[S06.E12: The Big Guns]

I laughed pretty hard when Claire & Phil called the boat tacky and the neighbor wife said "whoa whoa whoa, it has four aces on the side of it". Also enjoyed Cam getting punched in the face and falling down. Now if we can get Lisbo to go after Manny next...

[S19.E02: Week 2]

I thought the bikini tractor race was tacky enough, but then to call it the "show me your country!" date and have the girls repeatedly yelling "oh! show me your country!", I stopped hearing the "tree" part and the whole thing turned into a VH1 reality show. I never know how people are going to be portrayed, but Chris is definitely not setting it up for a wholesome Sean Lowe season. Not that that is bad, this show is trash, so might as well whole hog, to use an Iowa metaphor.

[Extra Hot Great]

Heroes was also my immediate response. It was so good at first, and then so bad. I think it ended up focusing on a circus somehow? It was awful.

[Serial]

I find it really interesting that the jury that was polled after the mistrial said that they would vote to acquit.  Now that I've read the 3 days of testimony that occurred, my conclusion is that either there was some significant difference in the way the trial was presented or that the juries had a completely different mindset.  The first trial consisted only of opening statements and then the prosecution got through about 75% of their case.  They heard from various medical people saying Hae was strangled, was buried, that her blood was found in the car, that Adnan's palm print was found in the car, etc.  Then they heard from various people from the school including what happened at the Homecoming dance, how Adnan was acting after the body was found (that witness wasn't allowed in the second trial, but just on reading it her credentials are extensive and she strongly felt he was faking his reactions as his mood was changing based on who was in the room) They heard from a teacher who said Hae once hid from Adnan after they argued. They heard from Don.  They heard from "Cathy" who I thought was fairly compelling as a witness. Then of course they heard from Jay and they heard Jay get cross-examined where they spend a lot of time with "so you lied, did you not?" "Yes, Ma'am.".  

 

I wonder how different the second trial's cross of Jay was for them to still believe him.  I wonder how it was handled differently.  I guess I will find out!  The second trial documents will be released soon.  I was just surprised that the first trial never got to hear any defense witnesses. Or maybe Jenn Pusateri is also a compelling witness, because the 1st group didn't get to hear from her.

 

It was also crazy to me how much the judge was pushing for them to move quickly. I know absolutely nothing about criminal trials, but at the end of the day, each of the 3 days he scolded the attorneys for not being more efficient.  He even responded to a "no further questions" with something like "thank god for that", and commented during questioning that he was "trying to get out of there this millennium".  Is that normal to say, hey Christmas is coming let's be super efficient with this First Degree Murder trial?  The defense was even given a specific amount of time they were allowed to cross-examine Jay.  I didn't realize that was a thing.

 

ETA: the first jury also hadn't heard any cell record/cell tower testimony.  Maybe that felt like compelling "physical" evidence to the 2nd jury.

[Serial]

I agree that Jay's definition of being threatened seems really bizarre after seeing Sarah's emails. Maybe he's just really paranoid.

Rabia is releasing trial transcripts that I have been reading (I think I went in the wrong profession if I find these things interesting). They are from the first trial, the mistrial, but I still think the State's case is stronger than Serial made it seem. The fact that two people plus Adnan himself said that he asked Hae for a ride that day is really suspicious. Additionally, he told the grief councilor that Hae called him the day before she went missing saying she wanted to get back together (from what we know of her and Don at that time, that seems extremely unlikely). I have red flags reading those new bits, and yet still: reasonable doubt.

[Serial]

Jay's most believable story yet! Too bad it is unsupported by cell phone records and would be an admittance of perjury, but other than that, I buy it.

[S25.E12: All Or Nothing]

As a woman and a scientist and a native Wisconsite, I kind of lost it when Amy & Maya won. Completely unexpectedly burst into tears. That was so lovely.

I wonder if the horrible wrestlers took some solice in knowing they could never, ever have finished that last challenge. Brooke is a whining baby and she would have had a frustration meltdown. So glad they were eliminated.

[Serial]

As much as you could say there is not enough evidence to convict Adnan, I think you must equally say there is not enough evidence to convict Jay.  Yes, he's lying. He's lying A LOT.  And the police didn't investigate him as a suspect, so there may be evidence that was just not collected.  But 15 years after the fact to go so far as to accuse a real person living their real life when you have no evidence to do so is a bit harsh.  I think she did enough to cast doubt on him, but to say "he did it"... there's no proof.  

 

Also, I think Jay was pretty generous to invite them into his home.  I do not see another option other than telling him why there were there (which really pissed him off, according to them), and asking if he'd like to comment or be interviewed in the future.  She can't go in there all "IS IT NOT", and expect to get anywhere with him I wouldn't think.  Plus, she was trying to get him to agree to further interviews, so I can only assume kid gloves were used.

