serial is a new podcast from the creators of This American Life, hosted by Sarah Koenig. Serial will follow one story - a true story - over the course of a whole season"
MAN that driving-around-town and talking-about-cell-towers episode must have SUCKED if you didn't think it was a real story.
backflip10019
Member
Yeah, I was wondering why they went into so much detail. I was kind of floored how in depth it was to be honest. Kinda sad it's real. I thought they were putting on a really good jig.
I think the thing that gets me the most is that Adnan said Jay and him weren't really friends. So why would he call Jay to partake in what he said?
This whole episode about the route is great though. According to a Rolling Stone interview with Sarah she stumbled upon some potentially very important info.
This whole episode about the route is great though. According to a Rolling Stone interview with Sarah she stumbled upon some potentially very important info.
It is hard to reconcile Adnan saying they were not friends with the track coach saying that he saw Jay drop off and pick up Adnan from practice countless times, unless Jay was his butler or something. Or Adnan giving Jay his car and cell phone for a day. Or them smoking together on a regular basis. To a third-party observer, it sure seems like they were friends.
dead souls
Member
Yeah, that threw me too. Hell, I won't even lend my car to most of my family members let alone people who aren't my friends. Adnan is clearly understating his level of involvement with Jay.
Spectromixer
Member
Can't wait for tomorrow's episode. Hopefully it will look into Adna's story more.
RepairmanJack
Member
I've been obsessed with this podcast, often listening multiple times each episode. Surprised I didn't see this thread until now.
This episode was odd for me. So many things in this episode point to Adnan being someone who just refuses to be wrong. He hates and dismisses the idea that he'd be innocent just because he's nice, similar to he'd probably hate someone ending an argument without admitting being wrong. While everything points to that, how does this same person not posit his own theory? How has he not blamed Jay and instead just denied other peoples accounts of the events? Someone so hell bent on being right at all times strikes me as someone who over time would have their own theories and ideas, but then when he's asked about stuff like the Nisha call, or not trying to contact Hae all he does is deny other's stories or come up with ways they can be doubted rather than come up with his own theory.
Going as far as making jailhouse BBQ sauce to win an argument makes me think that he would come up with better excuses to the accusations other than "Me and Jay weren't that close.", or "She was butt dialed and the answering machine picked up.", or "I was at the library". So much of his story just seems like dismissal of Jay rather than actually explaining what happened. It's more "that dudes a liar", than "I didn't do this."
This episode just drove me crazy and makes me even less understanding of Adnan. I just have no clue what to think of him now.
This episode was odd for me. So many things in this episode point to Adnan being someone who just refuses to be wrong. He hates and dismisses the idea that he'd be innocent just because he's nice, similar to he'd probably hate someone ending an argument without admitting being wrong. While everything points to that, how does this same person not posit his own theory? How has he not blamed Jay and instead just denied other peoples accounts of the events? Someone so hell bent on being right at all times strikes me as someone who over time would have their own theories and ideas, but then when he's asked about stuff like the Nisha call, or not trying to contact Hae all he does is deny other's stories or come up with ways they can be doubted rather than come up with his own theory.
Going as far as making jailhouse BBQ sauce to win an argument makes me think that he would come up with better excuses to the accusations other than "Me and Jay weren't that close.", or "She was butt dialed and the answering machine picked up.", or "I was at the library". So much of his story just seems like dismissal of Jay rather than actually explaining what happened. It's more "that dudes a liar", than "I didn't do this."
This episode just drove me crazy and makes me even less understanding of Adnan. I just have no clue what to think of him now.
Episode 6:
Coming into this episode I was questioning Jay and the story he was telling about the day. This week feels almost reversed for me. Adnon and some of the bigger arguments against him are pretty big without any kind of rebuttal to explain why certain things happened. The only question I had coming out of it was the
The only thing coming out of this episode that might be in Adnon's favor is if there actually was
We still have no clue why Adnon went to Leakin Park that evening either, which really hurts Adnon's case.
