![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsLike millions of others, I was riveted to the This American Life spinoff podcast Serial. One longform journalistic story told over 12 episodes, the tale of Adnan Syed, convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend 15 years ago has become extremely popular and raised a lot of questions - not only about his guilt, but about how we litigate crimes, how police work works, and how prosecutors do their jobs.
As someone who has traditionally had a lot of skepticism surrounding policework, prosecutors, and how we handle criminal activity period, this was a podcast right down my alley. That a lot of the issues raised by the podcast also have some parallels with current events surrounding the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown got me thinking a lot more about it. This might end up being a pretty roundabout post, and I'm not sure if it will make a ton of sense but it will contain some spoilers if you're still catching up, but
If you're unfamiliar with the story of Serial, the quick and dirty is that Syed was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, after school on a Friday afternoon in January 1999. The first trial ended in a mistrial, the second resulted in Syed's conviction, and a few appeals went through and that was that. Sarah Koenig of TIL had this case brought to her attention about a year ago, and one of the best investigative journalism endeavors unfolded week by week in our media devices. Very quickly, we learn about some key points in the case that raise our eyebrows:
* Cell phone tower positioning that doesn't always fit.
* An alibi for Syed that was never even raised in court.
* The prosecution's chief witness, Syed's acquaintance and drug buddy Jay, having been interviewed for hours before the interview recording went on, and apparently getting a lawyer through the prosecution, something that never happens. (Jay, who by all indications was an accomplice if the Syed story is true, plea bargained out of jail time in exchange for cooperation)
* DNA evidence that has sat for 15 years untested.
This is only scratching the surface of the story, really - you should listen to the podcast anyway, but with 7+ hours of content I'm sure I'm leaving really important details out. Point being? There's a lot of reasonable doubt here. A lot. Even discounting the fact that some of it was not raised in court, even the information that was should have been enough for a not guilty call, but there Syed sits in jail regardless. The Innocence Project is involved, and we may get some traction on a few key issues here in the new year if they're successful, but still.
During the height of Serial-mania, the lack of an indictment came down on the police officer, Darren Wilson, who killed Eric Brown during a confrontation earlier this year. The prosecutor has gotten heat from some circles for not bringing an indictment, even though there was really no concrete evidence supporting anything else than Wilson's story, and the statistics surrounding grand jury indictments popped up and caused some predictable outrage. While people rightly pointed out that this is what's meant by "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich," what I didn't see a lot of is anger that grand juries perhaps indict too often, that cases like Wilson's or even George Zimmerman's, where evidence is clear-cut and there is no question regarding conviction by those who actually look at the information, shouldn't ever even go to trial. Too many people think death = indictable offense (or really just accusation = indictment), and maybe that's part of the problem. Truly, with Syed and others, it really feels more like too many people think prosecutors and grand juries should be sending more and more to trial instead. I don't see how that's a good idea as I've looked into this more over the last six months, and I think we might be sending more people to jail wrongly than I ever thought - not necessarily more innocent people, mind you, but just wrongly.
A lot of this is really the media's fault, though. I've railed in the past about advocacy media, but I'm actually wondering if the problem is with activist media, where the difference is not that the media or reporter has a point of view, but rather that the media or reporter is actively trying to enact change through its reporting and positioning as some sort of independent outlet. Take, for example, the difference between someone like Radley Balko, who has a long line of work regarding police militarization>/a> and Sabrina Rubin Erderly's abhorrent tale about a rape at the University of Virginia (and who has been caught in this sort of sitauation before). I had noted back when the Ferguson had originally occurred that I was traveling and had a pretty hard time sifting truth from narrative. Even now, we have Congresspeople and staffers doing the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" gesture even though there's nothing to support it. Are people misled or are they actively doing something consciously worse? And if people are misled, why? Is the activist media to blame, is it advocacy media, or does the Darren Wilson (or George Zimmerman or Eric Garner's officer) need a Balko or Keonig to tell it?
