Essays

Critical Essay: The Way to Rainy Mountain

N. Scott Momaday’s work, The Way to Rainy Mountain, focuses on the Kiowa peoples’ journey to Rainy Mountain in Oklahoma. This particular piece of work deals mostly with the physical journey, but does so in a biocentric manner. The Kiowa people were deeply connected to nature, which is made overtly clear with each of the three points of view used in Momaday’s work. However, The Way to Rainy Mountain shows the intense relationship between the Kiowa people and animals. It is a beautiful example of how a group can extend democracy to nonhumans, which differs greatly from today’s society because of its consistent dominion over all of nature. Momaday’s work offers an ecocritical outlook which, when applied to our own society, creates a stark contrast in both understanding and treatment of nonhumans. 

The Way to Rainy Mountain is a piece of work written by N. Scott Momaday. The work’s central focus is the Kiowa’s journey. The work follows the Kiowa people from their beginnings in Montana to their ending near Rainy Mountain in Oklahoma. N. Scott Momaday’s book is told in the point of view of three different voices. First, there is an ancestral voice that focuses on the myths and folk lore of the Kiowa people. Second, there is a historical voice which is much more accurate and gives a much more detailed description of the Kiowas. Third, Momaday’s point of view is given, in which he uses the final portion of the text to write in a poetic manner to describe his own experience as a Kiowa. What is consistent within all three is Momaday’s discussion of nature frequently in his work The Way to Rainy Mountain.

According to Lynn White, Jr., in his Essay “The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis”, in order to ever be able to move forward it is necessary to understand the past. In fact, White specifically states, “As a beginning we should try to clarify our thinking by looking, in some historical depth at the presuppositions that underlie modern technology and science” (40). To White, it is more than obvious that mankind was the downfall of nature. Along with this, he recognizes that prior to the industrial revolution man had a cohabitational relationship with nature. He writes, “Formerly man had been part of nature; now he was the exploiter of nature” (White 42). 

Within the three different points of view in Momaday’s work, The Way to Rainy Mountain, both a historical and contemporary look at the Kiowa’s relationship with nature is elaborated on. Because the first point of view given within Momaday’s book is the ancestral and mythical voice, and the first account within it is something of a creation story. It is said that the Kiowa people came into the world, one by one, through a hollow log. According to this account, “They called themselves Kwuda, ‘coming out’” (Momaday 16). The second point of view, the historical record, does not say anything regarding the hollow log. However, it does give a historical count of the beginning of the Kiowas which can function as an alternative creation story that is without the mystical element found in the first point of view. The historical record discusses the tribe’s name, as well as where it derived from, while also making note of the Kiowa peoples’ appearance. These two accounts, that of the ancestral and the historical voice, bring about a clarification of why the Kiowas worship nature; that is where they came from. N. Scott Momaday’s work clearly supports White’s theory that man was once a member of the natural world, while now he is only an outsider who explores it. 

A clear and concise historical background is given in each section of the text, which helps both readers and Momaday to better understand the difference between the past and the present. That being said, Momaday’s point of view is given in a more contemporary manner. While it is clear that as a more contemporary Kiowa Momaday still has great respect for nature, the relationship is much different than that of the historical and ancestral voices. N. Scott Momaday is travelling to Rainy Mountain to discover more about his ancestors, although he is doing so because he can, not because he should. In fact, his point of view in the first section of the text is nothing more than a memory. He states, “[…] Now I see the earth as it really is; never again will I see things as I saw them yesterday or the day before” (Momaday 17).

Like Lynn White, Jr.’s theory, Cheryll Glotfelty also recognizes that in order to prevent further damage one must be able to understand the problems of the past. In her essay “Literary Studies in an Age of Environmental Crisis,” she states, “The answer lies in recognizing that current environmental problems are largely of our own making, […], a by product of culture” (Glotfelty 124). Glotfelty quotes Donald Worster as stating the following:

We are facing a global crisis today, not because of how ecosystems function but rather because of how our ethical systems function. Getting through the crisis requires understanding our impact on nature as precisely as possible, but even more, it requires understand those ethical systems and using that understanding to reform them. Historians, along with literary scholars, anthropologists, and philosophers, cannot do the reforming, of course, but they can help with the understanding (124).

With this, Worster, and Glotfelty are making it known that in the past nature was not treated as harshly as it has been in the modern world. Worster notes that the ecological crisis has occurred due to a change in ethics. N. Scott Momaday’s work highlights the love that the Kiowa people showed to nature. Historically speaking, Native Americans treated the natural world with love and kindness; they even worshiped it. This is prevalent in The Way to Rainy Mountain, where it is made clear in all three points of view that the Kiowa people had adoration to the earth they lived on; they even worshiped the sun. This adoration and relationship to the natural world, as previously mentioned, comes from the Kiowa’s belief that they came from nature (i.e., the hollow log). Because they came from nature, they knew that nature could take them away; therefore, they had profound respect of the world around them. The way the Kiowa tribe treated nature, and nonhumans, was with respect and dignity; nothing like the way the present world does. 

The second section of Momaday’s work discusses the act of hunting. When mentioning the killing of game for food, the historical record clearly states, “By necessity were the Kiowas reminded of their ancient ways” (Momaday 19). This clarifies that the Kiowas did not wish to harm animals and only did so in order to survive, showing that their understanding of nature not only extended past themselves but onto non-human animals. Glotfelty notes that the present day is much more anthropocentric than it ever has been before. She argues for a more “earth centered approach” to give back to nature, which is exactly what Kiowa people had (122). The present day is contrasted obviously by Momaday, who makes it clear in his work that the Kiowa people have an extremely biocentric view of the world. 

The historical Kiowa tribe would likely be more concerned with deep ecology than their present-day descendants. According to Arne Naess, author of the essay “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects,” there are eight ways to look at deep ecology. In these eight different definitions, Naess describes deep ecology as the ecocritical view of utilitarianism, which allows autonomy and intrinsic value to both humans and nonhuman animals; not only are nonhuman animals inherently granted rights to their own spaces because of their intrinsic value, but the consistent human interference into the world of nonhumans is looked at as a breach of God-given rights. It is critical that policy change to reflect this worth, which would involve an even deeper ideological change in individuals that would give way to a more appreciated quality of life over a higher standard of living for humans only. If one is aware of this criticism, they are required to become more involved and to help implement the necessary changes required for this understanding (49-50). 

The Kiowa people are very representative of this, specifically when it comes to animals (i.e. with their resources). Again, the Kiowa people only killed animals when necessary to their survival. If it were not for hunger, they would not have harmed any nonhuman animals (Momaday 19). In fact, they had so much respect for animals that they named their bravest warriors after them. According to the historical record in the third section of the text, “The principal warrior society of the Kiowas was the Ka-itsenko, ‘Real Dogs,’ and it was made up of then men only, the ten most brave” (Momaday 21). The Kiowas looked to animals as having high honor, which is evident as they were willing to name warriors after them. Not only that, but dogs also meant something to Momaday himself. On the subject of dogs, the third section reads, “They belonged there in a sense that the word ‘ownership’ does not include” (Momaday 21). Man did not own nonhumans. In this case, man did not have dominion, which differs greatly from the society we live in today.

Writers like Burno Latour explicitly state that in order to come out of this ecological crisis, one of the main necessities is giving back democracy to nonhumans. In his piece “What is to be Done? Political Ecology!,” he discusses in this theory that just because something is more difficult does not mean that it will not be worth the work. He writes:

Here, too, I am asking for just a tiny concession: that the question of democracy be extended to nonhumans. But is this not at bottom what the scientists have always most passionately wanted to defend: to have absolute assurance that facts are not constructed by mere human passions? They believed too quickly that they had reached this goal by the short-cut of matters of fact kept from the outset apart from all public discussion. Can one not obtain – more painfully, more laboriously, to be sure – a quite superior guarantee if humans are no longer alone in elaborating their Republic, their common thing? (Latour 233).

What Latour is asking, that democracy be given back to nonhumans, is precisely what the Kiowa people achieved. While it was not always the easiest to achieve it was always seen as the correct thing to do. Unlike the Kiowas, more contemporary humans are unaware of the consequences of their own actions, ultimately causing the destruction of nature (Latour 235). This is something that never would have taken place within the tribe of the Kiowa people, because their understanding of nature as divine is no longer seen today. Latour writes that “nature is no longer there to unite us without lifting a finger,” an idea that could not have ever been imagined in the time of the Kiowas.

Today, nature is considered to be peaceful and good for the soul. However, according to William Cronan, this is only because humans have created this image of nature. In his essay “The Trouble with Wilderness; Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature,” Cronon explicitly states that nature was not always considered to peaceful and enjoyable. He writes, “To be a wilderness then was to be ‘deserted,’ ‘savage,’ ‘desolate,’ ‘barren’ – in short, a ‘waste’ […] Its connotations were anything but positive” (Cronan 103). Unlike in the time of the Kiowa people, nature was formerly viewed as something to be afraid of. The idea that wilderness is somewhere to go in an attempt to escape everyday life is what Cronan considers a “cultural invention” (103). It is only viewed this way in contemporary culture because humans have created a dichotomy between what they deem to be their world and the one they escape to, due to the hustle and bustle of everyday life. 

In contrast, the Kiowa people worshipped nature as God gave it to them; without modification. No matter the fear or hesitation, the Kiowas knew to look at nature with a biocentric view; they looked to nature for safety, rather than with fear. One of the historical points of view in Momaday’s text, The Way to Rainy Mountain, states “At times the plains are bright and calm and quiet; at times they are black with the sudden violence of weather. Always there are winds” (49). This suggests that they looked to the winds for reassurance. The wind provided safety. This statement makes it seem as though without wind there would be trouble. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. Cronan states, “[…] Wilderness came to […] represent a highly attractive natural alternative to the ugly artificiality of modern civilization” (109). Because of the way that modern man has taken dominion over the Earth, not many people hold the same respect that people like those of the Kiowa tribe did. Today, according to Cronan, we have “constructed” wilderness (109). Rather than loving the nature that was given to us, present day humans feel the need to take from nature without reciprocation; something the Kiowas would have never dreamed of. 

