Serial: Season 01 Discussion - This American Life meets True Detective

Status
Not open for further replies.
The part in the finale about all the lies made me start thinkingn about the Jenn character some more. I went back and listened to the Jay episode and I must have forgotten about the whole her helping Jay cover up his involvement with the morder. Throwing away his clothes ect... Was she ever charged or what ended up happening to her besides being the first one to go to the police?
 
killertofu said:
I can't believe how much hype this podcast got.

I don't think it should've been 12 episodes. I don't think she should've done it on the fly, there wasn't enough gas to get here there.

I think the show's popularity skewed some of the callers of this episode's memory to be honest. The 'journalism' was altering the memory.



SK could've used this story to tell a bigger picture about crime/criminal justice in America, but in my opinion, she just kept going through the same plodding plot points, the same wild goose chase for 12 hours.

Very disappointing.
Click to expand...


I wish it was longer.. I never wanted to drive home so bad afterwork just to listen to it! Was mindblowing@@$$$##!!!!!
 
Borgnine said:
Can't wait for season 2, when she investigates the docks.
Click to expand...

AbPo3di.jpg
 
What a fantastic episode and fantastic podcast. I don't know what to think anymore, but I completely agree with Sarah on her conclusions. I wish she would've said, though she did indirectly, that our justice system is "innocent until proven guilty" and I just don't think there is enough to prove guilt.

If there is one thing that I still will NEVER understand, it is Adnan's lack of anything against Jay for accusing him. Someone please try to convince me, but I don't think you can. Adnan surely at least could come up with theories or some shit about why Jay accused him and said what he did, if they weren't true. Right?
 
Was hoping it would have ended with SOMETHING! A re-trial. The results of the DNA testing. An approved appeal. God give us something.
 
Neoweee said:
Most of what gets covered in "48 Hours Mysteries" would be ripe for this. Kidnappings, extortion, crimes that go bad, crimes with transparent cover-ups, corruption... there's a lot of territory that can make a hell of a story that fillers 10 hours or whatever.

Adnan's story's hook was that so many bits of the testimony were contradictory, as well as the presence of a multiple things that are known to lead to false convictions, AND that it was the last major case of a great & famous defense attorney before she got disbarred. Those same themes likely won't be as center, but the case needs to be messy in at least some way. White collar crime is so... clean, and unambiguous once light gets shone on it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its really just a more in depth format of something that has existed for ages and ages (Datline, 60 minutes etc.), just in serialized podcast format. I enjoyed the season quite a bit, it ended pretty well. Who knows what actually happened...I guess, after it all, the only thing that sticks with me, is Jay knew where the car was.
 
RedShift said:
If Hae was killed by the serial killer then the only explanation for Jay knowing about everything is that the cops told him in the unrecorded time before the tapes start.

Given some of the stuff the prosecution was doing I don't think it's impossible they decided early on Adnan did it and convinced Jay he did, and got him to 'help them' put him away. Still pretty unlikely but not impossible.
Click to expand...
Your theory posits that the cops knew where Hae's car was at and fed that info to Jay...I just don't buy it.

Jay knows the truth of it all... Whatever it may be. Remember, he led the cops to the car and knew how Hae was murdered. It was the corroborating facts that moved suspicion from him to Adnan.

If we theorize that Adnan is innocent then we have to account for (at least) the hard facts Jay provides. Could something as crazy as Jay knowing Ronald be possible? The threats he mentions would certainly have more weight... Maybe they've meet before at the porn store he worked at? What if he was at the wrong place at the wrong time?
 
Random question...

Where is the porn store in relation to the various locations that Jay claimed Adnan showed him the body in the trunk?
 
3rdman said:
Your theory posits that the cops knew where Hae's car was at and fed that info to Jay...I just don't buy it.

Jay knows the truth of it all... Whatever it may be. Remember, he led the cops to the car and knew how Hae was murdered. It was the corroborating facts that moved suspicion from him to Adnan.

If we theorize that Adnan is innocent then we have to account for (at least) the hard facts Jay provides. Could something as crazy as Jay knowing Ronald be possible? The threats he mentions would certainly have more weight... Maybe they've meet before at the porn store he worked at? What if he was at the wrong place at the wrong time?
Click to expand...