 

It would be AMAZING to hear from Jay now, and get some real answers, but I don't think she had the opportunity to actually ask the questions. 

[Serial]

I thought many parts of this episode were written really nicely, I liked it a lot. I was a nice balance of new information and recap, opinions and facts.  I also really liked her explanation of why you can't report on unsupported theories, because like ExplainItAgain said earlier, the audience has gotten so over invested that they (we) almost need to be reminded why they are not getting attention.  The beginning was really nice too, where Adnan asks her if she has an ending.  I almost wonder if she fed him that line, but I don't care either way.  It worked really nicely.

 

For those worried about Koenig withdrawl, you can search for her episodes on the This American Life website.  There's one about Penn State where she is reporting from her front porch about college students peeing all around her neighborhood and causing a ruckus.  It's pretty great.

[Serial]

I would think I would only be disappointed if it was only a recap/summary. I don't need a bombshell, but something new. Some interview, some fact, something. Or if it was really short, that would be sad too. It would be so irresponsible to leave someone sitting in jail waiting for the final episode of a podcast to release the key to the crime for entertainment value. I don't think anything like that should or will happen.

I can imagine a follow up episode in a year or so after the innocence project finishes or after the appeal. Either way, I'm trying to get excited for tomorrow even if I can't imagine what new info there will be.

[Which Podcasts Fuel Your Listening Pleasure?]

I listened to the This American Life episode about fiascoes this weekend and was laughing so hard.  I recommend it highly!

[Serial]

I love, love, love this podcast, but I did not love Episode 11.  Maybe it was an answer to audience reactions of people assuming they can determine innocence or guilt based on a word or an inflection in an interview.  I'm sure it's hard for some people to listen and say that we will never know what actually happen, so they try to find clues and draw conclusions.  To me though, it felt like generalities about people and criminals, where I am more interested in this specific crime and the trial.  Did anyone else have a totally different reaction?

[Gold Rush - General Discussion]

I don't care if there isn't drama on Parker's mine, I just like to see him haul in the huge gold.  I don't need him to move his wash plant every week or have money drama.  I'm sure something will happen to make it entertaining (like him breaking the water pipe and them having to fix it while Gene was off, I thought that was a good scene, and actually felt like something that actually happened instead of... well... every single fake thing at the Hoffman mine).

 

I read an interview with Todd Hoffman (http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/index.ssf/2014/12/gold_rush_oregons_todd_hoffman.html), and he says he is getting another show (GROSS) and also that the demise of society includes "people getting their heads chopped off on the news, the crash of '08 and '09, legalizing marijuana,..." Wow, those are three pretty disparate things to point out, and I think we could play the one of these things is not like the other game with that.  Someone needs to move out of Oregon ;-)

[Serial]

The Case Against Adnan has been made, by the state, by the media in Baltimore at the time, and she has devoted an entire episode to that case against him. I guess I'd find it really extra oogy of her to just do an episodes like your describing just to flex a story telling muscle 

Yeah, I see your point.  Maybe I'm just looking for excuses for more episodes :)   Serial #2 is going to be so long from now... she doesn't even have topic yet and then it is going to take a long time to research and produce.  I look forward to it, and in the meantime I should search out more podcasts because this is my first experience with any media like this.  From what I can tell it's unique, but I bet there are other quality storytellers out there who can quell my thirst for something to listen to after this is done.

[Serial]

I don't think it has to be fair and impartial, that wasn't my point. I am saying that in this entertainment piece, which is a journalistic one, but presented in a way to engage and amuse the audience, I would enjoy an episode where she fully committed to the other side. It's not necessary, I just think she's such a good storyteller, I'd like to hear how well she can take an audience that has heard 10 episodes that lead to an opinion, twist it on its head and do the opposite. She is of course not obligated to do an episode like that, I just thought it might be an interesting study into presentation of data.

I do not think its fair to say facts are facts when it comes to this podcast. There are facts presented, but also opinions. She will say "I don't buy that" right after an interview clip. Plus the issue with this case is that there are so many non-facts. It's memories, people telling stories, clearly some people are lying or misremembering. Plus the actual facts are so wishy washy, like even hard facts like Adnan's cell log are fuzzy bc we don't know who had the phone when and the cell tower pings are not as simple as it seems. She said today about the case "we don't even know when Hae died" which if you think Jay is a complete liar, is true. She could have been kidnapped for a few days. Who knows? (Ok I don't think that's true, since I believe Jay buried her and I believe him and Jenn cleaned shovels that night, but there is no physical evidence to prove that).

I am probably thinking about it too much. It's more to me than a presentation of how someone was convicted on flimsy to no evidence, it's also a unique bit of journalism and entertainment that I think is interesting on its face beyond just the information in the story.

