Is Adnan Syed Guilty?

This is entirely my own personal opinion, but no I don’t think he is. Of course there are some questionable parts to Adnan Syed’s story but there are also questionable parts to the case that was built against him.

I guess this should probably start off with a summary of what happened for anyone who hasn’t listened to Serial or even heard of the case before. On January 13 1999, Hae Min Lee had been murdered around 3-4 pm. That is the only thing that is certain about the case was that she had been murdered, everything else about her case is super questionable and even the case against her supposed killer and ex boyfriend, Adnan Syed, is lacking any physical evidence. The only thing the case against Syed really has is the testimony of a guy named Jay who claims to have helped Syed bury Hae Min Lee’s body, but even this testimony is questionable because it has many holes and has changed quite a few times.

Most of my opinion on this case has been formed while listening to the podcast Serial. It is hosted by a journalist by the name of Sarah Koenig, who was brought the case by Rabia Chaudry (a friend of Adnan) with the belief that Adnan’s lawyer had botched the case in order to get more money for the appeal. A fact that supports this theory is that Adnan’s lawyer failed to contact a girl by the name of Asia McClain who claimed to have seen and talked to Adnan in the public library when Adnan was supposedly murdering Hae Min Lee.

With all of the evidence and questions Serial has brought up about the case, it makes Adnan seem less and less guilty. On the podcast’s webpage (https://serialpodcast.org) it has a section to allow listeners to look at every single piece of evidence for themselves and even has a timeline that compares Jay’s testimonies and Adnan’s story to Adnan’s call log. The podcast tries to be as unbiased as possible, even the host who focussed on the case for over a year of her life claimed that “if you ask me to swear that Adnan Syed is innocent, I couldn’t do it” (Episode 12).

So, if Serial was so unbiased what about it lead me to believe that Adnan is innocent?

Well, I think it has a lot to do with how ridiculous the case is against Adnan. Anyone with any idea of what’s just and what’s unjust could clearly tell that this is an unjust case. The case against Adnan only has a few supporting details and almost all of the have major holes in them. Jay’s testimony is unreliable and changes each time he tells it, as well as it differs from the testimony of a girl named Jenn who was supposedly with Jay. Not only does Jay’s story change each time it’s told, it doesn’t match the call logs. The call logs are another major supporting detail in the case against Adnan, but once again are proven to be unreliable. On a AT&T Fax Cover Sheet (that wasn’t used within Adnan’s trial), it directly says that “incoming calls will not be reliable information for location”.

The AT&T Fax Cover Sheet from https://serialpodcast.org/season-one/maps

This Fax Cover Sheet makes another hole in the case against Adnan. Usually murder cases are straight forward, but this case is nothing like that because it’s lacking any physical evidence and it was formed on the testimony of a guy who has changed his story countless times.

With the help from Serial, I have come to the conclusion that Adnan Syed is innocent but obviously my opinion on an almost 20 year-old case (a case that’s older than I am) won’t matter. What I can say is that Adnan deserves a re-trial, a re-trial that answers all of the holes that Sarah Koenig has poked into the case against Syed, a re-trail that features Asia McClain’s support to Adnan’s alibi and a re-trial that addresses there was not enough evidence against Adnan to put him in jail for life.

The Truth Behind Hae Min Lee’s Murder

The podcast Serial which is hosted by Sarah Koenig, addresses the murder of Hae Min Lee and if Adnan Syed actually killed her or if he’s being framed.

Side note: I googled “podcast” to find a photo to put in here and this was the first image to pop up, I had no idea this was such a popular podcast!

Koenig has an overall informal tone during her podcast and it makes the podcast seem so much more interesting and easy to follow along with. I love listening to podcasts where it just feels like you’re apart of the conversation, not an audience and since this podcast is mainly just Koenig, it really does feel like it’s just a conversation with a friend.

I think the idea of presenting journalism in this way is such a brilliant idea! As time goes on, things like news papers and even paper books are slowly becoming a thing of the past but presenting your findings in an easy to follow way could be essential in reaching a wider audience. As much as I hate to admit it, I might not have even followed along properly if this had’ve been an article or essay. I personally find it so much easier to absorb and understand what the author is saying by listening to what’s being said, rather than reading it. Honestly, I’m pretty sure I’ve went and found some type of audio to listen to for all of the essays that we’ve had to read for this course so far, it just makes things so much easier to understand! Of course there is downfalls for audiobooks and podcasts, which could include things like getting bored and losing focus or not liking the way the person talks or even sounds. The benefits of actually reading the text is that you can read at your own pace and come up with connections on your own.

If I had’ve been in Adnan’s position and had to remember what I was doing 6 weeks prior, I wouldn’t have been able to do it. I have such a bad memory! Sometimes I’ll forget what I’m talking about half way through my sentence yet I can still remember the life cycle of a mushroom, which is something I learnt 2 years ago so maybe I just have terrible short term memory or really odd selective memory. The idea of trying to remember what I did 6 weeks ago seems impossible and I have access to text messages and all of that kind of information. I think trying to make Adnan figure out what he did 6 weeks ago before his interview is really unfair.