The cops feeding Jay the location of the car is less absurd than Jay somehow knowing Ronald. There's a whole hour before the cops began recording. I could easily see them saying "hey, we know Adnan did it, we have his DNA in Hae's car, we just need you to testify and we'll make sure you get a good lawyer"

Still don't think Adnan is innocent, but Jay got the best deal for someone who helped bury a body, didn't report Adnan to the cops but was discovered anyway.

effzee said:
I want more murder mysteries. It's what hooked me
Click to expand...

I really want it not to be murder, mostly because I'm sure someone is already working on a weekly murder podcast to take advantage of the Serial hype.
 
JCX said:
The cops feeding Jay the location of the car is less absurd than Jay somehow knowing Ronald. There's a whole hour before the cops began recording. I could easily see them saying "hey, we know Adnan did it, we have his DNA in Hae's car, we just need you to testify and we'll make sure you get a good lawyer"

Still don't think Adnan is innocent, but Jay got the best deal for someone who helped bury a body, didn't report Adnan to the cops but was discovered anyway.
Click to expand...

Why would Jay still be standing by what he said against Adnan after finding out that there wasn't any DNA in the case, though? If i were Jay and they promised they had DNA, and then didn't, i would tell the judge and it would become a mistrial. Simple as that.



JCX said:
I really want it not to be murder, mostly because I'm sure someone is already working on a weekly murder podcast to take advantage of the Serial hype.
Click to expand...
You and everybody else. Good luck.
 
huxley00 said:
Yeah, its really just a more in depth format of something that has existed for ages and ages (Datline, 60 minutes etc.), just in serialized podcast format. I enjoyed the season quite a bit, it ended pretty well. Who knows what actually happened...I guess, after it all, the only thing that sticks with me, is Jay knew where the car was.
Click to expand...

The only thing I feel certain about is that Jay was clearly involved in some capacity.

Beyond that, who knows.

I find Adnan's story (or lack of one), a little unconvincing. At least we're able to ascribe him some motive, even though it doesn't seem especially strong. On the other hand, I find his philosophy and his reaction to the big picture of the case and people's reactions to it far more convincing -- maybe he has been scheming since he got to jail, but if so he's an amazing liar.

I doubt Jay killed Hae (though I suppose he could have). But I certainly don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that someone else did....

I'm surprised by how little weight Jay fingering Adnan holds for me.. and likewise with third-party accounts (like his former co-worker in the final episode). I guess my feeling is that if Jay was scared of someone it's absolutely possible that that person was someone else and it made sense from Square One (and even more beyond) to say Adnan was the killer...

EDIT: Huh... Dierdre from the Innocence Project talked to Time about what happens now. I think she hits on many of the ideas that feed the half of me that doubts the case. Hope there's some movement on her bid to conduct DNA testing... guilty or innocent, it would nice to see some firmer evidence appear in this case.
 
That interview is a real eye opener.

Also check out rabia's blog-she's posting evidence and testimony from the trial that make everything seem even more sketchy. Apparently Jay asked Stephanie to borrow her car that morning and she didn't let him, so he asked Adnan if he could borrow Adnan's car the day of the murder. This was Jays trial testimony.

The fact that there is "lots" of physical evidence, according to Diedre and none of it was ever tested for DNA. There were 2 hairs found on Hae's body and they were not hers not Adnan's.
 
rottingcore said:
Why would Jay still be standing by what he said against Adnan after finding out that there wasn't any DNA in the case, though? If i were Jay and they promised they had DNA, and then didn't, i would tell the judge and it would become a mistrial. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

They'd have him under drug charges if he didn't testify against Adnan.

Not only did he get no time for the Hae case, they didn't prosecute him after that on anything else. As-is, it was win-win for Jay.
 
Dalek said:
Apparently Jay asked Stephanie to borrow her car that morning and she didn't let him, so he asked Adnan if he could borrow Adnan's car the day of the murder. This was Jays trial testimony.
Click to expand...

How is that sketchy? Jay's story was always that he needed a car to go buy a present for Stephanie at the mall.
 
I heard about this podcast thanks to the Colbert Report, and was really hooked.
Not a big podcast listener, but this was great, I hope there's a season 2.
 
