Episode 1 — Jay’s a Wild(s) & Crazy Guy

Link To Download On iTunes

A deep dive into the unconventional relationship between Adnan Syed and Jay Wilds as it relates to the State’s case against Adnan Syed. A walk in Adnan’s shoes by examining similar relationships in the author’s life to help make sense of the oddity that is Jay Wilds and what Adnan was thinking/doing hanging with someone who wasn’t a friend and who would prove that by cooperating with the State in its framing of Adnan Syed for Hae Min Lee’s murder.




9 thoughts on “Episode 1 — Jay’s a Wild(s) & Crazy Guy

  1. Your podcast title (a very clever play on the best book ever written about teenage angst) promises much, your unique personal approach in the analysis of Adnan Syed’s case was insightful and engaging. I hope you continue your podcast and I look forward your next instalment.

    • Thank you very much for those kind and encouraging words. I’m happy you appreciate my blog title’s play on words and I agree it’s the best book on teenage angst ever written, as you say. When I first read it, it took me a while to get past the compelling urge to stalk Jodie Foster and assassinate Reagan and Lennon, but that’s all gone now and instead I just obsess over wrongful conviction cases and Russia.

  2. Thanks for the podcast. If I can offer some constructive criticism, make it more about the case and less about you. I didn’t really find your backstory relevant and skipped through it. The segment about the actual case was good and I enjoyed it.

    • You’re welcome & thanks for the feedback. Storytelling isn’t for everyone, increasingly so in our harried society, but I will keep including it if only because it’s a dying art. I prefer a balance of analysis and storytelling. That’s one of the characteristics of Serial I appreciate — that it’s produced like a story whereas Undisclosed leans heavily on analysis. Both are great in their own right, but combined they provide a diversified balance for those of us obsessed with this case and all its implications.

      For those who don’t appreciate storytelling, they can always, as you did, skip ahead on tune out but I prefer to remain true to myself and my own personal, natural and organic style. If that means not much of a audience, so be it. I’d rather talk to myself than allow myself to be held captive by an audience that demands I do it their way, or the highway. I’m no stranger to the highway — I’ve been on it pretty much my entire life.

  3. Love the podcast and personal story. It gives excellent background to the info also. For non-americans to understand what american society is like with highschool kids controlled by their parents yet smoking weed and having sex, like in the story of Hae Min Lee, we need personal stories.

    • Thanks, Liz.

      I’m glad you mentioned the non-American audience. This blog was well-extablished before I started focusing on the Hae Min Lee murder and the subject matter heretofore was international in scope. Therefore, I have a significant non-American audience per my WordPress admin. stats. People from every corner of the planet are reading this blog. I know my haters out there, and they are legion, find that hard to believe but it’s true — I would never lie about that even though it’s all lies. Therefore, when I’m composing my latest expression, whether it be a podcast or a blog post, I keep in mind that a non-American audience is listening in and allow that notion to affect the shaping of my creation. My next podcast, Episode 2 — Judge Judy, will drop today and I, ironically enough but not coincidently, even mention the non-American audience and provide clarification for them so they can more fully understand this case with clearer context.

      As far as analysis-only-please, “just give me the facts, mam” versus the personalization and understanding of this case through relational story-telling, history’s always had its share of myopic analysts who prefer to reduce their reality to quantifications. Think The Matrix. It was a great movie but it was borne of a highly analytical mind that sees everything as numbers and mathematics at the expense of all other equally valid perspectives. And that’s sad because every perspective has value in its own right and one shouldn’t be discarded in favor of another. They’re not mutually exclusive, and in fact can coexist, nay should coexist, without conflict.

      I’m reading an essay right now penned by Lewis Thomas in 1983 entitled Humanities and Science and it speaks to this very issue. Here’s a pertinent excerpt:

      Lord Kelvin was one of the great British physicists of the late nineteenth century, an extraordinarily influential figure in his time, and in some ways a paradigm of conventional, established scientific leadership. He did a lot of good and useful things, but once or twice he, like Homer, nodded. The instances are worth recalling today, for we have nodders among our scientific eminences still, from time to time, needing to have their elbows shaken.

      On one occasion, Kelvin made a speech on the overarching importance of numbers. He maintained that no observation of nature was worth paying serious attention to unless it could be stated in precisely quantitative terms. The numbers were the final and only test, not only of truth but about meaning as well. He said, “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it. But when you cannot — your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.”

      But, as at least one subsequent event showed, Kelvin may have had things exactly the wrong way round. The task of converting observations into numbers is the hardest of all, the last task rather the first thing to be done, and it can be done only when you have learned, beforehand, a great deal about the observations themselves. You can, to be sure, achieve a very deep understanding of nature by quantitative measurement, but you must know what you are talking about before you begin applying the numbers for making predictions. In Kelvin’s case, the problem at hand was the age of the earth and solar system. Using what was then known about the sources of energy and the loss of energy from the physics of the day, he calculated that neither the earth nor the sun were older than several hundred million years. This caused a considerable stir in biological and geological circles, especially among the evolutionists. Darwin himself was distressed by the numbers; the time was much too short for the theory of evolution. Kelvin’s figures were described by Darwin as one of his “sorest troubles.”

Comments are closed.