Coming into this episode I was questioning Jay and the story he was telling about the day. This week feels almost reversed for me. Adnon and some of the bigger arguments against him are pretty big without any kind of rebuttal to explain why certain things happened. The only question I had coming out of it was the
Nisha call and the porno video store comment that was downplayed in the 2nd testimony.
The only thing coming out of this episode that might be in Adnon's favor is if there actually was
a 3rd person in on it that rolled around with Jay during the day and helped hill Hae.
intense episode. lots of new info, listening to adnan squirm when presented with a bunch of difficult evidence was uncomfortable, then the long statement of his feelings was fascinating. need to re-listen.
my running theory is basically that jay and adnan did it together, to a degree that you can only speculate and idk how much more this podcast can uncover. adnan knows that the state's case is wrong, and frustrated that it makes him out to be more callous and cold and is just incorrect, but can't throw jay in for it as the only way he knows totally that jay's clearly lying is because he did it with him. jay's testimony is all over the shop as he and jenn have edited it to reduce his involvement and lucked out with the police departments desire to get a conviction for adnan.
the thing is that doesn't really gell is that he could correct the record without protesting his innocence. but maybe, he is a smart guy, protesting his innocence is the only way to get the coverage that means his involvement can be reduced in public. or that it would just kill his family to admit guilt. or just that you need some hope on life sentence of escaping on a mis-trial because of jay's evidence and the sketchy 22 minute window presented to get through the day. or maybe he actually is innocent.
my running theory is basically that jay and adnan did it together, to a degree that you can only speculate and idk how much more this podcast can uncover. adnan knows that the state's case is wrong, and frustrated that it makes him out to be more callous and cold and is just incorrect, but can't throw jay in for it as the only way he knows totally that jay's clearly lying is because he did it with him. jay's testimony is all over the shop as he and jenn have edited it to reduce his involvement and lucked out with the police departments desire to get a conviction for adnan.
the thing is that doesn't really gell is that he could correct the record without protesting his innocence. but maybe, he is a smart guy, protesting his innocence is the only way to get the coverage that means his involvement can be reduced in public. or that it would just kill his family to admit guilt. or just that you need some hope on life sentence of escaping on a mis-trial because of jay's evidence and the sketchy 22 minute window presented to get through the day. or maybe he actually is innocent.
One confusing thing about the story to me is that I thought the host originally said on episode 1 that there wasn't any physical evidence. I could have sworn she introduced the story with something along the lines of "how could he be sentenced without any physical evidence, on the statement of just one source?"
Obviously there was quite a bit there to convict him, even if much of it is questionable. Not saying he's guilty, just that it was a lot clearer than the podcast originally made it seem.
Obviously there was quite a bit there to convict him, even if much of it is questionable. Not saying he's guilty, just that it was a lot clearer than the podcast originally made it seem.
Wait, maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, but when Jay and Adnan were at that girl's house all spaced out, who calls the cell phone? Am I misremembering or did she say Adnan was called by someone before the detective called him which basically warned him of what was coming?
The neighbour kid telling his friend he saw Adnan with the body, and then denying it, and him being Jay's smoking buddy is pretty odd too.
There was a lot of weird stuff this episode. The long pauses after Adnan is presented with some evidence were sort of creepy.
The neighbour kid telling his friend he saw Adnan with the body, and then denying it, and him being Jay's smoking buddy is pretty odd too.
There was a lot of weird stuff this episode. The long pauses after Adnan is presented with some evidence were sort of creepy.
RepairmanJack
Member
She brought up the fingerprints in the car and said there wasn't really anything beyond that, no dna, no dirt on his shoes matching the crime scene things like that. The call log and cell pings I wouldn't really count as physical evidence just because it's reliant on which story it follows. I think that's the point of the whole Nisha call(and the third caller really). It's pretty much the only one that can't really be explained by anyones story. Jay's story is Adnan was with him, Adnan's story is Jay had his phone, and the cops use a specific call at a specific time from a payphone that seemingly never existed to fit their version of the story which sides with Jay's version because it helps them. Which is where the whole 21 minutes comes from.
