<p>Meant “Am I”?</p>
<p>I’m starting to go into withdrawals just thinking about this series ending … There are probably going to be only a couple more episodes. I’m dying to know what the next Serial story will be! I feel so invested in hoping it is a good one. </p>
<p>Sarah Koenig fascinates me. She seems so down to earth, but her family is, from a cultural perspective, practically royalty. Her dad was Julian Koenig, one of the most distinguished and creative advertising men, famous at the height of the mid -century advertising boom, and direct model for the Mad Men characters. Her step-father was Peter Matthiessen, the dashing novelist, explorer and naturalist, and one of the founders of the Paris Review, which apparently was founded in part as a front for the CIA (with Matthiessen as a CIA agent) but which Matthiessen nonetheless managed to turn into one of the most respected literary journals of all time. </p>
<p>You’d think that the kids of such parents would be insufferable snobs, but here we have Sarah Koenig in all her (apparent) wonderfulness. </p>
<p>You aren’t. At one time she was a highly capable lawyer and obviously she was passionate and cared deeply for her clients. Sad for her, and sad for her clients. </p>
<p>I also think the judge in the first trial was way out of line to accuse her of lying. That incident stemmed from the sort of routine misunderstanding that I saw happen in just about every trial I ever did. It’s hard to keep track of different pieces of evidence during a trial, especially a long and complex trial. The usual protocol for lawyers to introduce a new piece of evidence is to first show it to opposing counsel before handing it to a witness – and when that doesn’t happen, it’s typical for the other lawyer to object in some fashion. From the excerpt that was presented, it’s pretty obvious that is what happened: the prosecutor had an exhibit that the defense lawyer didn’t recognize, the defense lawyer said she hadn’t seen it, and the proper next step would have been for the prosecutor to show it the defense lawyer and “reminding” the lawyer that this is the same piece of evidence that has been stipulated to. </p>
<p>Again, that sort of misunderstanding is really common. I couldn’t even begin to count the number of times in my career that there was similar confusion over a piece of evidence. Usually there’s an apology by the person who made the mistake and everyone just moves on. </p>
<p>Gutierrez overreacted to the accusation - and that is unfortunate as well – but I can see why she would have been taken off guard and angered by the accusation. It’s possible that there was some history between her and that particular judge, or that there were other events in the trial leading up to that. I also think it was improper for the judge to make that sort of accusation at bench with the jury present.</p>
<p>calmom -that helps me understand her a bit better -Thank you. It is very sad that she died so young. </p>
<p>notelling- I had no idea that Sarah had such an interesting history. I knew she had been a reporter and that was it. </p>
<p>I have been thinking a lot about something mentioned in the podcast. It was said that Sarah and her team have put more time and energy into the case than the police did.
That frightens me - the possibility that even death penalty cases -the police don’t have the resources to do detailed investigations. </p>
<p>The job of the police pretty much ends when they have enough evidence to take the case to the DA-- and then the investigatory responsibility shifts to the DA’s office. In many places, the DA will still rely on the police to do continued investigation – at their direction – but it’s also possible that the DA will have their own investigators to assign to the case. </p>
<p>I haven’t read the entire thread, I stopped reading on page #1. I think NPR did a piece about this a few months back. How can I listen to the podcast? Is it too late? </p>
<p>Not at all! My ds1 binge-listened last week and this week and is caught up.</p>
<p><a href=“http://serialpodcast.org”>http://serialpodcast.org</a></p>
<p>I binge watched last week also. I haven’t had a chance to read everything or look at outside sources yet, so forgive me if this has been said already. I get the sense that Jay is telling a version of the truth, but the other person involved was not Adnan. That is why his story is close, but not quite complete. Maybe Stephanie or Jen were more involved?</p>
<p>Thank you for posting the link.</p>
<p>parent, I definitely think Jay is involved but that it all didn’t go down as he said. The one thing people agree on is Jay’s devotion to Stephanie, so I feel like she is going to be a bigger player in this. Either she is a participant or more of a catalyst than has been divulged. The timing of her birthday is interesting …</p>
<p>But I definitely think that Adnan is involved. From the very beginning I’ve thought he might be some kind of sociopath who can’t face reality and so has doubled-down on his innocence. I know a kid like him – super-slick, lies to his immigrant parents – who engineered this cheating scandal and tried to blame it on another kid. Thankfully, the other kid kept screen shots of what was being said and was able to escape trouble. The timing of buying the phone and then giving it to Jay, along with his car? What teen does that? I had wondered whether they were involved in harder drugs and it was in their best interest to not let that come out. And that maybe she was killed in some kind of manic state. The timing that Jay gives just doesn’t wash. If there were stoned out of their minds, they’d be driving slower, not faster, right? I never did drugs so I’m guessing here. :)</p>
<p>I too have wondered it Adnan has convinced himself he didn’t do it. I also have thought about the role his parents played in all this. The super strict parenting seems to have done him no favors here. He had a secret life. He was used to lying. I think all this subterfuge clouded every ones recollections. </p>
<p>@NewHavenCTmom - If you have any questions about podcasts in general let me know. I love podcasts and listen to many. </p>
<p>Since this is real life, I am accepting the idea that we may never know the truth, or perhaps we already do… But, I am not convinced we have the entire story yet. </p>
<p>We clearly don’t have the whole story yet. I suspect we never will. Either Jay or Adnan (or the hypothetical 3rd person) would need to come out and tell the rest of it. </p>
<p>I waver back and forth on the “Adnan did it” and “Jay did it” sides from week to week. After last weeks episode, I am back to believing Adnan. But, with the tease/cliffhanger from last week, I am super intrigued by the possibility that tomorrows episode might provide convincing evidence that Adnan is a “charming sociopath” after all. </p>
<p>Does anyone listen to the Slate Serial “Spoilers”? Interesting and a way to shore up what I just heard. They only are spoilers if you haven’t listened to that week’s episode. The part I find so interesting is the discussion of the narrative/storytelling and whether the popularity of the podcast is changing the story as it goes.</p>
<p>Love the Slate Spoiler specials! </p>
<p>The Innocence Project representative said that the odds were slim that Koenig would just happen upon a “charming sociopath.” But it is clear that there’s at least one charming sociopath in the story – either Adnan or Jay (if not both). Adnan may well be lying to Koenig. But if Adnan had nothing to do with it, and Jay has framed him, that takes “charming sociopathy” to a whole other level. </p>
<p>I personally think the cops got the timeline wrong, and Adnan knows it (because he was involved). That’s why he sounded so surprised and disappointed when Koenig’s re-creation did not establish that the police’s timeline was impossible.</p>
<p>Ds and I were talking about this … Does anyone know whether Sarah had these 12 podcasts in the can and then has adapted as new things emerge? Or is she kind of making this up as she goes?</p>
<p>Does anyone remember whether Serial has told us how Jay came to the police’s attention? Did he come forward voluntarily? Or did they discover evidence of his involvement independently? Don’t tell us anything you’ve learned outside the context of the podcast. I can’t remember whether Serial has addresses this question (which is quite important to me).</p>