Any strong feelings as to the innocence or guilt of Adnan and Jay? Been following the podcast and reading some of the Reddit discussion sites; it's very interesting to me the number of people who think Adnan is innocent. I'm convinced he's guilty for a variety of reasons. What do you think?
From what we know about human nature, its hard to believe that someone could go from zero history of violent behavior to premeditatedly strangling his ex-girlfriend in a parking lot. If people were like that, there would be a lot more strangled ex-girlfriends. I don't really think that counts so much as evidence, but still I could see why many people might not believe it.
The show raises a lot of philosophical questions, like what is actual evidence or how we should go about dealing with normal doubts about disputed facts, but there isn't going to be some resolution. So I dont think it makes much sense to choose a side.
Seems to me that there are two questions
A) do we (the listeners, I guess) think Adnan is innocent or guilty, and
B) do we think he should have been convicted of the murder or not
Interestingly, the two questions are not necessarily equivalent.
Also, there's a shrimp sale at the crab crib!
I think you've hit at an essential point here. I seem to be an outlier in that I that I think he's guilty and don't really question the conviction. Most people at least from anecdotal info think Adnan is innocent or if they're not sure do not think that he ought to have been convicted. It is hard for me to get past a few things, viz:
- Adnan wrote a letter to Hae where clearly he is having a hard time getting over the breakup
- Wrote "I will kill" I believe on the same letter
- Lent his car to Jay, and 2 witnesses overhear him telling Hae that his car was in the shop - so that he could get a ride into Hae's car. All occurring just before her murder i.e. before she has a chance to pick up her cousin.
- His cell phone calls at the time they were burying Hae in Leakin Park.
And this is just a minor list of the evidence against Adnan. I just don't see any scenario where he doesn't kill Hae.
I think many, who are hoping for some kind of resolution are going to be disappointed in the end.
I guess the question re: the conviction for me, not being a legal professional, is: in the apparent absence of "hard" evidence, how much circumstantial evidence is sufficient for a murder conviction? Which gets back to AldenPyle's question(s).
I do think there is a general sense of Adnan being an "underdog," which probably explains some of the pattern you're seeing with listeners. People also have (reasonable, I think) expectations for how story-telling is supposed to work. Both of these things work strongly against any rational weighing of evidence that might go on. Which is sort of the point the show makes anyway, no?
Dude. The "Serial" case gets weirder and weirder. The weirdest thing though is that there's probably several cases out there that weirder still.
Atlanta's newspaper had (has) one that was essentially a guy re-telling his newspaper reporting. Granted it was a messed up case but he sounded so lighthearted it never got you indignant or spooked out the way "Serial" did. I think they did a second season but I've basically stopped all podcast listening so I never finished the first.
What are some of the others you know of?