Ah, cool then. I missed or forgot about that part.
I think it was meant as moot since it had half of his palm print on the back with about 13 other finger prints that didn't tie to Adnon. The missing page had Leakin Park in it, but it showed the entire area where they would have hung out and includes a ton of other locations like the school.
The implication based on Cathy's testimony is that Adnon got a call from someone and the conversation itself seemed off. At this point, we the listener have no clue who called and talked to Adnon, which kind of fuels some of the theory about a 3rd person being involved. The rest of that coming from most calls going to Jay's friends during the day.
My guess is that there is a 3rd party involved and has already been mentioned in the previous episode, but not named yet. It would have been the dude that was brought up, not named, but we were told it would make sense later why that person wasn't named at that point.
RepairmanJack
Member
Like....it was on that year? Or did they actually detail whether it was airing somewhere in that area at the time or around the time of the call? Cause that would be even more awesome.
Well put. This is one of my frustrations with the storythere's no way that Jay isn't involved in some way, and if Adnan didn't do it, you'd think he'd be indignantly screaming "JAY OBVIOUSLY KILLED HER AND IS FRAMING ME YOU MORONS!" every chance he gets. But because of the way the show is cut we don't know if Adnan launches into a rant like that every time they talk and Sarah is just saving all that tape for Episode 7 or whatever. All we hear is him arguing with every little detail in the official story, many of which surely are indeed wrong, but without hearing a plausible alternate explanation from Adnan, that just makes him sound MORE guilty, like he's only indignant that the world doesn't appreciate how clever his actual, as-yet-unrevealed plan really was.
Has Sarah ever said something like "Adnan has his own explanation, and we'll get to that in a later episode" or anything like that?
That it was on in the area at the time of the call.
Though by the sound of it, in 1999 Judge Judy was on TV more often than she wasn't.
Next episode should be just that.
You are remembering correctly. That is the "third man" argument Adnan is using to say that it never happened.
That story didn't really sway me. The girl allegedly heard the story months after Adnan was in jail. It could easily be that either the girl or boy made it up to seek attention or may have unintentionally created a false memory based on hearing about the news coverage during the trial. That sort of thing happens pretty frequently with high profile cases; just look at all the people who have come forth to turn in their friend or family member as the Zodiac Killer.
RepairmanJack
Member
Not yet, hopefully that takes up an entire episode at some point.
That's just awesome. I've been to the subreddit a few times and from what I can tell it's seemed like the nicest and most on point subreddit I've ever seen.
too risky for spoilers
Another aimless episode. I don't understand why she feels the need to throw every single thing that exists up on the wall like this. "Neighbor boy" aside was totally pointless, "this guy was in my house and it felt important" girl's testimony was worthless. You can't interview someone about their perceptions of the emotional state of a person they didn't know, twenty years later and after a criminal trial. Girl's prejudiced all to hell and back now.
The only "evidence" in this episode is "hey this call with chipmunk girl was presented inaccurately at trial but also we can't explain it either so".
Wish she'd settled all the research before starting. At this point we've barely moved the needle on "did Adnan do it?" and "was the trial fair?". She keeps skirting the actually interesting questions: "why does she care?" and "what does she hope to illuminate for us?". Everything about this case is so totally mundane. It seems like she's striving real hard to maintain a neutral editorial voice, she's not really taking an angle on the story. Which hey, cool, let the facts speak for themselves. But there's barely any facts and what they do say is unremarkable.
It's frustrating she started putting this out before finishing the research. She seems hamstrung by the fact that she doesn't have an ending. Why are we spending so much time closely examining evidence just to shrug at it? What're we learning about our case or the cause of Justice of the experiences of humans? She doesn't seem to know, I certainly don't.
