serial podcast discussion post

Serial podcast discussions
***two episodes: each episode needs its own thoughtful question. Thoughtful question from each episode, an example is provided down below. No extra sources: just episodes and notes I provided and ideas.
**could it be poissble be one page for each episode?

Episode #1- https://serialpodcast.org/season-one/1/the-alibi
Part I – Please listen to the Serial Episode and post a thoughtful question. Topics related the the legal aspects of evidence and procedure that are touched upon in this episode include the following:
Reliability/fallibility of witnesses’ memory
Alibis
Corroboration of witness statements–particularly as it relates to alibis
Manual strangulation
Offender characteristics?
Ineffective assistance of defense attorney
Prosecution theories
Evaluation of the credibility/truthfulness of witnesses
Shakespearean Tragedy
Was this a case of typical human behavior?
Cultural differences
Sociopath
Offender characteristics
Psychopathology
Motive
Testimony
Eyewitness
Physical evidence
Interrogation
Inconsistent statements to police
Hearsay (statements made to others)
Cellular phone evidence
Expert testimony
Accomplices
Post conviction relief
Episode #2: https://serialpodcast.org/season-one/2/the-breakup
Part I – Please listen to the Serial Episode and post a thoughtful question in our class forum as described in the Syllabus. Topics related the the legal aspects of evidence and procedure that are touched upon in this episode include the following:
Homicides related to Intimate Partner Violence (Domestic Violence)
Intimate Partner violence
Offender Characteristics
Potential expert witness testimony
Prosecution theory
Credibility of witnesses
Credibility of our of court statements/writings
Corroboration
Admissions
Recanted statements

An example of a discussion post-
Question
Serial Episode 1: The Breakup
Sarah Koenig
I am going to start this with two quotes from Koenig.
“Information that could mean one thing or perhaps the opposite depending on who’s talking.” “All this information is currency for whatever side you’re on.”
(Koenig, Serial Episode: The Breakup)
These two quotes readily sum up this podcast. The State prosecutors set the motive for the murder of Lee that Syed was humiliated and his pride had taken a hit. They wanted the jury to believe that he could not accept what happened and because of this anger welled up in him. This is what caused Syed to murder Lee. They paint Syed as having been tormented by lying to his family and betraying his religion. Yet according to Syed while he was born and raised Muslim, he was not really in it because of the religion. He mostly thought of himself as doing well and he deserved to have some fun. Syed’s behavior was the same before he began dating Lee and after; dating, smoking weed, going to clubs. The State says Syed was possessive in the relationship but nothing in Lee diary or when Koenig talks to people who knew them suggest a controlling, overbearing relationship between the two. Fast forward through the relationship, which was typical of most teen romances i.e., kiss, fight, breakup then make up, we get to the final break up. Most people Koenig talked to suggest their breakup was typical teen drama though the State prosecutors want to make it seem otherwise. Koenig spoke with the friends that knew both Lee and Syed, which was easy to do. Syed and Lee, including their friends, were all part of a magnet program in the school so they were always with each other. Whether it was Syed’s friends or Lees, both sides state there was little out of the ordinary. Even teachers for Syed would say that while he may have been sad nothing points to Syed being out for murder. The State’s case for motive comes from Jay Wilds who is the only one that says Syed was angry about it and wanted to kill her. How is this person, someone who isn’t that close to Syed, how is their story to be believed over others who were closer in friendship? Was Syed’s defense attorney not able to call these individuals that Koenig spoke with to help refute the States claims? The State’s case is built on a fragile foundation that could have easily crumbled. The motive they have is backed by no evidence. This does not mean Syed did not kill Lee but their reason for it is garbage. The State even tries to suggest that because Syed was an EMT he would have knowledge on how to strangle someone. First off it is not rocket science to strangle someone. Even so, unless I missed the day where they taught us how to strangle people, as a registered EMT I am going to have to call BS. I do not understand how Syed’s defense attorney, Gutierrez, was unable to build doubt in the claims made by the State. It really does seem intentional. If this were a football game, Gutierrez would be looked at for point-shaving or at the very least throwing the game. How could a jury believe this was enough to convict someone when there was just as much information to suggest otherwise?

Last Completed Projects