Feminist Theory and Lullabies for Little Criminals

Within the novel, women are constantly being viewed as lesser beings than men. Even the protagonist, who is only 13, is viewed as just a sex object to many.

Baby believes that she is “meant for bigger things” yet she still allows herself to fall down the pathway of prostitution and drug addiction due to the men who surround her (O’Neill 90). She has surrounded herself with people who are always trying to control her and even tell her who she is supposed to be, and who to be with. Since obviously she can’t be happy single! How could she ever think she can be an individual and not the “property” of some man? She’s constantly being exposed to the idea that without her beauty, she means nothing. Her beauty is what gives her worth according to men like her tricks and Alphonse. Not all of the men who she has been around associate her beauty with her self worth, but they will still tell her how beautiful she is rather than complementing things about her personality.

Even though Alphonse was older than her, she felt this need to be wanted by him since if Alphonse hung around you, “it meant that you were one of the foxier girls in the neighbourhood” (148).

Feminism, which is the movement to get men and women equal rights, is not apparent within this novel. Baby is never really given the opportunity to be alone, whether she’s with Theo, Alphonse, Xavier etc… Almost every man or boy she is with gets possessive over her. Theo claims that she’s his prisoner, Alphonse acts as though she must report to him with every single thing she does and even calls her his lady as if she was an object, one of her tricks even says to her “you’re mine” (223). Xavier, Jules and Theo aren’t anywhere close to being as possessive and aggressive as Alphonse is towards Baby.

Throughout the story, Baby is constantly being abused by the adult men in her life, whether it be physically or mentally.

Jules is a prime contender to being abusive towards Baby. He has “punched [her] in the eye“, called her a liar, a pervert and even said “you’re a whore” to her (156). He uses his power over her to make her for guilty for this mistakes he has made while raising her and claims that he would “be embarrassed to walk down the street with [her while having] everybody knowing that [his] kid’s a whore” (157).

Alphonse definitely is much worse than Jules, but not by far. He is mentally and physically abusive, but he will use Baby’s emotions against her in order for her to forgive him. He will apologize after a fight and use excuses like he just loved her so much and that it was overwhelming at times, so he didn’t know how to deal with his feelings a lot of the time. He then calls her a “thieving whore” and claims he’d “be afraid to touch her” (305). He lashes out and “slapped [her] on both sides of [her] face” (306).

Feminism ideals are not represented within this novel, but Baby is able to show how strong and resilient a woman can be. Not only that, but in the end of the story the person who is able to help Jules and Baby start a new life is a woman. It shows how just the presence of a woman is able to help Jules realize his wrongs and start to work on becoming a more balanced and work on treating Baby as an equal.

 

References: O’Neill, Heather. Lullabies for Little Criminals. HarperCollins, 2016.

 

 

Archetypal Theory on Lullabies for Little Criminals

Throughout the novel, it is clear that Baby is the protagonist but it is less clear as to what roles those around her play. She has messy relationships with a lot of the people who she comes into contact with, and many of the people can fall into multiple different categories within the archetypal story line.

Baby has few love interests during the second half of the story like Theo and Alphonse. This could just be because she “wanted to love someone as much as anyone else” but was “completely lost when it came to knowing who to find attractive” (O’Neill 139). Her relationship with Alphonse was a complicated one, as she was a little bit obsessed with him and he was even her first real kiss. Despite him sounding like a love interest, she “felt a little bit like he was a mother figure” (186). I think she has so many love interests in such a short period of time because her relationship with Jules had deteriorated after he got back from rehab, leaving Baby alone and in need of some type of affection. I think because of how fast Jules turned on her left Baby feeling unwanted and undesirable which made her willing to do whatever she could to forget those feelings, like drugs and falling for anyone who gave her attention.

Another complicated relationship Baby has is with Jules. One minute he’s comforting her, sayings “things are going to be okay” (183) and then the next minute he’s kicking her out of their house and calling the police on her. Jules is a trickster, antagonist and a father figure all at once. He is the trickster because he is constantly manipulating Baby to do what he wants her to do, and cares for no one but himself. He is constantly trying to putting Baby down and saying stuff like “I’d be embarrassed to walk down the street with [her]” and how he’s given her “the best of everything and this is how [she] turned out” (157). He tries to manipulate Baby and make her believe that how she is turning out is entirely her fault, and not his for forcing her to grow up never knowing the comfort of a permanent home or the love and support from a family but having her be all too familiar with drug addicts. I think Jules can be considered the antagonist because of how he is always pushing Baby down and trying to prevent her from becoming her own person. Although Baby doesn’t see him as the bad guy, she still thinks so highly of him even after all of the terrible things he has done to her. I think she’s super naive when it comes to knowing if someone is treating her badly, kind of like how in Tangled Rapunzel had no idea her mother was the bad guy because it was all she had known.

I don’t think this story easily follows the typical archetypal plot line, although many of the characters can fit to common archetypal characters. I don’t think the author had intended for Baby to follow the typical hero’s journey, she is definitely undergoing some type of journey but her journey could be one that takes her down a path that she can’t turn around and fix her mistakes and bad choices.