Most engaging part was Adnan being miffed at her for being so wishywashy and for failing to turn up anything conclusive or even strong. Those emotions, that relationship is interesting. The words of a twenty-years-imprisoned murderer genuinely and sincerely insisting on his innocence, the ways he's squared with this is so much more valuable than giving time to some third-hand account of seeing a body that the primary source denies even got accounted in the first place.
The only "evidence" in this episode is "hey this call with chipmunk girl was presented inaccurately at trial but also we can't explain it either so".
Wish she'd settled all the research before starting. At this point we've barely moved the needle on "did Adnan do it?" and "was the trial fair?". She keeps skirting the actually interesting questions: "why does she care?" and "what does she hope to illuminate for us?". Everything about this case is so totally mundane. It seems like she's striving real hard to maintain a neutral editorial voice, she's not really taking an angle on the story. Which hey, cool, let the facts speak for themselves. But there's barely any facts and what they do say is unremarkable.
It's frustrating she started putting this out before finishing the research. She seems hamstrung by the fact that she doesn't have an ending. Why are we spending so much time closely examining evidence just to shrug at it? What're we learning about our case or the cause of Justice of the experiences of humans? She doesn't seem to know, I certainly don't.
Most engaging part was Adnan being miffed at her for being so wishywashy and for failing to turn up anything conclusive or even strong. Those emotions, that relationship is interesting. The words of a twenty-years-imprisoned murderer genuinely and sincerely insisting on his innocence, the ways he's squared with this is so much more valuable than giving time to some third-hand account of seeing a body that the primary source denies even got accounted in the first place.
RepairmanJack
Member
I think you're the only one I've seen be so bullish on the series. I don't really understand saying things being presented are mundane or pointless. They raise question and make the case as a whole more confusing and strange. There's now this third person mystery that came out of the story of them at Cathy's house, including a call at that time that places Adnan with his phone when he said he wasn't. That in no way seems pointless to me. The neighbor's story about seeing a dead body from Adnan while supposedly being friends with Jay when it seems like Adnan was never alone with the car and the body brings up a lot of questions about Jay's involvement with many of the witnesses in the case. This is now two people that Jay is close with that reinforces the Adnan is the killer story and I think it just further the question of Jay's story as a whole.
Why would you want her to make a decision on whether Adnan did it or not and let that drive the narrative? Then nothing, as far as we could tell, would be reliable. We'd have to constantly question her narrative and wonder what her reasoning is rather than her putting everything she can out there and letting us come up with our own ideas. It's the reason the first five episodes were letting us get to know Adnan before the proverbial shoe dropped on the case that makes it hard to believe Adnan. She was showing us what made her curious about the case without us automatically just assuming he did it.
The series has a theme: Confirmation Bias.
Adnan made this argument at the beginning and kept coming back to it in every episode. The way you interpret facts depends on the explanation you are predisposed to believe. When a case is built on circumstantial evidence and unreliable witness testimony, the initial instinct you form can cloud your ability to evenly evaluate and weigh the facts.
Notice that Sarah says that she has a hard time thinking Adnan is guilty because he seems so nice on the phone. This is something that has been obvious to me throughout the series - that her impression of Adnan as a nice guy is causing her to give him the benefit of the doubt for pieces of evidence that are inconclusive on their own. It's a lot clearer in the segments where she is recorded talking with her producer rather than when she is speaking as the narrator and trying to seem objective about it. I think this also explains the sort of scattershot approach to presenting evidence that you complained about. I don't think it's a consequence of disorganization, I think it's because Adnan seems less guilty if you try to focus on one piece of evidence at a time. That's the nature of circumstantial evidence; it might just all be a coincidence. It's when you step back and try to get a wider view of the large volume of circumstantial evidence and how it interconnects that it starts to seem less likely to be chance.
