21 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2016
    1. Early this month, I went to Toledo, Ohio, to meet with Hillary Clinton, to sit down with her for a while and take the measure of her ordeal. It was five weeks before an unnervingly high-stakes Election Day. Every campaign produces candidates declaring that “the most important election of our lifetimes” is at hand. Usually this is true only for the person running (no doubt 2012 was the most important election of Mitt Romney’s lifetime). But this year’s stakes feel legitimate. This is not only for the milestone that Clinton’s election would achieve, and all the cultural Rorschach tests, gender dynamics and political scar tissue embedded within. It’s because of Donald Trump, an astonishing figure unlike any who has ever come close to assuming power in this country. “Near existential” is how Tim Kaine recently described this campaign, and it did not come off as complete hyperbole.

      The author points out that this election is different from the others. The stakes for this one are far greater than the usual election and he talks about how Hillary understands the legitimacy of this election a bit more than Trump.

    1. But it's also worth remembering that Clinton remains a deeply flawed candidate. Her dominance among women in polling often masked the deep reluctance I hear from women who were supporting her on the campaign trail.

      Here the author tells about Clinton's reign over women and how she may not have as much control as it seems. Many women don't want to vote for her but would rather have her than Trump.

    2. We really don't know yet what the true political fallout will be of Friday's bombshell report on the tape, which was published by The Washington Post. But we know that it came on the heels of a horrific two weeks for Trump during which he flubbed his first debate performance, engaged in a Twitter-shaming feud with a former Miss Universe and defended the notion that he may not have paid federal taxes over an 18-year period.

      This is really more of an attack on Trump than a segment in an article. Nonetheless the author clearly shapes her rhetoric as an anti-Trump voter. Although its not surprising coming from a source as liberal as CNN.

    3. The 2005 tape has thrown the Republican Party into disarray, shattering the fragile alliance of GOP support around him, as dozens of top lawmakers and officials announced they could not stand behind what they viewed as sexist and misogynistic comments. His taped apology, many of them said, was not enough.

      This is an interesting view of the current republican party. To say that Trump has lost almost all his supporters is a bit of an overstatement but it clearly addresses the issue of Trump's video clip and the damage he is going to suffer from it.

    1. That’s not to say that many Republicans didn’t deal with what promises to be a searingly painful chapter of the cycle with more reality-based answers. Some simply condemned the nominee’s remarks, buttoned up their mackintoshes and faced the storm. Others, took the full leap and said that they were withdrawing their support or foreclosing the chance that they might one day come around.

      The author takes a really good look at the conservative party and basically breaks the members down to two groups based on how they handled Trump's antics. Saying that some simply said that Trump's remarks weren't a view of the whole party while others simply stopped supporting the party in this race all together in hope of something better in the future.

    2. Instead, Trump went another way with the most ferocious attacks he could muster – often effectively delivered – against Hillary Clinton. It was the stuff of fantasy for a Republican base that believes their party’s electoral misfortunes of 2008 and 2012 were due to a lack of brutality

      Interesting paragraph to say that now Trump is delivering the style of politics that many republicans have deemed necessary since 2008. And because of this Trump has re-gained a lot of support within his party.

    3. Hurt: Trump victory of biblical proportions - WashTimes: “Not since Daniel entered the lion’s den has any mortal walked into a room with a fierce political machine and a monolithic media more resolutely against him…The release of this decade-old tape, of course, was perfectly calculated between the Clinton campaign and the shameless media to extinguish any hopes of a Trump resurgence in Sunday night’s debate. Well, they better hope that tape kills him. Because the Donald Trump that showed up for Sunday night’s debate utterly destroyed Hillary Clinton.”

      This "review" of the debate is an interesting choice for the author. Saying that this tape is Clinton's last hope against Trump is quite a statement. Even for an article on Fox News, this was ballsy. It also may not prove to be true as the election is still underway and there could be many more debates and arguments that could shift the tide much like this one did.