One of last days of the Kiowas was in 1861, when Gaapiatan, and old man involved in the Sun Dance, sacrificed his spotted horse to Tai-me. According to the historical point of view, the horse that was sacrificed was “one of his best horses, a fine black-eared animal” (Momaday 71). This horse was clearly an honor for Gaapiatan to own. The third point of view, that of Momaday, elaborates as follows:

I like to think of old man Gaapiatan and his horse. I think I know how much he loved that animal; I think I know what was going on in his mind: If you will give me my life and the lives of my family, I will give you the life of this black-eared horse. (Momaday 71)

In order to save himself and his family, Gaapiatan sacrificed his most prized horse. In this case, he gave back to nature in order to save himself. He gave what he loved to save what he loved more. Horses, like most animals, were something that the Kiowas did not think lightly of.

While there are many points to be made concerning ecocriticism in N. Scott Momaday’s The Way to Rainy Mountain, the more prevalent focus is on giving democracy to nonhumans; something that differs greatly in today’s society. The Kiowa people, as narrated in Momaday’s work, had a powerful relationship with nature; more specifically, animals. Each of the three different points of view in The Way to Rainy Mountain, the ancestral, the historical, and Momaday’s, make this clear in the text. It is obvious that through an ecocritical lenses that one of strongest qualities of the Kiowa people, throughout their journey to Rainy Mountain, in Oklahoma was their biocentric view of nature. The Kiowa people worshiped the wilderness that surrounded them; something that more people in today’s society should focus on. N. Scott Momaday ends The Way to Rainy Mountain with a poem titled “Rainy Mountain Cemetery,” which serves as a representation of the difference in nature from past to present; “The mountain burns and shines […]” (89).

Works Cited

Cronan, William. “The Touble with Wilderness; Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” Ecocriticism: The Essential Reader, edited by Ken Hiltner, Routledge, 2015, 102-117.

Glotfelty, Cheryll. “Literary Studies in an Age of Environmental Crisis.” Ecocriticism: The Essential Reader, edited by Ken Hiltner, Routledge, 2015, 120-130.

Latour, Bruno. “What is to be Done? Political Ecology!” Ecocriticism: The Essential Reader, edited by Ken Hiltner, Routledge, 2015, 232-236.

Momaday, N., Scott. The Way to Rainy Mountain. University of New Mexico Press. 1969.

Naess, Arne. “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects.” Ecocriticism: The Essential Reader, edited by Ken Hiltner, Routledge, 2015, 47-61.

White, Lynn, Jr. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Ecocriticism: The Essential Reader, edited by Ken Hiltner, Routledge, 2015, 39-46.

A Look at Adnan Syed's Case

Thousands of people are wrongfully convicted in the United States each year due to problems with eyewitness testimony (Wilcum). Adnan Syed is one of those thousands of people. He was arrested for the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, due to the testimony of Jay Wilds. Over the past 17 years Adnan Syed’s case has been highly publicized due to the two recent podcasts covering the missing evidence. It began with Rabia Chaudry, who, knowing Sarah Koenig previously worked for the Baltimore Sun, approached her about the status of Syed’s case. No progress was being made to get a new trial. However, after hearing of his case, Sarah Koenig started the podcast Serial. She did an investigation of her own into Syed’s case. She questioned all parties involved in the original trial. She even spoke with Syed himself several times. However, throughout the entirety of the Serial podcast, Koenig remained unbiased. While she did get the case out into the public eye, she never gave a clear answer of whether or not he was innocent or guilty. Koenig managed to get millions of listeners interested in the case due to the evidence she presented that was not used at trial. Almost an entire year later, Rabia Chaudry, who was the one to initially approach Koenig in the first place, began a podcast of her own. She, among a handful of other experienced lawyers, created the Undisclosed podcast. And, while they never explicitly state that they intended to prove Syed’s innocence, that is precisely what they did. Around the time that the Undisclosed podcast came about, Syed was finally granted a new trial. For many, it has always been clear that Syed is innocent. More recently, though, there have been allegations surrounding Wilds for being coached by police. However, no matter the evidence, Syed was still sentenced to life in prison.

Lee was born in South Korea, but moved to Baltimore, Maryland in 1992 to live with her grandparents and attend school. According to Koenig’s Serial podcast, it was at Woodlawn High School that Lee excelled as a student, friend, and athlete. Koenig explicitly states in the pilot episode of the podcast, “She was Korean. She was smart, and beautiful, and cheerful, and a great athlete. She played field hockey and lacrosse. And she was responsible” (Koenig). However, it has been said that Syed was the same way. Not only was intelligent, he was also an outstanding athlete. He was also just as popular as Lee. It was mentioned in the same episode of Serial that Syed was crowned prince at his junior prom. Therefore, it only makes sense that the two would eventually meet and begin a relationship. The two met in the ninth grade, but did not get involved until later into their schooling. However, due to the two’s religious beliefs, they were not able to tell their parents about their relationship. This eventually put a strain on the relationship because both Lee and Syed had close relationships with their parents. After a few months of this, Lee chose to end it. Nevertheless, the two remained friends. In fact, a multitude of friends and family mentioned that, while brief, their relationship was meaningful. The two truly cared for each other. It is that precise reason that brought the two back together later. Syed and Lee again attempted to have a relationship. But just as last time, their relationship was kept a secret negatively affected the both of them. Lee, again, was the one to terminate the relationship, but not for lack of trying (Chaudry 6). And again, the two retained a  close friendship. In fact, Syed wished to prove their friendship to Koenig. He mentioned to her that Lee had acquired a new boyfriend and introduced the two when she had car troubles one night after work (Koenig). Nevertheless, when Lee went missing, Syed became one of the first true suspects, and his friends and family were shocked.

