Originally, the purpose of the podcast was to entertain listeners. It was meant to present a case that should have been exonerated, due to a lawyer who failed to complete the job. The podcast host, Sarah Koenig, interviewed many involved in the Adnan Syed case. Then it became an information podcast when it came to many audiences' attention. Listeners will hear Rabia, a family friend of Adnans, speak about her beliefs on why she thinks Adnan is innocent. Listeners will also hear Jay Wild's claims throughout the case. Citizens would tune in and choose a side, whether Adnan is innocent or not. The podcast could also be a persuading medium. Throughout the entire podcast, Koenig teams up with Rabia to find evidence on why Adnan couldn’t have committed the murder against Hae …show more content…
Asia saw Adnan at the time of Hae Min Lee's death, so she was the only witness who could prove Adnan’s innocence. Bringing up Asia was to accentuate how Adnan, a lawyer in the beginning, wasn’t a proper lawyer to begin with. When Adnan's lawyer, Christina Guiterrezz, found out about Asia, she had completely dismissed the idea of her being a witness. This also ensures everyone questions the state as well, considering they didn’t check in on Gutierrez as a lawyer. Unfortunately, she is no longer alive, so nobody is able to speak with her about the case. In the documentary, they found Asia and she spoke on her experiences throughout the entire case. Specifically, why she took back her claim of feeling pressured. Mentioning Asia in both the documentary and the podcast emphasized the high probability of Adnan's innocents and the state's vendetta against him. The downside to listening to a podcast is there is nothing to watch/look at. It's difficult to place a picture in your mind of all the characters, everyone speaking, and what's happening while only using one sense. Personally, I don’t enjoy listening to