I have to give credit to Adnan for actually calling her out on this in the episode. He is frustrated enough by the impact of confirmation bias that he doesn't even like seeing it when it is working in his favor.
You pretty much nailed my thoughts here. She so far does seem to give Adnan the benefit of the doubt.
Also to the person that thinks the narrator is bringing up pointless facts and unimportant information.. just wow; when it comes to a murder case none of the information that has been brought up has pointless and it's important to look at every possible lead.
edit: I personally feel that Adnan, Jay, and Jay's g/f all had something to do with it.
backflip10019
Member
Yeah, you really nailed it. They kind of hinted on the theme of confirmation bias early on in the first episode when they interviewed a few people about how far back they could remember certain events.
The questions is: how deeply does the journalist understand her own confirmation bias? Has she made a conscious choice to present the material as unbiased as possible or is she really letting her relationship with Adnan get in the way?
The neighbor boy story is less than worthless. It's multiple levels of hearsay denied by the "witness". The call to Adnan's friend Jay wouldn't have made is possibly some butt-dial that blocked on call waiting or got answered by a phone getting knocked off the hook or something. A third party was always a possibility, all we've done is not refuted that.
Whether she's declared her prejudice or not she's obviously carrying one. We should already be questioning all the evidence she presents, that's what I'm doing. It seems like she's "putting everything out there" as a show of good faith but she's also putting a lot of nothing out there and playing it off as relevant. That "let's simulate driving from school to Bestbuy" boondoggle wasn't reliable as I've discussed and so many of these interviews are woefully late and totally prejudiced.
I think your "the question" is what's frustrating to me. I agree that a thing that keeps coming up is encounters with confirmation bias. But it's not really true that it's a theme. Or at least it's a weak one. She never acknowledges it happening, she never pivots into a critical discussion of the reliability of witness testimony. Every time she does one of these interviews (like Kathy especially) that is either refuted or denied by evidence or a conflicting witness, she just like shrugs and "I don't know what to make of that". But I know exactly what to make of that: the stories don't match up because at least one person is misrembering.
But she's also got this bias the the case is super complicated and mysterious, so when she does the "let's go to Bestbuy" field trip and finds it inconclusive she reports it as mysterious evidence but it isn't evidence of anything at all. And it wouldn't be, unless the Bestbuy is like sixty miles away and the drive would have been impossible under any circumstances in any decade.
Here is an exercise in confirmation bias:
If you have the idea that Sarah is competent, then this presentation style is meant to let the listeners' own biases naturally play out for the bulk of the series, and a critical discussion will come later that will be all the more powerful for it.
If you have the idea that Sarah is not competent, then it is a slapshod presentation and we are reading deeper themes from it than she intended.
I guess this is what I'm wrestling with. It's not that the show is bad or interesting--obviously I'm still listening to it. It's that it's aimless. It opens so many worthwhile questions: Did he do it? Why does she care? Why does she think this case of all cases is worth reporting on? Regardless his guilt, what's twenty years in prison do to a kid who goes in from high school? How reliable is witness testimony, what can cloud of perceptions? Is our criminal justice system fair?
She's opened all these threads but her methods aren't really driving any of them toward answered in an intentional way. She's framing the thing around "did he do it?" but the methods she employs to investigate that question are naive and bound to fail to come to anything conclusive.
She's opened all these threads but her methods aren't really driving any of them toward answered in an intentional way. She's framing the thing around "did he do it?" but the methods she employs to investigate that question are naive and bound to fail to come to anything conclusive.
backflip10019
Member
I think this is mainly an issue with how the show is being written. She's said in multiple interviews that she's still writing episodes up through the week that they come out. She's said that new threads of evidence are constantly springing to attention as a result of her research. Makes me think that she probably should've waited to start the actual podcast until she had researched it through and through to make it seem less stream of consciousness and more structured.
obin_gam
Member
Very creepy program. I listen to podcasts so I can go to sleep at night (cant sleep in total silence) and these episodes have been used a few times. But I'm thinking of stopping with that - several episodes have given me nightmares lol. I love it at the same time as I hate that fact
I agree with that criticism. I have been saying from the start that the elephant in the room is the question of whether there is a plausible explanation for Jay framing Adnan. Until that question is put to rest, it feels like a waste of time to investigate all of these little pieces of circumstantial evidence.
