Making a Murderer, Serial, Justice

By now, a whole hell of a lot has been written about Netflix series Making a Murder. The documentary series follows events leading to the murder conviction of Steven Avery. It's a story filled with injustices, beginning with his release from prison in 2003 after serving 18 years for a rape he was exonerated for based on DNA evidence. That part of the story alone is bad enough, revealing what is either incredible incompetency in the Manitowoc County, Wisconsin police department or an elaborate conspiracy. Or both. And the journey to Avery being (mis)tried and convicted of murder in 2007 is one that will test your definition of justice at every turn. 

Make no mistake, what we see in the series is skewed to make you side with Avery. But there are parts of it that no amount of skewing would change. By the end of the series I don't know if I believe Avery is innocent, but I also don't think that's even the point. The fact is the police and DA most definitely pulled some shady shit. I'm not going to go off on a rant (maybe just a little) about prisons and the justice system and racism, but I do have to point out that it's interesting that everyone is so taken by the case of a white dude who was fucked over by the system, while black kids get shot by cops daily. End rant. Plus, I'm not sure Avery is completely innocent, either. I don't know. 

In related news, Serial has started posting daily updates from a new hearing in the case of Adnan Sayed that could result in an overturned conviction. If you never heard season 1 of Serial, you don't know what you're missing. Making a Murderer was good, but it was definitely no Serial. For starters the producers of the podcast are master storytellers where I think the makers of the Netflix series were more lucky than anything else because they happened to be there making a documentary about how Avery would acclimate back into society and then the murder case happened. It sort of just fell in their lap. Also, by skewing the way they did, I think they lose some of the impact a more ambivalent point of view would give them. Serial never chose a side and left you questioning everything. Like life. 

And I guess the larger question left is what if Avery and/or Sayed are guilty after all. Does that justify any shortcuts taken to lock them up? If I were a cop, DA or judge and I knew for a fact, that the accused was guilty, would I manipulate evidence or otherwise influence the outcomes? Honestly, I think I would. But that's why I'm none of those things. I'm just a guy watching a show or listening to a podcast. And I expect more from those that chose to be arbiters of justice. I think we all should. 

Podcatching: Serial Season 1

Juries are supposed to carefully weigh evidence and the case presented and make a decision based on whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is reasonable when the case presented may not be, and hardly ever could be, the same as the truth? Unless there's video of the crime clearly showing the defendant perpetrating it, it's all just he said/she said in the end. It's all one big puzzle that depends on which side can best put it together, but neither side is going to really give you a complete picture. That's the biggest take away I have from Serial's first season because whether or not Adnan Syed really murdered Hae Min Lee, there are many reasonable doubts, and it's not just because he says he didn't do it.

What is justice then? Can we focus on actually punishing guilty people when guilt itself is so contingent on a process that relies on storytelling? It all comes across as subjective. These aren't big revelations at all, but when you listen to a story unfold, after the fact, without the context of one side trying to hide things from the other like you do on Serial, it really drives it home that even with objectivity, things still aren't clear. What does that say about our justice system? And this is before we even consider things like race, prejudice and any other form of corruption that might muddy the waters further. 

Is this even possible in most cases? 

I consider myself a pretty good judge of character. I've been burned enough to be able to say that at this point and mean it. I'm very careful about who I believe and why about everything. But it's a hard thing. At the end of the day, unless you're a completely cynical bastard (which I'm really not) your first instinct when speaking with a human being is likely to take them at face value. I'm not talking about just naively accepting everything they say, but the middle ground is not thinking everyone is lying about everything or even having to verify every little thing they say. And the more you learn about a person's humanity, the more likely you are going to be believe their story. So I believe every person on every side of the story on Serial. I also don't believe any of them because they contradict each other, themselves and known facts so often that it's a literal mess. Like life. 

I don't know how they will top themselves, but Serial's second season should start sometime this Fall. It's going to be interesting listening week to week, as intended (hence the name) rather than binging like I did. I have no idea what the new story will be, but I can't wait. This is great stuff. Go listen damn it. 

Podcatching: Serial - The Alibi

We recently bought Clue and have been playing with Shayera. It's a good game for learning some reasoning skills. I never really played this growing up, but it's funny how one thing leads to another sometimes. Who doesn't love a good mystery? There's a reason crime procedurals have always been popular, from Sherlock Holmes and Agatha Christie to Law and Order, True Detective and beyond. In a sense every story is ultimately a mystery, but there's just something about the search for motive, making sense of senseless acts or maybe it's the idea that with enough intelligence justice can prevail. I don't know. All I know right now is that I can't wait to hear the next episode of Serial, the podcast from the producers of This American Life, that follows one story about a murder, over 12 hour long episodes.  I heard the first one this morning, and since the first season has already been completed, I know I have to zip through this before it gets spoiled.

Murder is fun!

The story is a simple one at heart. A high school girl was murdered in Baltimore (The Wire! Homicide!) in 1999 and her ex boyfriend was accused and convicted, even though he maintains his innocence to this day. What stood out to me listening to this is that in just the first hour, I changed my mind about who I did and didn't believe at least 4 times before giving up entirely on predicting who did what. What's amazing about the way the interviews and narration are conducted by Sarah Koenig, is that I'm now fully on board with these characters who happen to be real people. I've already forgotten I was just listening to a podcast and not watching a great TV show that I would forget wasn't real because that would also be so absorbing. I'm only one episode - one hour - in!  This is that good.

I'm sure this journey will reveal some big truths about human nature. It already has really. For example, the first episode deals a lot with memory and what a person will or won't remember about an average day weeks, months or even years after the fact. Memory is a weird thing because I think we all think that if we remember something, then that's how it happened. But we definitely fill in the blanks and frame events from whatever new perspective time has given us, if we remember it accurately at all. So what about those times when we have no memory of something? Why would not remembering be suspicious? I'm being vague on purpose. I don't want to spoil anything, just go listen to this thing.  And if you have heard it, shhh. Wait til I finish.