I finished this along with everyone else, and one of my major takeaways from this, which I don't see brought up here is:

The "jury" system in the US is ridiculous.

Why is it a good idea to take a bunch of unqualified, random individuals and have them decide on such a momentous decision (in this case affecting the rest of the live of a teenager)?
I realise the idea is probably to protect against systematic prejudice and the like, but we all know too well that the general public is filled to the brim with visible and invisible prejudices (and not all of them will confess them like that one jury member in this case did). If a judge or a panel of judges has prejudices, this can be reviewed and corrected or punished.

I do not see why it would be better to give a commoner this amount of power, when the alternative is someone who is actually qualified, well-versed in the appropriate laws and knows a little about criminals and the justice system in general (reminds me of the lady who could not conceive of a reason Jay would lie on the stand, when a lot of people can think of several) and won't be swayed by cheap theatrics and the like.

Does anyone who lives outside of the US sees any sort of merit in this system, and would consider even for a moment that it is better than their current one?

EDIT: I should note that my knowledge of the US justice system comes mainly from popular media such as this, and may be mistaken or incomplete. Feel free to correct me.
 
KimiNewt said:
I finished this along with everyone else, and one of my major takeaways from this, which I don't see brought up here is:

The "jury" system in the US is ridiculous.

Why is it a good idea to take a bunch of unqualified, random individuals and have them decide on such a momentous decision (in this case affecting the rest of the live of a teenager)?
I realise the idea is probably to protect against systematic prejudice and the like, but we all know too well that the general public is filled to the brim with visible and invisible prejudices (and not all of them will confess them like that one jury member in this case did). If a judge or a panel of judges has prejudices, this can be reviewed and corrected or punished.

I do not see why it would be better to give a commoner this amount of power, when the alternative is someone who is actually qualified, well-versed in the appropriate laws and knows a little about criminals and the justice system in general (reminds me of the lady who could not conceive of a reason Jay would lie on the stand, when a lot of people can think of several) and won't be swayed by cheap theatrics and the like.

Does anyone who lives outside of the US sees any sort of merit in this system, and would consider even for a moment that it is better than their current one?

EDIT: I should note that my knowledge of the US justice system comes mainly from popular media such as this, and may be mistaken or incomplete. Feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...

I live outside the U.S. and prefer a jury system because it shields from government abuse. Of the people, by the people, for the people.
 
Whatever season 2 is, it needs to be something that has a degree of being an unsolved mystery. The fun of Serial was trying to find out what really happened. So if season 2 is not a murder, it needs to be some other mystery.
 
KimiNewt said:
I finished this along with everyone else, and one of my major takeaways from this, which I don't see brought up here is:

The "jury" system in the US is ridiculous.

Why is it a good idea to take a bunch of unqualified, random individuals and have them decide on such a momentous decision (in this case affecting the rest of the live of a teenager)?
I realise the idea is probably to protect against systematic prejudice and the like, but we all know too well that the general public is filled to the brim with visible and invisible prejudices (and not all of them will confess them like that one jury member in this case did). If a judge or a panel of judges has prejudices, this can be reviewed and corrected or punished.

I do not see why it would be better to give a commoner this amount of power, when the alternative is someone who is actually qualified, well-versed in the appropriate laws and knows a little about criminals and the justice system in general (reminds me of the lady who could not conceive of a reason Jay would lie on the stand, when a lot of people can think of several) and won't be swayed by cheap theatrics and the like.

Does anyone who lives outside of the US sees any sort of merit in this system, and would consider even for a moment that it is better than their current one?

EDIT: I should note that my knowledge of the US justice system comes mainly from popular media such as this, and may be mistaken or incomplete. Feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...

iirc you're better off rejecting a jury trial as a felon.

It's pretty difficult thing. As you said, it's hard to overcome biases, but it also seems quixotic to me to try and tell a jury what evidence they can and can't use. Once they hear some incendiary hearsay it's not like they can forget it, despite what the judge tells them. You can't compartmentalise your mind like that.
 
KimiNewt said:
I finished this along with everyone else, and one of my major takeaways from this, which I don't see brought up here is:

The "jury" system in the US is ridiculous.

Why is it a good idea to take a bunch of unqualified, random individuals and have them decide on such a momentous decision (in this case affecting the rest of the live of a teenager)?
I realise the idea is probably to protect against systematic prejudice and the like, but we all know too well that the general public is filled to the brim with visible and invisible prejudices (and not all of them will confess them like that one jury member in this case did). If a judge or a panel of judges has prejudices, this can be reviewed and corrected or punished.

I do not see why it would be better to give a commoner this amount of power, when the alternative is someone who is actually qualified, well-versed in the appropriate laws and knows a little about criminals and the justice system in general (reminds me of the lady who could not conceive of a reason Jay would lie on the stand, when a lot of people can think of several) and won't be swayed by cheap theatrics and the like.

Does anyone who lives outside of the US sees any sort of merit in this system, and would consider even for a moment that it is better than their current one?

EDIT: I should note that my knowledge of the US justice system comes mainly from popular media such as this, and may be mistaken or incomplete. Feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about a monarchy, then?
 
civilstrife said:
Why does season 2 have to be about crime at all?

The only stated constant is the multi episode format, right?

It could be about anything.
Click to expand...

Count me out for Season 2 if that's the case. As would be the case with many people, I assume. The reasons I like this podcast are that it is about crime and that it's devoid of the pointless chit-chat between hosts that constitutes 40% of most other podcasts.
 
Z.. said:
Count me out for Season 2 if that's the case. As would be the case with many people, I assume. The reasons I like this podcast are that it is about crime and that it's devoid of the pointless chit-chat between hosts that constitutes 40% of most other podcasts.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't listen to this American life? Some of the best episodes have nothing to do with crime.
 
Z.. said:
Count me out for Season 2 if that's the case. As would be the case with many people, I assume. The reasons I like this podcast are that it is about crime and that it's devoid of the pointless chit-chat between hosts that constitutes 40% of most other podcasts.
Click to expand...
If you want a feel for what Sarah is capable of putting together, check out these episodes of This American Life:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/492/dr-gilmer-and-mr-hyde
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/419/petty-tyrant
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/396/1-party-school
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/451/back-to-penn-state
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/367/ground-game

Some of them are crime related. Others, not so much. None of them feature pointless chit-chat between hosts.

You can download the episodes on the TAL app or stream them online.
 
JCX said:
I don't care about the length, as long as it fits the story. The Thanksgiving break really hurt the show's momentum for me, so they should just do it all in consecutive weeks.
Click to expand...
Do you watch any TV shows as they air? It's not common for shows even on HBO to take a break during a holiday week(end). Some shows take a couple months break and some shows can even take a year+ break and split a season in 2. Sopranos and Breaking Bad are prime examples.

A week break isn't bad and it kills the momentum that much just wait till it wraps and then listen to the entire thing in like a couple of days.
 
^ I was just thinking "Why hasn't TAL release a best of SK" episode during an off week. Thanks!

styl3s said:
Do you watch any TV shows as they air? It's not common for shows even on HBO to take a break during a holiday week(end). Some shows take a couple months break and some shows can even take a year+ break and split a season in 2. Sopranos and Breaking Bad are prime examples.

A week break isn't bad and it kills the momentum that much just wait till it wraps and then listen to the entire thing in like a couple of days.
Click to expand...

I do, but the difference is that I can't look up spoilers for the final season of Mad Men right now. During the off week, I finally caved and read up on some thing that were covered in later episodes.
 
I liked the series at first, but there were times it felt like it was carrying you through the imaginary NPR winds of Chicago and others felt a little boring.

I listened through the first couple episodes then skimmed the rest. I'd like to see more stories, but it felt like they could of given out the real criminal during the first podcast. Seeing the imgur flow charts, circles from this podcast, and hearing people on Twitter made it all seem a bit much. It's a good broadcast, but it feels like a school teacher is talking to me.

The ad at the beginning got old where the mom and daughter are talking about using a service. It makes me bite down a little harder each time, but it's good.

They go out of their way to be this informative investigator and at times it feels like True Life meets MTV News.