Lee was responsible for picking up her two younger cousins from Campfield Early Learning Center at 3:15 PM each day. On January 13, 1999, she failed to do so. While Lee was seen leaving Woodlawn High School after the final bell at 2:15 PM the same day, she never arrived at Campfield. The drive between the two schools was less than four miles. However, at 3:30 PM Lee’s brother received a phone call from administration at Campfield stating that someone needed to pick up his children. Not long after receiving this call, Lee’s family made a call of their own to the Baltimore County Police Department to report her missing (Chaudry 13). While Syed was not a suspect from the start, he was reported by a fellow classmate to be in the library of Woodlawn High School until leaving for track practice that afternoon. In fact, according to the coach, practice was mandatory in order to be able to participate in the school’s track meets throughout the season (Chaudry 7). While this may be true of Syed, February 1, 1999 the Baltimore County Police Department received a suspicious “anonymous phone call suggesting that Lee’s boyfriend, Adnan Masud Syed, was responsible for her murder.” It was not until a week later, February 9th, that Lee’s body was discovered in Leakin Park in Baltimore, Maryland by a maintenance man on his way to work.

Syed was later arrested for her murder on February 28 of 1999 after the police interviewed Jay Wilds. Sarah Koenig revealed recordings of Wilds’ first interview in order to help decipher what actually happened the day that Lee went missing. In it he informed police that Syed had supposedly previously mentioned to him that “he was going to kill that bitch,” meaning Hae Min Lee. He also claimed that he did not take this threat seriously whatsoever. It can be heard in these recordings that Wilds continued to recount his whereabouts on the day or Lee’s disappearance. He mentioned the more concrete facts, such as that he had Syed’s car that day because he and Syed went to the mall to purchase a gift for his then girlfriend, Stephanie McPherson, as he did not have his own car. He also claimed that Syed had left his cell phone so he could contact him as soon as he needed to be picked up. According to Wilds’ fist interview, Syed was supposed to give him a call because he intended to kill Lee that day and would require a ride afterward (Koenig). However, according to Serial, Wilds changed his story several times. While the discussion of this interview in the podcast is brief, it clearly shows that Wilds’ was hiding something.

While Adnan Syed may be innocent, his “friend” Jay Wilds was not. He did not kill Hae Min Lee, but he did lie a multitude of times, under oath, about Syed’s involvement in the murder. In fact, Wilds changed his story by adding a number of details that he previously left out in each of his following interviews, as well as in his testimonies. As previously mentioned, Wilds’ first interview is a jumbled-up mess. In it, he mentioned to police that he received a phone call from Syed at 10:45 AM. An hour later Syed arrived at Wilds’ home, and the two drove to Westview Mall to buy the aforementioned birthday gift for Wilds’ girlfriend. According to the first interview, it was while the two were at the mall that Syed had mentioned his intentions of killing Lee. After this encounter, Wilds supposedly dropped Syed off at Woodlawn High School at 12:30 PM and kept his car. In this version of Wilds’ story, Syed called him at 3:40 PM to pick him up at the “strip off Edmonson Ave.” Wilds picked him up at four o’clock, and that was when Syed showed him Lee’s body in the trunk of her 1999 Nissan Sentra. Fifteen minutes later, the two men disposed of Lee’s car at the 1-70 Park and Ride, not too far from where this took place. From there, Wilds claimed to have dropped Syed off at Woodlawn once more for track practice at 4:30 PM. After that, Syed did not call him again until 6:45 PM, after which the two drove to McDonald’s for dinner. That was when Syed received the phone call from police concerning Lee’s disappearance (“Timelines”). 

Wilds’ second interview only differed slightly from his first, but enough so that it had been noted. In this version of his story he mentioned that he and Syed went to the mall to purchase a birthday gift for McPherson, however he claims to have gone to Security Square Mall, rather than Westview Mall (“Timelines”). He also clarified to police that the gift he purchased for his girlfriend was a bracelet that cost him precisely $30 (“Police Notes from Jay’s Interview”). He then told police that the phone call he received from Syed was to pick him up in the Best Buy parking lot at 3:35 PM. However, in his first interview, he claims to have met Syed at the “strip off Edmonson Ave” five minutes prior to that. The other times that Wilds mentioned were also slightly different. In his second interview, he told police that he dropped Syed off for track practice at 5:10PM, rather than 4:30 PM. While five minutes is not necessarily a big difference, 30 minutes is. With those were not the most notable differences between the two interviews. In this interview, Wilds added another detail that was not previously mentioned in his first interview. He told police that he and Syed stopped by their friend Kristi V’s (called “Cathy” in both podcasts for her identity’s sake) after Syed supposedly discarded Lee’s belongings in the Westview Mall dumpster (“Timelines”).

