For one year,
Sarah Koenig spent every working day trying to figure out where a
high school kid was for 21 minutes after school one day in 1999. For
most people, any activity in such a short amount of time would be
inconsequential. But for Adnan Syed, having irrefutable proof of his
whereabouts within these specific 21 minutes can prove whether he
is guilty or innocent of murder.
Although the narrator, Sarah Koenig,
couldn't help but show a little bias on this case, I was very
impressed with how she presented it as a whodunnit. I learned that
Adnan's guilty verdict was far from undisputed, based on character witnesses and a conflicting testimony from a boy that Adnan claims he barely even
knew. It's human nature to make assumptions. I know I did after just
listening to the first episode, formulating my own theory of what
“really” happened. But to see a boy sentenced to life in prison
based probably's and maybe's, whether truly guilty or not, gave me an
uneasy feeling on how flawed the justice system can be at times.
Listening to the whole season, I came
to understand why this was such a hot topic to discuss during its
initial broadcast. The whole appeal of a murder mystery is being able
to correctly guess who the killer is with the clues provided. This
one having real people makes it that much more appealing. Since the
verdict of the case was based on so much “should have/would
have/could have”, it felt more like the legal system just wanted someone to blame and Adnan seemed the most probable.
Everyone could happily debate about whether or not Adnan was actually
guilty based on the same information they all heard in the podcasts.
During the season, the debate didn't stagnant since the next episode
would reveal information that could potentially tip the scale of
innocence and guilt.
When I eventually came up with my own
hypothesis, I found that I ended up being biased, gladly accepting evidence that supported my hypothesis without any question while
dismissing or demanding the credibility of evidence that worked
against it. Admittedly, I did not come to this realization until the
narrator started to challenge the validity of the evidence I blindly
accepted. My glimmering tower of supporting data was at risk of
collapsing like a stack of Jenga blocks as it was picked apart by the
same hands that helped me build it.
In the end, Sarah
Koenig is left with more questions than answers for the whereabouts
of Adnan. This leaves us as the audience to resume with out speculations.
With a verdict based on such disputable evidence, it is no surprise
that we are prone to draw up a variety of possible conclusions. However, the
narrator's exposure to this case has sparked enough interest to allow
Adnan an appeal. Is it due to mere media exposure or has them been some new evidence brought to light that could make a difference? Whether or not this can potentially change the
verdict or his sentence, hopefully it can at least reveal the truth.
