The Case Against Adnan Syed

Regardless of whether Adnan is guilty or not, it's proven many times that the justice system is broken. Many people consider it as sacred but in reality, it's just a man made system and doesn't always become successful in delivering justice. It works on the ability of people to present the truth in order to serve justice, but people can be biased, easily manipulated, and influenced. This includes everyone in the justice system. The many innocent people, who were put in jail and later exonerated, and the people who were let go freely even though they were guilty, are the biggest proof of it. The system prefers the rich and powerful. If you have the money, you can hire the biggest lawyer with the biggest mouth, whether you are guilty or not, and that lawyer will try to manipulate the system to prove your innocence.

The first episode was somewhat slow and it is probably the reason for so many bad reviews. The second episode, though, it is much better with better pace and all of this contradictory information which make this case such a mystery

N 2014, a podcast called "Serial" went viral when doing its first season on the Adnan Syed murder case. Apparently it's been downloaded 175 million times. Think about that! That's more than half the country's population. Now 5 years later comes this 4 part documentary from HBO, in essence a visual rehash and update of the podcast. As the documentary opens, we get a short introduction as to the main persons involved in this matter, including 18 year old Hae Min Lee, who was brutally murdered in early 1999, 17 year old school mate (and ex-boyfriend) Adnan Syed, their respective families, and others. The attention of the Baltimore Police focuses quickly on Syed, a Pakistani American whose family is super-strict, but he himself is not.

Couple of comments: this documentary is written and directed by highly respected and long-time documentarian Amy Berg (whose 2006 "Deliver Us From Evil" was nominated for Best Documentary Oscar). The documentary is in 4 parts, and I have now seen 3 of the 4 parts (I'll watch the last part surely later this week). The documentary feels at times s bit heavy-handed, if not one-sided, at least through the initial 3 parts, mostly telling the story from Syed's and his lawyer's and family's perspective. Part 2 ("In Between the Truth") looks up close at the various testimonials. Because so many aspects and angles of the case come up, I admit that at times I lost track of certain things. It's not very often these days that one gets too much information! When Berg lets the Korean American family and Baltimore community speak their minds, it only reinforces how little attention is paid to them overall. One interesting item that came up a number of times is how the "Serial" podcast has impacted the people involved, even those just on the fringes (a HS classmate comments that she wishes she'd never gotten involved in the podcast).

Despite its flaws, I nevertheless found this pretty compelling viewing. I think one reason for the podcast's extraordinary success and now the strong ratings for this documentary is that the appetite from the public at large for a murder case in which we may never fully know what truly and really happened, is simply insatiable.

*UPDATE* I saw the 4th and final episode and it doesn't change my overall view of this documentary series: heavily tilted towards the Syed camp's view of events, but in the end we really don't know know what happened 20 years ago

Writing a short review to counterbalance some of the more negative reviews (of the armchair detectives that happily pass judgement). Though, I do agree the documentary doesn't present the case particularly well, or their argument of the case's failures, and without Serial and Undisclosed, this documentary wouldn't receive any attention/acclaim, which is a pity.

I have no idea if Adnan is guilty, but what is clear is, that the police investigation, trial, and succeeding actions of the judicial system, have little interest in providing justice on the basis of evidence (which should be of concern to everyone). Is that due to it being an inconvenience, general incompetence or institutional corruption?

In any event, reviewers should look to the title of the documentary, and then consider whether the state made its case (based on information/evidence available) before offering their opinions. The documentary highlights that it didn't, though this could have been argued better.

Incredibly one sided information that doesnt have the same professionaliam and objectivity as Serial. Its great hearing more about this case and putting faces to the voices, but i feel like this was a wasted opportunity to give another unbiased accounting of the story. Instead this feels like propoganda to help exonerate Anand.