The records of Jay Wilds’ third interview show even more discrepancies in this recollection of January 13, 1999. While it is clearly different from his first interview, much of the information he relayed aligned with his second interview. Wilds told detectives that he met Syed in the Best Buy parking lot. And, he also mentioned ditching Lee’s car at the Park and Ride on I-70 (“Jay’s Third Interview Notes”). Aside from the details in the second and third interviews matching, Wilds was much more descriptive in his third interview. He added multiple specific details that he had previously left out of his story. This struck many as odd because, according to the detective’s notes, Wilds’ third interview took place on March 18, 1999; nearly two months after Lee’s initial disappearance. When Wilds was questioned about the contents of Lee’s car, he was able to recall that there were three gloves as well as a short-sleeved shirt and shoes. The details that he gave detectives concerning those items were very specific. For example, he gave detailed descriptions of the colors and patterns of each item. The detective’s notes also show that Wilds mentioned not wanting to help Syed get rid of Lee’s body. Supposedly when Syed asked for his help disposing of the body, Wilds told him that he wanted to go home. However, he went with Syed to bury her body in Leakin Park anyway. It was at that point in the third interview, and no other, that Wilds mentioned that he had noticed a coat on the ground near the place Syed had buried Lee’s body. He then claimed that Syed had told him the coat was most likely Lee’s and proceeded to toss it aside. Wilds told detectives that Syed was the one to cover Lee’s body with dirt and leaves while he resorted to sitting on a nearby log to smoke (“Jay’s Third Interview Notes”). 

The details that Wild gave in his testimony were similar to the ones he provided detectives in his third interview. He testified that Syed called him to pick him up in the Best Buy parking lot, not the “strip off Edmonson Ave.” A source states that, “Adnan throws some of Hae’s things into a dumpster at Westview Mall, and Jay throws the shovels into a dumpster behind Valley City,” even though Wilds previously stated that he had arrived home around 11:00 PM the evening of January 13, 1999. However, he never mentioned any of this new information in any of his prior interviews (“Timelines”). 

There is much more to this case than just what Jay Wilds had to say. However, it was his testimony that sent an innocent man to prison. While Wilds seemed to be the main component to the case, many found that to be odd considering all the inconsistencies in his recollections of the day Hae Min Lee disappeared. Syed told a much different story than Wilds. In fact, he found most of what Wilds, as well as the state of Maryland, said to be unfathomable. Rabia Chaudry, creator of the Undisclosed podcast, recently published a book covering all the evidence that the trial left out. In the introduction is a letter that Syed had written to Koenig before she began the Serial podcast. In it, Syed covered the basic details of the trial, as well as his conviction. But he also included information concerning what the state had to say about the murder of Hae Min Lee. He expressed to Koenig his disbelief of what was said. According to Syed’s letter, he did not believe himself to fit into the category that the state of Maryland put him into. He claimed that he does not fit the profile of a young, love-struck murderer. He also explicitly stated that the state believed him to have killed Lee between 2:15 and 2:36 PM on January 13, 1999. It was then that he mentioned that he had received a letter from Asia McClain, the aforementioned classmate, stating that she and her boyfriend had seen and talked to him in the library during the time that he had supposedly murdered Lee (between 2:20 and 2:40 PM). He wrote that he had previously mentioned this to his then lawyer, Gutierrez, but she immediately shut down the idea of following up with McClain (Chaudry 3-8). 

This, among a multitude of other reasons, is why Judge Martin P. Welch granted Syed’s request for a new trial. In a recent article published by The Baltimore Sun, it was mentioned that a potential alibi witness (Asia McClain) should have been considered in the case. Judge Martin Welch was one of the millions of people captivated by the popular podcasts, but it was not until after multiple attempts to get a new trial that Judge Welch finally agreed to it. Syed first petitioned for post-conviction relief almost six years prior to this new trial being granted. However, Judge Welch not only granted a new trial due to the podcasts, but the evidence clearly presented to him as to why Syed was unfairly tried. Syed’s current attorney, Justin Brown, released on Twitter that the new trial had been granted on August 1, 2016. This was due to Attorney General Brian Frosh’s urging of the Judge to review Syed’s case one last time. In the end, Judge Welch agreed to a new trial due to the fact that “Syed’s trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective in her cross-examination of the state’s cellphone evidence” (“’Serial’ Podcast’s Adnan Syed’s New Trial Appealed”).  However, another thing that was brought to the attention of the many listeners of Serial and Undisclosed, Judge Welch being one of those people, was the theory that Wilds was coached. It is apparent that most of the information that Wilds relayed to police was rehearsed after his first interview. With that being said, this theory was not mentioned until the Undisclosed podcast brought it up in their third episode. In it, Chaudry states:

The police coached Jay through his statements. […] They corrected him when he messed up. He apologized repeatedly. They gave him a map. They gave him a chronology to reference. […] What’s really frightening is, though, that not only were they able to coach and feed Jay into admitting details that were completely mundane, they took it to the extent that Jay admitted to some really serious stuff because of the coaching (“The State v. Adnan Syed Episode 3 – Jay’s Day”).

It was Undisclosed podcast member Collin Miller who reminded listeners prior to Chaudry’s statement that Wilds had previously admitted to lying multiple times when it came to the day of Lee’s disappearance. Miller stated, “And so what we see when we try to decipher what Jay is saying in these various statements, it’s almost meaningless to do so because these accountings are so very different. And, in fact, he’s admitted himself that he has lied in various statements about the events of January 13, 1999” (Undisclosed). Miller made this statement four minutes into the podcast. However, Chaudry did not mention the theory that Wilds was coached until about 30 minutes in. While it may be odd that this information was withheld for such a long period of time, Rabia Chaudry then reintroduced listeners to Susan Simpson’s, another lawyer and Undisclosed member, blog statements. Even though that Chaudry had been seeing the blogs for years, she finally came to the realization that Simpson was digging into something deeper. Of this, Chaudry stated, “And then, bam, Susan figured it out. She figured out what no one else in all these years, not even Serial could find out… Because all this time we had been trying to plot Jay’s dream. But it turns out, it was never his dream to begin with” (“The State v. Adnan Syed Episode 3 – Jay’s Day”). 