    4. It was a reminder of all the other hare-brained schemes that conservatives and establishmentarians have talked about since this time last year. The candidates would unite to defeat Trump. No wait, candidates would drop out of the race to stop Trump. Hold on, “strategic voting” will deny Trump the delegates he needs. Scratch that, rules of the convention can be changed to steal the nomination from Trump. How about third-party bid?

      The author really calls out the conservatives on their strategies on defeating trump. And how many they've tried and failed throughout the last year. Now trump stands at the head of the party with very little in his way in terms of other conservatives.

    1. Reid, Clinton supporters hit Trump over Nevada pronunciation Published October 06, 2016 FoxNews.com Facebook0 Twitter0 livefyre9791 Email Print Now Playing What's Trump doing to prepare for 2nd presidential debate? Never autoplay videos Supporters for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Sen. Harry Reid attacked Donald Trump after the Republican presidential nominee told his supporters about the “correct” way to pronounce Nevada. Trump, during a rally Wednesday in Reno, insisted the correct way to pronounce the name of the Silver State was “Neh-VAH-da.” He declared that “nobody says it the other way.” Clinton supporters and Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, both used the moment to assail Trump. American Bridge immediately put up a video declaring that Trump was “looking like an idiot” for getting the name wrong. A statement from Reid declared that Trump’s stop in Reno was “disastrous.” "If Donald Trump wants to come down from the penthouse his daddy bought him to lecture us on how to say Nevada, he could at least pronounce it correctly,” Reid said in a statement. "Instead, Trump told us we pronounce the name of our state wrong minutes before he refused to take a position on Yucca Mountain. Predictions Map See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections. See Predictions Map → “I have news for Donald: it's pronounced Nev-AD-a and Yucca Mountain is dead.” Trump made a stop at the International Church of Las Vegas and the International Christian Academy before his rally in Reno. He said the Pledge of Allegiance with schoolchildren at the school. He also visited with Hispanic business leaders at a Mexican restaurant before departing for northern Nevada. Fox News’ Chad Pergram and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

      This article is actually written about Trump's pronunciation of Nevada as it is short and to the point. It almost seems like Fox had to just throw an article out there to cover the topic. Basically this article talks about Clinton supporter's attacks on Trump for the way he says their State's name. While the CNN article went deep into Trump's political and economic strategies, this one was a quick review of why people were mad at trump for the way he talks.

    1. First Read's Morning Clips: It's Nev-ADDD-ah, not Nev-AHHHH-dah Share Share Tweet Share Email Print Comment advertisement OFF TO THE RACES: It's Nev-ADDD-ah, not Nev-AHHHH-dah Donald Trump's attempt to pronounce "Nevada" in the Silver State last night didn't go well. Tim Kaine praised his own Tuesday night debate performance. Trump says he's "getting a lot of credit" after Mike Pence's widely-praised debate. Pence is taking heat from Latinos after his "Mexican thing" remark. From the Washington Post: "Sen. Tim Kaine may have awakened Wednesday to poor reviews after the first and only vice-presidential debate, but his acerbic performance in Farmville, Va., revealed that the Clinton campaign's strategy for these debates extends far beyond the stage. Armed with pre-planned Web videos, television ads and tweets, the campaign has used key debate moments this week and last as a cudgel against the Republican ticket, showing a level of discipline and organization largely absent from Donald Trump and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's campaign." Trump said yesterday: "They say Donald Trump loves Putin. I don't love, I don't hate. We'll see how it works." And here's Trump on the issue of Yucca Mountain: "Number one is safety and it is a little too close to major population, so I will take a look at it and I will have an opinion." The New York Times does a deep dive into Trump's business ventures. "Of the roughly 60 endeavors started or promoted by Mr. Trump during the period analyzed, The Times found few that went off without a hitch. One-third of them either never got off the ground or soon petered out. Another third delivered a measure of what was promised — buildings were built, courses taught, a product introduced — but they also encountered substantial problems, like lawsuits, government investigations, partnership woes or market downturns." Here's how Pennsylvania boosted its swing-state status, according to the Washington Post. An interesting data point from PRRI/The Atlantic: "White likely voters who still live in their hometown strongly prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton (57 percent vs. 31 percent), while nearly half (46 percent) of those who live more than a two-hour drive away from their hometown are supporting Clinton compared to 40 percent who are supporting Trump." The Atlantic endorsed Hillary Clinton, only the third time it has weighed in on a presidential election since 1857. Via POLITICO: With hopes in Pennsylvania fading, Trump is hoping to make gains in the Mountain West. From the AP: "Donald Trump once called data "overrated" in politics. But with Election Day swiftly approaching, the Republican presidential nominee is spending millions of dollars on data and digital services in an effort to land donations and win over voters. Ushering Trump toward a more analytical approach are Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and adviser, and Brad Parscale, the campaign's digital director and a veteran Trump Organization consultant." Sean Hannity is accusing Megyn Kelly of supporting Hillary Clinton. "Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has throughout his career given campaign contributions to state attorneys general while they weighed decisions affecting his business, a review of his political donations shows," notes the Wall Street Journal. From the New York Times yesterday: "The F.B.I. secretly arrested a former National Security Agency contractor in August and, according to law enforcement officials, is investigating whether he stole and disclosed highly classified computer code developed by the agency to hack into the networks of foreign governments. The arrest raises the embarrassing prospect that for the second time in three years, a contractor for the consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton managed to steal highly damaging secret information while working for the N.S.A." What will happen to Merrick Garland's nomination in December? The

