4 ms·
I'm not mad that Serial didn't provide doubt or prove guilt, though I am somewhat frustrated that the reporter seemed to have so much doubt that (in my opinion)
by mecha_ghidorah 4y ago
I'm not mad that Serial didn't provide doubt or prove guilt, though I am somewhat frustrated that the reporter seemed to have so much doubt that (in my opinion) wasn't justified by what she presented in the show, what I am mad about is that it largely amounted to just several hours of someone saying "Maybe he is guilty, but also maybe not?" without any real narrative or arc or progression. I felt like the story ended exactly where it started with no real meaningful change in how the reporter felt, the facts of the case, or even without giving us a particularly compelling biography of Adnan.
Everyone made such a fuss over this podcast and in the end absolutely nothing happens in it on any of the axis that could have been interesting and it felt like such a waste of my time after I finished it
- reggedtorespond 4y agoIt's been a long time since I've listened to the show so I may be way off here, but it did demonstrate that the prosecutor's timeline was flawed, the cell phone data was unreliable, and that Syed's counsel overlooked a potential alibi witness. In any case Serial was a landmark in the fields of true crime and podcasting, so it holds some merit as a historical piece if nothing else.