That said, our experience may not be that different from what the jury had to go through, with the prosecution bringing up individual pieces of evidence or testimony and the defense trying to refute them. You don't necessarily get all this information as a single, cohesive narrative.
RepairmanJack
Member
Welcome to Nightvale is perfect for going to sleep to. The narrator just has such a soothing damn voice.
Hah interesting angle. I came into this from a deep well of respect for This American Life and Sarah specifically. So I'm using the word "frustrated" and "wrestling" and "struggling" because I'm trying to fit what my positive prejudice about her with my somewhat negative read on the show.
Yeah this is my main thing. The core of it is I'm having a hard time understanding the significance of any given segment and that's because she herself hasn't really decided on its significance. She's releasing the draft version of this story, I didn't go in expecting that.
PassiveObserver
Member
I'm hearing masterful story telling, insofar as I'm hooked every week. Just soaking in that murder mystery.
obin_gam
Member
Christoff Yurievich
Member
This sounds amazing. I'm going to have to binge on it this weekend and then come back and read the thread.
Not sure blasting through all 6 episodes in one five hour drive was a good idea due to all of the information thrown at you, but holy shit is this good. I really like how natural all of the conversations sound. Does a good job of pulling you in with believability.
Edit: wait holy shit is this a real case
Edit 2: I can't believe I didn't notice that it said nonfiction. This is so much better now.
Edit: wait holy shit is this a real case
Edit 2: I can't believe I didn't notice that it said nonfiction. This is so much better now.
Finally caught up. This has been an amazing ride. I felt that all my favorite podcasts were created years ago (TAL, WTF, Hardcore History, freakonomics...) and there was nothing interesting happing for the medium, but now this and Blumberg's Startup Podcast show up. It feels like podcasting maturing. I hope we're entering a new golden age.
RepairmanJack
Member
I actually thought it was fiction when I first come to it as well. I had only heard about it being referenced to This American Life and my only frame of reference for that podcast was a few fiction episodes I had heard so I just assumed this was similar.
Lovin' how many people thought this was fiction. Fascinating.
Yeah there's a ton of energy in podcasts right now. Not only is Startup interesting but of course it promises to spawn a whole network worth of shows.
There's another cool thing you might check out, Radiotopia (just successfully Kickstarted). It's a network of mostly newer shows. I know about it because of 99 Percent Invisible (a rather good design podcast). Plus there's Earwolf and Nerdist usually spinning up new pods every once in a while. I'm really excited about a podcast golden age, I love pods.
Yeah there's a ton of energy in podcasts right now. Not only is Startup interesting but of course it promises to spawn a whole network worth of shows.
There's another cool thing you might check out, Radiotopia (just successfully Kickstarted). It's a network of mostly newer shows. I know about it because of 99 Percent Invisible (a rather good design podcast). Plus there's Earwolf and Nerdist usually spinning up new pods every once in a while. I'm really excited about a podcast golden age, I love pods.
Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...e_against_adnan_syed_dissected_did_adnan.html
Slate's spoiler special for episode six is up. Also, I just found out that Rabia has a spoiler free blog that she's been writing.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/splitt...er-lies-the-anatomy-of-a-wrongful-conviction/
I'm going to add both of these to the OP.
Slate's spoiler special for episode six is up. Also, I just found out that Rabia has a spoiler free blog that she's been writing.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/splitt...er-lies-the-anatomy-of-a-wrongful-conviction/
I'm going to add both of these to the OP.
- Status