600full-nick-news-with-linda-ellerbee-photo.jpg


I imagine a younger Linda Ellerbee doing this whole thing

220px-Linda_Ellerbee.jpg


I do hope they continue. I'll be listening. It's not like we'll get a "Clue" podcast.
 
KimiNewt said:
I finished this along with everyone else, and one of my major takeaways from this, which I don't see brought up here is:

The "jury" system in the US is ridiculous.

Why is it a good idea to take a bunch of unqualified, random individuals and have them decide on such a momentous decision (in this case affecting the rest of the live of a teenager)?
I realise the idea is probably to protect against systematic prejudice and the like, but we all know too well that the general public is filled to the brim with visible and invisible prejudices (and not all of them will confess them like that one jury member in this case did). If a judge or a panel of judges has prejudices, this can be reviewed and corrected or punished.

I do not see why it would be better to give a commoner this amount of power, when the alternative is someone who is actually qualified, well-versed in the appropriate laws and knows a little about criminals and the justice system in general (reminds me of the lady who could not conceive of a reason Jay would lie on the stand, when a lot of people can think of several) and won't be swayed by cheap theatrics and the like.

Does anyone who lives outside of the US sees any sort of merit in this system, and would consider even for a moment that it is better than their current one?

EDIT: I should note that my knowledge of the US justice system comes mainly from popular media such as this, and may be mistaken or incomplete. Feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...

This seems like a version of the old argument of the benevolent dictator. If you have a proven leader who is well versed on important issues and willing and able to do the right thing, it seems it would be a system that would work much more efficiently than rule by masses or in this case a jury. The problem is dictators, or judges in this case, are not always benevolent and the current jury system in the US was developed during a time when judges and officials were very corrupt.

Whether you think its worth it to take a risk on a dictator or official who may or may not be benevolent, or to put power in the hands of the uneducated masses, is up to you I suppose.
 
Guffers said:
Has anyone here heard much about this case?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one

I sat up far too late last night reading through it. This guy basically lived my ultimate nightmare.
Click to expand...

This is - by far -the best written piece of journalism I've ever read. I've spent the last hour or so reading it, and I'm a wreck. What an incredible, frustrating and unbelievable story. My wife has spoken to me before about The Innocence Project, but I'm only now realizing what an important organization they are.

Holy shit-this was heart wrenching.
 
I know! It's brilliant writing top to bottom. I'm 31 and I have a two year old. I cannot even imagine what it would be like if my wife brutally murdered, let alone then be jailed for it!!!

Those in charge denied this man decades of his life but worse stopped him from raising his son after an unspeakable tragedy.

Regardless of whether or not Adnan is guilty, like this case I just CANNOT see how a jury could convict either of these men BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. There is doubt strewn all over the place!
 
Guffers said:
I know! It's brilliant writing top to bottom. I'm 31 and I have a two year old. I cannot even imagine what it would be like if my wife brutally murdered, let alone then be jailed for it!!!

Those in charge denied this man decades of his life but worse stopped him from raising his son after an unspeakable tragedy.

Regardless of whether or not Adnan is guilty, like this case I just CANNOT see how a jury could convict either of these men BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. There is doubt strewn all over the place!
Click to expand...

I'm with you brother. And this story makes it even more clear. It's like when people say it had to be Adnan because who else would it be? Look at this story for the perfect example. Now it makes total sense why The Innocence Project brought up the Serial Killer angle.

Again, thanks for posting that story. I'm going to be sharing it tonmorow, and I'll be thinking of my own family as well. You know, I have to say I've had those arguments like Michael had with his wife before she was murdered-and this perspective makes you realize how petty all that is and how lucky we have it and sometimes not know. That poor man...

I've looked up the writer of that piece and she has a whole slew of Criminal Justice work I want to read now. Her talent is making the story have a personal narrative.

That fight over the bandana, man. God damn is that infuriating.
 
i was addicted for the first 8 episodes or so but then my enthusiasm kinda fizzled out; i think next season should be 10ish max.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I'm drunk and pondering life on this planet
30
51
Plies replied
Squid Game Season 3
3
708
saintjules replied
Fallout - Season 2 trailer
23
615
TVexperto replied
Foundation: Season 3 teaser
6
336
Insane Metal replied
Story time about life recently.
29
246
anthony2690 replied
Top Bottom