Susan Simpson continued to explain her discovery of the truth about what went on between Jay Wilds and detectives in the interrogation room. She explained to listeners that upon listening to the audio from Wilds’ interviews, her eyes, and ears, were opened to the theory that he may have been lying and changing his story due to coaching from the police. Simpson pointed out the abundant number of long pauses that Wilds took when answering the detectives’ questions. She stated that after she initially noted this, she had become aware of a reoccurring tapping noise that was present in each of the taped interviews. A recording was played at that point in the podcast, and afterward, Simpson stated, “Did you catch that? Jay is responding to someone after that pause. And not just that, there’s a ‘tap tap,’ and then Jay says, ‘Oh, okay,’ and suddenly a moment later, he knows the answer” (“The State v. Adnan Syed Episode 3 – Jay’s Day”). The tapping Simpson was referring to was blatantly audible to listeners. The long pauses and tapping noises clearly indicated that Wilds was thinking long and hard about his next response to the detectives.

Simpson finding this information was critical to Syed’s case. However, there have been many people who have gone on record to say that her findings were inadmissible. Having said that, in the aforementioned podcast episode, Simpson gave a clear and concise description of her discovery. She had this to say:

I first heard the tapping after I listened to the clips a few times, and then short after that, I found a document in the police file that seemed to correlate those tappings. And I spent a lot of time checking and double checking to make sure that I wasn’t hearing something that wasn’t there or that that wasn’t a tapping that appeared all over the interviews in all kinds of places. But again and again, the patter held. Jay gets confused, paused too long, or starts to say the wrong thing, and the tap-tap-tap, and Jay knows the answer suddenly. So, I finally got the clips together, and I sent them to Amar, our sound guy. I asked him to make sure those sounds were really there, so he cleaned up the audio for me… And, yeah, those sounds are there (“The State v. Adnan Syed Episode 3 – Jay’s Day”).

The documents that Simpson was referring to were posted on the Undisclosed website. Each document discussed in the podcast is posed online under the episode title. The third episode listed 12 different documents, as well as the episode’s transcript. However, the description of the information given was almost more helpful than the information itself. It states:

Before each taped interview, Jay was questioned by the detectives “off the record.” As noted in Episode 8 of Serial, “This is what’s called the pre-interview, and Trainum says that’s where the mischief can happen. The contamination. Not necessarily intentionally, bit it happens.” During the pre-interviews, the detectives worked with Jay – for one hour, before the first interview, and for over three hours before the second interview – to develop a statement that they wanted him to give. Once a coherent story had been worked out that met the detectives’ objectives, the tape recorder was turned on, and Jay would tell the detectives the pre-arranged statement. The notes and maps reviewed in the pre-interview would be kept on the table, so that, when necessary, Jay could be guided through his statement, or corrected if he went off track (“Jay’s Chronology – From BPD Police File”).

The rest of the description lists the ways in which the documents were obtained, but there is also a section that mentioned that there is information in the previously mentioned document that Wilds never gave in any of his interviews (“Jay’s Chronology – From BPD Police File”). This suggested that the information was crafted by the detectives who interviewed Wilds and was never used. It became clearer and clearer that Wilds truly was coached by police. 

While it is clear to some that the information that Wilds provided to the detectives may have been rehearsed, Rabia Chaudry was no longer convinced that Wilds was guilty of Lee’s murder, as she previously had been. Chaudry has been very open with her recent theory that Wilds knows whoever did murder Lee. Last year, Chaudry had been conducting something of an informal tour. In her many appearances at different locations, she discussed a wide range of details concerning the Serial podcast, including what she believes to be true of Wilds. According to a Washingtonian article written by Emma Foehringer Merchant, Chaudry was quoted as saying, “For the most of the last ten years I’ve that that it’s him. That’s the truth. Now, I’m not so sure,” concerning Wilds (“Rabia Chaudry: ‘Jay is Close to Whoever Did It”). She also stated that, while she no longer believed that Wilds was guilty of Lee’s murder, she does believe that he is close with whoever is. While she never gave a specific reason as to why, one would assume that it had something to do with Wilds’ fear of the police. A recent article posted to Observer suggests that Wilds had not trusted to police. Peter DeCandia, a current teacher at Woodlawn High School, writes of another teacher stating, “Jay was paranoid of the police and didn’t trust them at all” (DeCandia). The same teacher mentioned to him that “his mistrust of authority was maybe why he left pieces out of his story when he spoke to law officers, as he feared how the police would interpret the information” (DeCandia). Wilds may have had reasons for lying the way he did, but that does not change the fact that he was coached by the police before and during the trial.

Jay Wilds testimony is what imprisoned Adnan Syed. The evidence presented at the initial trial was far from proof that Syed committed the murder of Hae Min Lee. The initial police report on Lee’s disappearance, there was little to no evidence regarding her whereabouts. The BPD case file begins with what little physical evidence they do have to suggest where she could be. It indicates that Lee was five feet, eight inches tall, had brown eyes, and had black hair. When she was last seen, she was reported to be wearing a black skirt, and she had her hair down. The officer that was dispatched to Lee’s home to gather further information was later informed that she drove her mother’s vehicle, a gray, four-door 1999 Nissan Sentra (“The Baltimore County Police Department”). The same report also indicated that Officer Adcock interviewed Lee’s brother, who stated what the police already know; that Lee had failed to pick up her two younger cousins from school that day. The notes from that interview stated, “Mr. Lee advised that he is not aware if his sister had any engagements after school.” Adcock also spoke to Lee’s grandmother, Mrs. Kin. She too indicated that she was not aware of if Lee had any prior engagements, but the last time Kin saw Lee was before she left for school at 7:00 AM that morning. Officer Adcock also “spoke to Mrs. Pitman and Mr. Syed, both are friends of the victim, and they advised that victim Lee was in school.” Both Pitman and Syed claimed to have seen her during the school day. Syed mentioned that he had previously asked Lee for a ride home from school, but was running late and assumed that she had already left (“The Baltimore County Police Department”). Nowhere in the report does it mention anything concerning Jay Wilds, who was responsible for convicting Syed.

Even though Hae Min Lee’s body was found on February 9, 1999, Jay Wilds was not contacted until the police spoke with a woman named Jenn Pusateri. She informed told the police that Wilds had previously informed her that Syed murdered Lee in her interview on the 27th of February. However, the police did not attempt to contact Wilds until the following day, almost an entire 24 hours later (“Who, What, When”). The notes from recorded from Wilds’ first interview by Detective Ritz are from February 26, 1999 (“The Baltimore County Police Department”). This contradicts the information given in Serial as well as Undisclosed. The notes taken by Detective Ritz suggested very little. They only relayed a small increment of what can be heard in the recordings. This aided in the belief that Wilds was coached in order to convict Syed.

None of the evidence surrounding this case indicated Adnan Syed to be guilty. For this reason, the Innocence Project was attracted to his case. In fact, the Innocence Project got involved in Syed’s case before his new trial was granted. However, their efforts were stopped due to the fact that it was questionable whether or not they could analyze new DNA concerning the case during the appeal. With that being said, the Innocence Project at the University of Virginia Law School is doing what they can to continue their efforts to test the new DNA that has been found. The fully intend to prove that Adnan Syed was not the murderer of Hae Min Lee and was wrongfully convicted. In fact, Deirdre Enright was quoted saying this concerning the DNA evidence surrounding the case:

One of the first questions I said is, “What about the physical evidence? Well, it’s funny because I looked at some of the forensics. There’s a lab report that says that somebody looked at a slide but didn’t see any sperm. And I thought, ‘We don’t eyeball sperm. That’s not how this goes, right?’” (Koenig).

Apparently the results from Lee’s rape kit were never actually tested. There was a lot of physical evidence that was not actually tested like it should have been. Including the liquor bottle and rope that was found at the scene (Koenig). This, among many other reasons, is why Syed’s case still matters to this day. What happened to Hae Min Lee was a tragedy, but so is the fact that Syed has been imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit.

Between Sarah Koenig, Rabia Chaudry and their podcasts that covered the case, all the new evidence presented suggesting that Jay Wilds was coached by police, and the prior allegation that Syed received inefficient council, it only made sense that he was granted a new trial. If his first lawyer, Gutierrez, would have pursued Asia McClain’s claim to have seen Syed that day in the library or the information concerning the cellphone towers, it is very likely that Syed never would have been convicted at all. If it were not for Wilds placing Syed in the same area that the cellphone tower pinged his phone at, Syed would not have been sentenced to life in prison. It was clear to most that from the beginning of the trial, the investigators and Syed’s lawyers wanted him to lose the case. Plenty of new evidence has surfaced since the initial trial, and it will most likely be used to Syed’s advantage in his new trial. It is anticipated that if all the new evidence is presented that Syed will be released and finally get the justice he deserved from the start. Nonetheless, all the new information that has surfaced has only proved Syed’s innocence. It has not brought police any closer to finding the Lee’s actual killer. Even though Adnan Syed is undoubtedly not guilty of the murder of Hae Min Lee, someone is, and it is likely that Jay Wilds knows who it is, whether he admits it or not. 

Works Cited

Adnan Syed v. State of Maryland. Case No. 199103042-046. Circuit Court for Baltimore City. 2016. 8 Nov. 2016. This document not only gives information on the case, but it gives Judge Welch’s reasoning on re-opening the case. While there are multiple reasons, one is the unreliability of council concerning the issue of the cell phone tower. That issue relates to the police coaching Wilds’ statements.

“Baltimore County Police Department Form 108 M.C.I.R.” Undisclosed. ND. 21 Sep. 2016. The police report gave important details concerning Hae Min Lee in a completely unbiased way. The report shows the initial information before the investigation began to get more confusing. It also gives a description of the first time Syed speaks to police about Lee’s disappearance which is different from what later comes up in interviews with Wilds.

Chaudry, Rabia. Adnan's Story: The Search For Truth And Justice After Serial. New York: St. Martin's, 2016. Print. This book not only gives Adan's side of the story, but it gives all of the information that was not presented at trial. This text was written by Rabia Chaudry, which makes it credible due to her long friendship with Adnan.