      The first thing i noticed when i got to the NBC website was that all of the political articles are about Trump. That really says something about the style of politics that are alive in the U.S. today. Although the article title talks about "Nevada" and how Trump says the State's name, it actually takes a deeper look into Trump's past business dealings and political affiliations. As opposed to the Fox news article that actually did focus on his pronunciation of Nevada. On top of that the author in this article goes after Trump's VP candidate as well as others that are in Trump's campaign committee. This article seemed more like an attack on trump rather than a criticism.

  2. Sep 2016
    1. Serialpossesses the ability to reference previous episodes in a waythat mimics drama but is related to what Garner called the “ticking,glinting” factor of Koenig’s writing: the hallmark of confessional-style feature writing. Without the intimacy of serialization, an audi-ence might find Koenig’s pronouncement, “You’ve heard this infor-mation before. Let me recap,” grating. Interestingly, Koenig andteam feel by the final episode that they have built up enough of aserialized rapport with their audience that they do not even have tointroduce Don when he finally comes forward. (Woe betide any non-fans who might not have understood by episode nine that Don wasHae Min Lee’s current boyfriend when she went missing in January1999.) In episode seven, “The Opposite of the Prosecution,” Koenigfeels she had to pause speaker Deirdre Enright’s real-time commen-tary to remind the listeners that “Don was Hae’s new boyfriend”—the momentum between episode seven and episode nine has crystal-lized audience rapport and loyalty.Serial’sconfidence in its audiencehaving understood the twists and turns of narrative has been bol-stered by its insistence on a serialized form with a recognizablestructure.

      This is an interesting statement as it points out that Koenig's audience is so in tune with the story that she no longer needs to formally introduce characters to the audience. After listening to Serial it becomes much easier to follow the twists in the story by the later episodes. This verifies the author's claim that Koenig knows how to lure in her audience and keep them interested in the way the story pans out.

    1. What?! Gutierrez freaks out! This is the magic information. Jay testifies that after his last interview with detectives, in April of ‘99, he had no contact with the cops or the prosecutors until September 6. So a long stretch where he doesn’t know what’s going on. He says he called the office of the public defender to try to see if he could get himself a lawyer, and they told him that unless you’ve been charged, we can’t help you. Which is true. So Jay says the next thing that happens is the cops come to see him, on September 6, and tell him he’s about to be charged with accessory after the fact and that he’ll be able to get a lawyer. The next day, September 7, they come pick him up, they book him, and they take him to the State Attorney’s office. He meets Kevin Urick, the prosecutor. Jay says he’s never met Urick before and then he says Urick introduces him to Anne Benaroya, who can represent him for free. Jay and Benaroya talk privately for a while, and then they sign a plea agreement. Then, that same day, they all go across the street to the courthouse and present the signed plea to a judge. If you or a loved one is an attorney, your jaw is hanging open right now, correct? Prosecutors do not find attorneys for witnesses they are prosecuting. That is not a thing. A former prosecutor that worked in the Baltimore office at the time said she’s never heard of

      This is really interesting, the fact that the prosecutors got Jay a lawyer is really, really sketchy. As Koenig states, that doesn't normally happen, or ever really happen for that matter. So why did they give Jay an attorney? It almost seems like all of this was set up so help win the case. Suddenly this guy is just given a lawyer? for free? and the judge just overlooked it as normal? All these questions really raise heads and Koenig especially is going to want some answers.

    2. So, something just happened. Jay just admitted something, or didn’t admit something, but I honestly can’t tell if it’s a point for the defense, or for the prosecution, or if it’s a draw. Thereare lots of stretches like this where it seemed as if her cross-examination went so far into the weeds it was hard, even for me reading it years later, to hack back to the main trail. A juror that Dana interviewed, a guy named Theodore Wojtas, said Christina’s strategy was a little lost on them too.

      This statement by Koenig is pretty substantial regarding Jay and how the case has previously been handled. The idea that Jay had admitted to doing or not doing something really impacts this case. Previously Jay has changed or morphed his story whichever way would benefit him and keep him out of line of fire so to speak. But now he slipped up and changed yes to no and Koenig caught it on the tape. This is solid evidence that Jay hasn't been completley forward or honest about his testimony. Its a shame Cristina died because she would have been a really good witness for the testimony to undermine Jay's claim.


    1. Well, I literally, I just thought of it when I was sitting here, thinking it’s a lot of legwork, if we had a team of five students, we could get those things done with people that are being supervised. So think about that. I’m totally hooked.Sarah KoenigI did think about it. I said ‘yes, go ahead.’ Not that I would work with her, my job, unlike theirs is not to figure out if or how I can exonerate Adnan. But sure, if they wanted to take a look at the case on their own, of course I’d welcome that. Many more sets of eyes, some fresh, some jaded, could only be helpful, it seemed to me. I went down to Charlottesville tosee how they were getting along. Here is the sound of a law clinic getting ready to consider a new case.

      This episode is really interesting and sets up quite a bit for the future ones. Sarah's conversation with Deirdre took an unexpected turn when Deirdre decided to work on Sarah's case to see if she could uncover anything leading to Adnan's innocence. This seems like a really good idea considering Deirdre's entire job is to help people who were wrongfully convicted. So to Adnan this is a pretty big break if he is innocent, if not it wont really work against him since he's already in prison. I feel that Deirdre is going to be of great help to Sarah since she has seen cases like this before and helped the person who was convicted. That kind of experience could be just what Sarah needs, even if she isn't totally on board yet, I'm sure she will be if Deirdre can prove useful to Adnan in proving his innocence. In any case, adding Deirdre into the case will pump up the podcast and certainly get listeners to return for the next episode. Definitely worked on me as i am really intrigued to see where Deirdre brings this case if she improves it at all.


    1. At first blush, Koenig has done her job as a journalist. She has supported her statement about immigrant parents with a quote from the source. The problem is that Syed never says the word “immigrant.” Instead, he says “parameters,” which is about as neutral and clinical of a word as one could come up with in that situation. It’s possible that there are other parts, not heard, in which Syed explains the point further, but if they exist, they have been excised, meaning that all we’re left with is Koenig’s inference that those “parameters” necessarily mean “immigrant culture.” In a startling omission, the Lee family has not yet appeared in Serial. Without their presence, and Koenig’s insistence on directing the reader towards the typical immigrant family who raised the typical American teenager, the Lees and the Syeds have been rendered as Tiger Parents — overbearing and out-of-touch. The problem isn’t just the leap itself — that we would hear about strict parents and assume they were all similar — but Koenig’s confidence that we will make it with her.It gets worse. Also in the second episode of Serial, Koenig reads passages from Hae’s diary. Koenig notes, “Her diary, by the way — well I’m not exactly sure what I expected her diary to be like but — it’s such a teenage girls diary.” (My emphasis added.) This statement seems to suggest a colorblind ideal: In Koenig’s Baltimore, kids will be kids, regardless of race or background. But I imagine there are many listeners — especially amongst people of color — who pause and ask, “Wait, what did you expect her diary to be like?” or “Why do you feel the need to point out that a Korean teenage girl’s diary is just like a teenage girl’s diary?” and perhaps, most importantly, “Where does your model for ‘such a teenage girl’s diary’ come from?” These are annoying questions, not only to those who would prefer to mute the nuances of race and identity for the sake of a clean, “relatable” narrative, but also for those of us who have to ask them because Koenig is talking about our communities, and, in large part, getting it wrong.The accumulation of Koenig’s little judgments throughout the show — and there are many more examples — should feel familiar to anyone who has spent much of her life around well-intentioned white people who believe that equality and empathy can only be achieved through a full, but ultimately bankrupt, understanding of one another’s cultures. Who among us (and here, I’m talking to fellow people of color) hasn’t felt that subtle, discomforting burn whenever the very nice white person across the table expresses fascination with every detail about our families that strays outside of the expected narrative? Who hasn’t said a word like “parameters” and watched, with grim annoyance, as it turns into “immigrant parents?” These are usually silent, cringing moments — it never quite feels worth it to call out the offender because you’ll never convince them that their intentions might not be as good as they think they are.

      This is a very interesting article. Basically it's pointing out all the little things Koenig does that hints she may have a bit a racial bias in her. Jay leads this section with a statement about how in koenig's words, "parameters" means rules set by "immigrant parents". I find this interesting because i overlooked these things the first time i read the parts he's bringing up, but now that he mentions it, it is clear that koenig is bringing race and ethnicity as a factor in a very subtle way. I suppose that's what Jay means as "White Reporter Privilege". There are times while listening to "Serial" that i had forgotten about Adnans heritage all together. Most of that is probably due to my lack of remembrance but at the same time, looking back its very easy to see how that would happen as Koenig very rarely reminds the listener of Adnans cultural background. At the same time Jay brings up Hae's diary and how Koenig acted "surprised" that is entailed everything standard about a teenage girl's diary. As Jay says, she acts like she expected something different than a teenage girl's diary when opening up Hae's diary. This article itself is going to change how i listen to the podcast. As i will likely be looking deeper into the words Koenig uses and how she uses them.


    1. Duterte also blamed the United States for causing the unrest on the southern Philippines island of Mindanao. "As a matter of fact, we inherited this problem from the United States," he said. "Why? Because they invaded this country and made us their subjugated people. Everybody has a terrible record of extrajudicial killing. Why make an issue about fighting crime?"He added: "Look at the human rights of America along that line. The way they treat the migrants there."In response, Obama suggested earlier Monday his planned meeting with Duterte might not go forward."I always want to make sure if I'm having a meeting that it's productive and we're getting something done," Obama said during a news conference. .m-infographic--11 { background: url(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/08/24/killings-list2.jpg) no-repeat 0 0 transparent; height: 470px; margin: 15px auto; width: 300px; } @media (min-width: 640px) { .m-infographic--11{ float: left; margin-right: 15px; } }

      The Philippine President does make some interesting points in this article. The fact that the Philippines is under U.S. influence and at the same time is having these problems is very interesting to me. The quote from Duterte does make a fine point about the U.S.'s involvement in their politics. He probably shouldn't have sworn at Obama as from one nation leader to the other that can't possibly bode well. Although our legal immigrants get treated quite well as oppose to other countries, our ability to combat drug crime shows what Dutrete is talking about. We certainly shouldn't be criticizing other Countries about their drug crime when we have a pretty solid problem with it here. The "war on drugs" hasn't benefitted anybody since Reagan declared it and the increase of new drugs and new pandemics in previously unscathed areas is evidence of this. Although the Philippines has a much more bold and prevalent problem than we do, Obama isn't in much of a position to criticize them about this. That being said, and meeting between to national leaders should be more civil than this. I mean, what does it say about a country when even their leader can refrain from profanity in an otherwise civil discussion about problems that clearly need to be dealt with.

    1. Then, there are some stray things. That, eh, I don’t know what they mean. Or if they mean much of anything. But I’m going to tell you about them in case. A note came up at trial. After Hae and Adnan broke up, in early November, Hae had written Adnan a frustrated letter... “I’mreally getting annoyed that this situation is going the way it is” she wrote, “you know, people break up all the time. Your life is not going to end. You’ll move on and I’ll move on. But apparently you don’t respect me enough to accept my decision.” End quote.Aisha Pittman read this note at trial, Hae was her best friend. Adnan had shown Aisha the letter, apparently in health class. And they had written notes to each other on the back. Aisha in pencil, Adnan in pen. They were joking, making fun of Hae, making fun of themselves, it’s all just silliness. But then, at the top of the page it says, “I’m going to kill.” In pen. I talked to Aisha about it.

      This part is very suspect. If that was what was written on the note then Sarah just uncovered something that isn't going to bode well for Adnan. Especially since Aisha didn't see that part of the note which kind of takes away the "joking" aspect of the situation. It's not uncommon for people to say things like that to each other joking around. But if Adnan kept that to himself it really raises concerns for me. It is possible the Adnan was joking to himself but the context of how Sarah uncovered it doesn't help it seem that way. And in addition to this, there's what Laura talked about when she said she heard a kid say someone named Adnan had a dead body in his trunk. This whole episode has turned south for Adnan and at this point it seems Koenig would be very suspicious of him herself. If two reports simultaneously pointed to Adnan having Killed Hae then Koenig must be doubting his innocence more than before. But the lack of correlation between this story and the police reports seem just as suspect. Laura was never questioned by the police and the neighborhood boy himself said he never saw a dead body. It could have all been some sick joke set up by people who knew about Adnan and wanted to scare Laura for whatever reason. As Koenig says, the fact that there could be another witness in this case, one that was never brought to trial shows that there are more than a few holes regarding Adnan's prosecution and how accurate the information was. Perhaps the police wanted a cut and dry case and knew they could get it if the bypassed all of this other information.

    1. Cuba and the United States agreed to allow up to 90 daily round-trip flights between the two nations, the Department of Transportation said. Six airlines have been approved for flights to nine Cuban cities other than Havana, but not all of them have announced their schedules.Mr. Foxx said far more airlines had expressed interest in flying to Havana, the capital, than could be accommodated.“I haven’t seen anything like it,” he said.On Wednesday, the Department of Transportation announced that Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, JetBlue, Southwest Airlines, Spirit Airlines and United Airlines would operate the coveted Havana flights. The airlines will fly from Atlanta; Charlotte, N.C.; Fort Lauderdale; Houston; Los Angeles; Miami; Newark; New York; Orlando, Fla.; and Tampa, Fla.

      This story is quite interesting, considering all the bad blood between the U.S. and Cuba in the past 50 years, the fact that we can now fly commercially there is pretty substantial. A great many people are going to want to go to Cuba so its no wonder so many airlines are trying to get routes set up between the U.S. and Cuba. I've personally always wanted to go to Cuba so this article is like a breath of fresh to me. Considering Cuba has been in the dark the last 50 years this tourism will bring a lot of money into the Country. This article is the bearer of good news and the author seems to want it to seem that way. Since last year the only people able to make this trip were those who could afford charter flights, having commercial flights to and from Cuba is going to show many people a land they never thought they'd be able to visit. Foxx's idea that the rest of the trade borders between the two countries could be removed in the coming years could greatly benefit both Countries so seeing this happen now seems to be giving many people high hopes.

      Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/americas/cuba-us-first-flight-jetblue.html?module=WatchingPortal®ion=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=wide&state=standard&contentPlacement=9&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F09%2F01%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Fcuba-us-first-flight-jetblue.html&eventName=Watching-article-click&_r=0

  3. Aug 2016
    1. Adnan SyedSo--huh.Sarah KoenigWhen I told Adnan that Dana and I more or less did it in the time allowed, the twenty-one minutes, his overall reaction was incredulity.Adnan SyedIt seems like five minutes--from what I can remember, those busses didn’t clear in five minutes cuz I can remember sometimes we would have to wait in that parking lot, for those busses to clear. I don’t know. I just--to me, that was always stuck in my mind, was those busses. That you have to wait for the busses. So, I don’t know. That’s kinda disheartening. I always--I don’t know how long the crime would have taken. I don’t know how long--I don’t know. If you guys said you did it, then you did it, but I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know what to say to that. I don’t know what to say, I just always thought in my mind that--Sarah KoenigThis is what I’ll say is that it doesn’t make me think--to me it doesn’t prove anything except that it’s possible. It doesn’t mean that I think you’re lying or that I think it even happened at the Best Buy, I’m just saying, if you’re going to debunk the State’s timeline-

      It seems like Koenig is having trouble sticking with Adnan in this section. She was able to successfully recreate the steps Adnan supposedly took the day of the murder within the time allowed. However within that time he would only have had about a minute and a half to commit the murder in the car. This doesn't seem likely as the murder wasn't exactly premeditated, so to decide and to kill in that amount of time for a mere high school student seems very unlikely. As the detective said, it's not impossible for someone to pull it off, but from what has been shown so far it doesn't seem like Adnan would have been able to do it. As Koenig shows, Adnan is extremely surprised they were able to do it. He seems pretty convinced that nobody, not even himself, would have been able to make it in that amount of time. From a reader's perspective it's quite hard to believe Adnan would have expected them to fail if he knew that he himself had been able to do it. His reaction further supports the fact that he seems genuinely surprised at Koenig and the detectives findings.

    1. This doesn’t ever get cleared up really and they sort of let it go. But a bunch of things are fishy. The path he takes in the woods, it doesn’t really lead to the log. So why does he end up there? He didn’t need to head toward the log to find a spot to pee, there so many other choices. And if you’rewalking through brush and brambles, wouldn’t you sort of naturally avoid a big log you would need to step over? What they are trying to get at is, did you really just stumble on this body? Or were you looking for this body, because you already knew where it was? That is a reasonable question, because Hae’s body wasn’t just hard to spot, it was nearly impossible to spot.Alright, we’re in the State’s Attorney’s office, we just got delivered the first box of what they’re saying is discloseable under whatever public information act that I did.I didn’t understand how camouflaged the body was until I saw photos of the crime scene, the way Mr. S found it, before they removed the body. I was in the State’s Attorney’s office in Baltimore. I went there with a crime reporter from the Baltimore Sun. His name is Justin George. I had been talking to Justin about this story and he was interested in maybe writing about it too. We opened a packet of photos together. Some of them were awful to see as you’d imagine. There was one where you could make out a bit of black hair amid dirt and leaves

      In this section of "serial" Episode Three by Sarah Koeing, Sarah talks about the numerous holes in Mr. S's story. She points out the fact that the body was nearly impossible to spot unless someone was specifically looking for it. As she sees the picture she can clearly describe the fact that if someone were to go into the woods to pee there is close to no chance they would come across the body. As I read this section i couldn't help but agree with Sarah's suspicions. If i were to go pee somewhere it would be generally close to where i was, i definitely wouldn't bushwhack my way through thick bushes and over logs. It certainly seems like Mr. S knew what he was looking for in terms of "stumbling" across Hae's body. And the fact that they never looked deeper into this matter really raises suspicions that Mr. S had more to do with this case than he is letting on. Unfortunately this still isn't close to enough evidence so support a different outcome other than Adnon's guiltiness. It certainly seems, however, that Sarah is on to something that may change that. Mr. S's story points out that many things in this case didn't add up but they still went ahead with the prosecution, in hindsight I don't believe this is a cut and dry case that Sarah is wasting her time on. There is something fishy going on here and Mr. S is the first clue to what that might be.

      Image: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tIW4c3Jr9hA/VMbE6vbdhdI/AAAAAAAADjw/8dwpHgT1yZQ/s1600/camouflage_soldiers_06.jpg