I don't pretend to know all the answers here. In the last six months, I've honestly ended up with more questions than answers, and the answers to those questions are not forthcoming. Talking to a friend about the Garner/Brown/Tamir Rice stores, I had mentioned that there doesn't seem to be room for people who think that the three aren't really equitable and that the police can be wrong when they go overboard on a twelve year old, but right when an assailant comes back for more. With the apparent execution-style killing of some NYPD cops earlier this weekend, I can't say I'm optimistic about finding more light than heat, or finding some sense of justice that everyone will accept, or getting the stories from the media to those who need to hear them the most.
That's kind of depressing.
(no subject)
Date: 22/12/14 19:36 (UTC)I have an issue with the statement that there's "nothing to support" people doing the "hands up don't shoot" gesture. It's not about one incident that may (or may not) have justified indictment. It's about an ongoing pattern, and regardless of your opinion of the trial-worthiness of the Brown or Garner cases, that pattern still remains, even without those two data points. This is more about a case of camel's backs and straws than two specific cases.
Beyond that, it's not even so clear cut as:
"cases like Wilson's or even George Zimmerman's, where evidence is clear-cut and there is no question regarding conviction by those who actually look at the information,"
...especially as more and more evidence comes to light about what seems to be some serious prosecutorial misconduct with regards to the Wilson/Brown case. You can have an opinion about Wilson and Zimmerman, but don't pretend that there aren't other very contrary opinions out there, and it's a bit premature (especially in the Wilson case) to say: "This is what the facts were; anyone who disagrees isn't paying attention."
(no subject)
Date: 22/12/14 19:43 (UTC)Oh, I know there are other opinions out there. There simply isn't evidence to support them is all. Maybe new evidence will come out at this point, but I have my doubts.
(no subject)
Date: 22/12/14 23:43 (UTC)I went head-to-head with a couple of very sure-sounding forum dwellers here on that point, a few weeks ago, and when I asked them for examples of actual misconduct - such as leading the jury, or clearly slanting the evidence - the ONLY thing they came up with was that flap about the constitutionality of a version of a Missouri state law, that was raised waaaay up the flagpole by some talking-head TV personality whose name I don't recall.
So tell me - what is this "more and more" evidence, that is coming to light now?
(no subject)
Date: 23/12/14 01:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/12/14 02:05 (UTC)There are a number of witnesses that had stories that went against Wilson's claim and were physically impossible to be true. Dorian Johnson's cousin is one that comes to mind on this, but there are a few given the log.
(no subject)
Date: 22/12/14 21:30 (UTC)That said, people need to cool off a bit about this, and start to think a bit more soberly. Not sure that's possible IRL, but there it is. It's just that the current level of discourse on the police issue is not helping anybody.
(no subject)
Date: 22/12/14 22:39 (UTC)One longform journalistic story told over 12 episodes, the tale of Adnan Syed, convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend 15 years ago has become extremely popular and raised a lot of questions - not only about his guilt, but about how we litigate crimes, how police work works, and how prosecutors do their jobs.
Just because an account is verbose, entertaining, popular and caters to your bias doesn’t make it necessarily any more accurate or factual than the evidence presented in trials. The Unexplained Files on The Science Channel comes to mind. By nature, investigative pieces, which this seems to be, are likely to be “investigative journalism” in that they generally have a conclusion determined at the beginning of the investigation.
Was everything in the trial 100% perfect? No, nothing ever is. I still think our judicial system is one of the best in the world. The purpose of investigative journalism is to promote stories and not necessarily discover truths.
You mentioned one piece of evidence that was old DNA. DNA that is millions of year old has been extracted in archeological digs and still found to be useful. Cherry picking the details is the stuff tabloid journalism and conspiracy theories are made of.
(no subject)
Date: 22/12/14 22:46 (UTC)I agree 100%. Have you listened to Serial?
Cherry picking the details is the stuff tabloid journalism and conspiracy theories are made of.
I also agree 100%, and I admit my summary of 7+ hours of material into effectively two paragraphs is not fair to the subject.
(no subject)
Date: 22/12/14 22:56 (UTC)I agree 100%. Have you listened to Serial?
Nope. Listening to a 7+ hours of a biased account doesn’t interest me.
(no subject)
Date: 22/12/14 23:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/12/14 23:52 (UTC)I made my decision based on his account.
(no subject)
Date: 23/12/14 01:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/12/14 20:45 (UTC)And I like listening to the Supreme Court audio files, even though the nuances of law are way over my head.