DeCandia, Peter. “SERIAL EXCLUSIVE: The Teachers of Woodlawn High Speak Out.” Observer. 5 Feb. 2015. 30 Nov. 2016. Web. I recently discovered this article while in class, as you know because I emailed it to you. It gave me a new insight into the case in its entirety. It also provided me with new information that I was previously unaware of (like Wilds’ fear of the police). I found the entire article to be interesting, but unfortunately I was only able to add in a section concerning Wilds due to time and space restraints.

DelValle, Lauren, Grinberg, Emanuella, Mckirdy, Euan. “Serial Podcast’s Adnan Syed’s New Trial Appealed.” CNN. 2 Aug. 2016. 6 Nov. 2016. This article is from CNN, so even though it is nothing more than an article, I still found it helpful to my case of Syed’s innocence and Wilds’ inconsistencies. It helps provide evidence that Wilds aided in the decision for a new trial. It also helps prove that Wilds was coached by police in order to prove the cellphone theory.

Fenton, Justin. "State Intends to Fight New Trial Ruling for Syed." The Baltimore Sun 26 July 2016, First ed., Main News; A sec.: 3. LexisNexis. Web. This article clearly describes Judge Welch’s decision to grant Adnan Syed a new trial. I believe it to be credible because it came from the Baltimore Sun, which is one of the newspapers that first covered the story of Hae Min Lee’s murder.

“Jay’s Chronology – From BPD Police File.” Undisclosed. ND. 6 Nov. 2016. This document, as well as the description of the document help to show that Wilds is inconsistent. It also describes what it means to be coerced by detectives and how it is possible to coach a person before an actual interview. It also contains quotations from Sarah Koenig’s Serial podcast.

“Jay’s Third Interview Notes – March 18, 1999.” Undisclosed. ND. 21 Sep. 2016. The notes from this interview show how much Wilds’ story differs each time he tells it to police. This interview is much longer and more detailed than the previous ones, even though it is almost two months later. These notes show that Wilds may have been coached by investigators. 

Koenig, Sarah. "The Alibi." Audio blog post. Serial. This American Life, 3 Oct. 2014. Web. 2 Sept. 2016. This episode of Koenig’s podcast covers the basics of the murder case; it is simply an introduction to what she continues to investigate concerning Hae’s murder. I find it to be credible due to the amount of information she gives that comes from the trial, as well as because Rabia Chaudry is the person who reached out to her in the first place.

Merchcant Foehringer, Emma. “Rabia Chaudry: ‘Jay Is Close to Whoever Did It.’” Washingtonian. 18 Mar. 2015. 4 Nov. 2016. While this article may be short, it gave me a lot more insight into Chaudry’s view of Wilds. Throughout the entirety of the initial trial, as well as the recent events that have taken place, she has maintained Syed’s innocence. However, she never pointed a finger at anyone else; not even Wilds. This article brought to my attention that, while she previously believed Wilds to be Lee’s murderer, she no longer felt that way. Even though she believes that Wilds was coached by detectives, she does not believe that he killed Lee. She, to this day, has not said who she believes to be Lee’s real killer.

"Murder of Hae Min Lee." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 19 Aug. 2016. Web. 2 Sept. 2016. This Wikipedia article gives the main points about the murder case, and it is very unbiased compared to some of my other sources. However, I would not go so far to say it is as credible as the others considering anyone can edit a Wikipedia page.

“Police Notes From Jay’s Interview, February 28, 1999.” Undisclosed. ND. 21 Sep. 2016. These notes from the detective conducting Jay’s second interview show the differences between each story Wilds gives. These notes are much shorter and less detailed than the notes from Wilds’ third interview. This interview is when Wilds begins to alter his initial story.

“Pre-Interview Notes From Jay’s Interview Taken by Detective Ritz, February 26, 1999.” Undisclosed. ND. 21 Sep. 2016. These notes are short and concise, as it is a “pre-interview.” However, they give the main details of Wilds’ first interview. But, the date stamped on these notes is different than that of the timeline created by Koenig.

"The State v. Adnan Syed Episode 3 ­ Jay’s Day." Audio blog post. Undisclosed. 12 May. 2015. Web. 1 Oct. 2016. This was a useful source because Chaudry, one of Syed’s friends, is a part of the podcast. She and her colleagues mention the idea of Wilds being coached by police. That small piece of information is relevant to, not only this paper, but the next one as well. It needed to be introduced here. 

 “Timelines: January 13, 1999.” Serial. 2014. 1 Oct. 2016. This timeline made by Sarah Koenig was incredibly helpful. It put each of Wilds’ stories side by side, as well as compared them to Syed’s story (which never changed). It coincided well with the notes from each of Jay Wilds’ interviews.

“Who, What, When.” Serial. 2014. 1 Oct. 2016. This was also created by Sarah Koenig, but was a more general timeline. It shows where the case began and where it ended in a simple manner. It gave the biggest points of the case, which helped show how inconsistent Wilds was throughout the investigation.

Wilcum, Greg. "10,000 Innocent People Convicted Each Year, Study Estimates." Research News OSU. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Sept. 2016. This study shows about how many people are wrongfully convicted each year based on a survey done in Ohio. I find it to be credible due to the fact that it came from Ohio State University.