Rhetorical Analysis Of Adnan Syed

Obsidian Mekediak
Tyler Bonnette
RD 117
19 Dec 2022

Rhetorical Analysis of Sarah Koenig’s ‘Serial’ Adnan Syed was convicted for the murder of Hae Min Lee February 25, 2000. Syed has claimed his innocence since he was arrested. Syed’s conviction was based on Jay Wilds’ testimony. Wilds claimed Syed had strangled Hae Min Lee, and convinced Wilds to help bury her body. Sarah Koenig’s initial purpose of creating the podcast ‘Serial’ and investigating the conviction of Adnan Syed for the murder of Hae Min Lee was to conclude if the state's case against Syed was flawed and in doing that, Koenig was successful.

The series starts out with Koenig investigating a potential alibi for Syed, a girl named Asia McClain. When Syed was originally arrested,

Many people who were brought to trial in defense of Syed were character witnesses; witnesses who would usually say something along the lines of, “The Adnan I knew wouldn’t do such a thing.” Aisha Pittman, Hae Min Lee’s best friend, talked with Koenig for the podcast. Pittman stated that although he ‘generally annoyed’ her, she was not ‘freaked out’ by his behavior during Syed and Lee’s relationship. Throughout the podcast, Koenig paints a picture of Adnan Syed and who he is. She uses character witnesses, including herself, to indicate that Syed is a good person. This is an example of pathos; Koenig is appealing to the audience’s emotions, always trying to display Syed’s character so the audience feels that he is a good person and isn’t capable of murder. Although expressing whether the character of a person is good or bad is generally more of an opinionated standpoint, the state’s case does use the suggestion that Syed is a ‘bad person’ to prove their

Deirdre Enright, one professional who is helping investigate Syed’s case, says right off the bat that the state’s case against Adnan is ‘very thin.’ Deirdre Enright is the director of the University of Virginia School of Law's Project for Informed Reform and Center for Criminal Justice. Enright has worked with many cases to find if the convicted are truly guilty. Enright has come to the conclusion, if someone who is convicted is not guilty, they are the worst person to help prove their innocence. She explains this to Koenig; Koenig worries though that Syed might just be this charming sociopath, to which Enright replies, “The odds of you getting the charming sociopath, you’re just not that lucky.” The act of Koenig bringing criminal justice professionals is an example of ethos. These professionals have the credibility and authority to agree with Koenig on the flaws of the state’s case against Syed, which they