Jeany's Podcast

The podcast discusses Adnan Syed's case and the potential role of discrimination in his conviction. Adnan's mother believes that he was targeted because he is Muslim. The podcast also mentions the impact of 9-11 on people's perceptions of Muslims and the use of stereotypes in the case. The author questions the fairness of the trial and argues that there is no evidence to prove Adnan's guilt. They believe that Adnan is not guilty due to the discrimination he faced. Hi, this is podcast hosted by Jeannie. All people, in one way or another, are guilty of something. Only babies, by their nature, are innocent. Taking that idea into account, I look at Adnan's case, and I cannot for sure say if he is innocent, nor can I say he is guilty, without doubt. This entire semester, my classmates and I have focused on Adnan Syed's case, just like many other Americans have through the years, ever since his conviction and podcast serial. Though a lot of opinions have been formed over the years regarding his guilt or innocence, I want to share mine with you. First, Heyman Lee was killed in 1999, two years before 9-11. Why is this relevant, you may ask? To state the obvious, the statistics show anti-Muslim hate crimes after 9-11 have peaked in number like they have never done before. I can't say for sure that Adnan was selected a murderer because he was Muslim and police was racist, but his mother certainly believes so. When Sarah interviewed Shamim, Adnan's mother, she asked about her opinion of potential discrimination. Shamim replied with, Believe me, that's the only thing you know, I still believe, because he was raised a Muslim. Discrimination. And everybody feel, the whole community, because he was a Muslim child, that's why they took him. It was easier for them to take him, than other people. It potentially, maybe started with a bit of inequality and race played a certain role. It was definitely Adnan's disadvantage. Why does 9-11 play a significant role in Adnan's case? Well, because I believe that after such tragic events, it became harder for other people to see Muslims as good people. To me, it sounds like discrimination. Vicky Walsh, during one of the trials, made statements which to me sound not only like racial discrimination, but also as a stereotype. She implied that just because Adnan is a Muslim with a Pakistani background, he is a threat to society and can't be trusted. She brought up what Mr. Marshall told her about criminals from Pakistan, whom the government could not take back because they fled the country while on bail. She used that reference to point out Adnan's similarity to those criminals. But I think she forgot just one thing. Adnan is American, born and raised. Stereotypes are real, and maybe some do have a place to be, but I don't believe they should be used in a court of law. Why just because there have been people of the same background and race as Adnan, prosecutors had to put them under the same category? Each person is an individual. I highly doubt that when a white male of a certain age group, who have been accused of raping and murdering women, is being called Ted Bundy and judged the same. In my research, I found that people can legitimize their hostility towards certain groups of people, supporting it with stereotypes. But I guess they forgot one thing as well. Stereotypes are typically rationally unsupported generalizations. There is another fact I must state as well. I acknowledge that if we put all racial and religious discriminations aside, Adnan is the best murder candidate. But I believe that throughout my research, no exculpatory evidence has been stated to convict Adnan with his murder. Besides, most people who personally knew Adnan all said that they could not believe him to be the killer type. Even Don, his second boyfriend, at first said only positive things about Adnan to the police. According to Don, Adnan was an okay guy. When trial came, all of a sudden, Don's testimony changed. What changed were the dates and his opinion of Adnan. Surely the prosecutor was still dissatisfied because, and I quote what Don said, when I testified, they pulled me in the back room and let me tell you how fun that was to have the prosecutor afterwards yelling at me because I didn't make Adnan sound creepy. I can imagine how hard it must have been for poor prosecutors to persuade people to say crap about Adnan because they could not find better evidence against him. I mean, when your client is paying, you want to give their money's worth, right? Whether their moves are racist or not, they do not care as long as their pockets are full. To conclude, there have been many people who have tried to disinformate, discredit, and trick not only the general public about Adnan, but also confuse the court. Many judges may have been influenced by false and inappropriate information and made their decisions based on information they were provided. Overall, I believe that in Adnan's case, it was easier to refer to his religious beliefs, his background, and his skin color than to find the actual murderer. I believe Adnan is not only guilty because the process was unfair, but also because there is no evidence of his guilt which can be proven. If we believe that all people are created equal, and Adnan was not raised equally because he was discriminated against, then Adnan is not guilty.