[Serial]

Maybe but she spent a lot of that episode giving justifications for inconsistencies and with a healthy dose of acting thoroughly unconvinced. I really think she's talented enough to tell the story without that, just for an episode.

I think I feel like that because she seems to strive to mention both sides, and presents it as impartial, but it's really not impartial at all. I'd just like to hear a real and true case for Adnan. Or just flat out say it doesn't exist.

[Serial]

I liked this episode. I could completely understand how jurors would have sympathy for Jay if he was being questioned by someone with that voice and awful cadence. I'm surprised she was successful early in her career with that technique. The yelling was off putting too, it wasn't like an a ha moment, it was more like bad imitation of bad TV.

I think Koenig's done a good job of casting probable doubt. I'd like one of the last two episodes to be about how evidence could stack up to point firmly to Adnan. She started right from episode one saying she doesn't buy the motive, there is no physical evidence, etc, but I'm sure she's a good enough storyteller to have an entire episode that clearly presents facts in a condemning way. I'm ready for another side at this point.

[Serial]

Tomorrows' episode is called "The best defense is a good defense" so we should get info on the trial and crappy attorney. I'm excited.

[Serial]

I saw speculation (so take it with a grain of salt) that Gutierrez didn't want a plea deal bc she wanted cash from the appeal.  That is unprovable and pretty much the height of evil as a defense attorney, but... yeah.

 

I'm going to spoiler this, because I imagine it will be compelling if presented in the podcast about the mistrial:

the first trial was thrown out because one of the jurors heard the judge call Gutierrez a liar.  Sit with that.  The JUDGE called her a liar and a juror heard it.  Apparently the juror wrote the judge a note something like "now that we know you think the lawyer is a liar, are we going to start over?".  I can't remember the exact wording but it is just mind boggling to me that something so insane could happen in a first degree murder case where my assumption is that people know what they are doing.

[Serial]

I also have a question/clarification.  Isn't it true that in this appeal/last chance process that you must prove that someone is innocent, not that there is reasonable doubt?  I think the burden of proof is much different at this point than it was in earlier stages.  So while, yes, hendersonrocks, it seems insane that non-evidence convicted originally, the same non-evidence is not enough to release him now.  As far as I understand it, something new has to have come to light, and the "incompetent lawyer" argument is not going to be easy to prove.  

[Serial]

There's a very nice timeline infographic on the Serial website they posted today:

http://serialpodcast.org/maps/timelines-january-13-1999

 

It seems like it has things on it that we haven't heard about that may be referenced in the last 3 episodes.

[Serial]

No, I remember a lot about 9/11 too, but Hae wasn't missing until after school and then they were off school the next four days. Also, those 3-4 years matter, or at least they do to my quickly aging mind! High school gets fuzzier by the year.

I think I only brought it up because for me the new stuff seems really exciting as a listener (we just got new info about the pay phone, I got a call from Asia McClain, etc), but it is those things that are probably the least likely to be accurate. I'm just struggling with listening wanting to be entertained, and reminding myself it's real life, real people, not being presented for my enjoyment, etc.

[Serial]

Yeah I agree with that (eta whoa three posts while I wrote - I am referring to the diary as surprising due to immaturity not race). There is also the fact that Koenig is interviewing all of the other people for her story when they are in their 30's, but the voice of Hae never had the chance to mature. I'm sure she has to constantly remind herself that they were just high school kids at the time, since it's so far removed. I also think she is sensitive to saying anything negative about Hae because it could come off as tasteless.

For some reason I thought there were 10 episodes of Serial, but I read that there will be 12. That leaves a decent amount of time to discuss Hae, alternate theories, and what I am most fascinated by: the terrible defense during the two trials.

I've realized that I am the same age as these people, so while it is interesting to hear interviews like "no, that couldn't have happened in that timeline, because I remember.." I cannot tell you specifics of one single day of high school. Not my birthday, not any days of tragedy, nothing. I remember bits and pieces like anyone, but details? No. Side note, I also worked at a Best Buy at that time for 2 years and I could not say at all one way or another if there was a pay phone in the lobby or parking lot. I love this podcast, but asking people to recall today what happened then is pretty far fetched to me.

[Serial]

Which leads me to something I'm not clear on - why are some people's full names given, some only first name, and some get pseudonyms? It is relatively easy to find everyone's full name in court documents (so I have read, I didn't actually check), so why the random secrecy on the podcast?

[Frankie Grande: Overwhelming No]

Frankie decided paint was an acceptable shirt substitute at the VMAs. (I saw this on the Facebook trending thing on the side, and all comments are either "what an ass" or "he is not famous" or "who is this")