References

O’Neill, Heather. Lullabies for Little Criminals. HarperCollins, 2016.

Lullabies for Little Criminals analyzed with Reader Response

“Lullabies for Little Criminals” was written by Heather O’Neill and is about a young girl named Baby who’s mother and father “had both been fifteen when [she] was born” (O’Neill 4) and her mother passed away a year after she was born so she never got to have a mother figure in her life. Baby lives with her father Jules, when he isn’t in the hospital or a rehabilitation centre due to his heroin addiction. Baby was born into a life where she was constantly going in and out of foster homes, never having a real home despite believing that “home was wherever Jules and [her] were together” (O’Neill 17).

I don’t think Baby even realizes how bad her situation and mindset have become. She talks about things that would normally be upsetting or traumatizing to a child as if they’re common childhood experiences. She brings up that “Jules said he’d … leave [her] at … foster home[s] sometimes when he needed to sleep for a couple of days” (O’Neill 25) and how “Jules and his friends had been calling heroin chocolate milk for years” (O’Neill 10). She talks about these experiences as if every average father drops their kid off at a foster home when he wanted a break and that every regular dad exposes his kids to dangerous and highly addictive drugs. When Baby’s foster mom was talking about her behind her back saying how her house had “rotten food in the fridge, clothes all over the floor … and [that] she smelled” (O’Neill 45). This really puts into perspective how bad Baby’s situation was and how blinded Baby was to it because of her love for her father. I really don’t like Jules. I understand that he has his own problems and came from a damaged home and that his father would abuse him and had “dragged [him] down [a] hall and threw [him] out of the house … [and even] broke his collarbone” (O’Neill 19). I’m glad he doesn’t treat Baby the same way he was treated, but you would think that he’d try and make it so Baby had the best life possible which wouldn’t end in her being the same way as him. I guess I just find him extremely irresponsible and selfish which is why I don’t like his character.

I think Heather O’Neill chose to write the character Baby as a naive child because it shows the reader how a child will always try to find the good in everything, no matter what their environment is while growing up. Baby was surrounded by drug addicts yet she still never thought any less of any of them, even though because of her fathers actions she was forced to mature faster than normal. She believed that she “was still clingy like a little kid” (O’Neill 11) even though she’s only 12, which means she’s still a kid and should be able to feel attached and want to spend time with her father without feeling like a burden. Jules is not fit to be a dad, yet Baby still loved him, missed him when he was gone and believed him to be the best dad in the world. The way O’Neill wrote the story shows that it really is all about perspective and experience, since Baby has never known what a healthy childhood would feel like and what a good dad is like she believes she is living a good life that doesn’t need to be altered or fixed.

The authors technique of writing Baby as more of a ‘street kid’ who hung out with outcasts and a kid who swears is effective in allowing readers to create a clear mental image of her in their head. The way she is written makes me think of the kids you see in movies where they’re pretending to be tough like gangsters but are actually kind of sketchy and just sad looking. Not only does Baby being written as a street kid help me to create a clear mental image of her, the way she is being raised also helps as well as how she is usually surrounded by her father’s drug addicted friends in a place where there’s rotten food in the fridge and clothes all over the ground. Her carefree nature shows how terrible the people who surround her are for her physical and mental health, because of those around her she was “very firm on the idea that [she] would become a drug addict too” (O’Neill 71). She didn’t see any problem in the life her dad was living so why not live the same life style.

I really love the way the novel is written, I’m honestly not much of a reader because I get distracted too easily but Heather O’Neill’s writing style is able to keep me interested and invested. The style kind of reminds me of “The Catcher in the Rye”, I’m not 100% sure why but I think it’s because I feel the same pity and sadness for Baby that I did for Holden. I’m excited to see where the novel goes, but I’m also super worried for Baby and the path she is going down.

References
O’Neill, Heather. Lullabies for Little Criminals. HarperCollins, 2016.

Should Our English Marks Pave The Way For Our Futures?

In order to be accepted into most university programs, Grade 12 university level english is a prerequisite. It doesn’t matter what type of program it is, whether it be a science course or a cooking course you’ll find ENG4U in the prerequisites.

I believe that having grade 12 university english is a fair requirement for all programs because most classes require students to write essays and be able to explain what they know about a subject. Without taking english in grade 12, a student may lack to skills in order properly put into words the knowledge they have gained. Not only does grade 12 english help set a person up for university programs, it also helps students long term and their ability to communicate. The ability to communicate effectively with ones peers, teachers and employers is crucial in order to be successful later in life.

When first given this topic to analyze and interpret, my initial thoughts were that it was unfair that all programs require it no matter what the program entails. I thought this because not all people have the critical thinking skills that are required to be successful in university level english. After beginning to explain my point of view, I started to realize that there were more reasons as to why it should be a requirement than why it shouldn’t be. Having english as a prerequisite to get into university programs is important in the way that it can help develop fundamental critical thinking skills, communication skills and the ability to share your opinions without disrespecting those who have different view points.

In conclusion, having english be a prerequisite for university programs is fair because of how it teaches people how to develop their communication skills and will help later in life.

The Journey Begins

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton