Koenig In Serial And Rabia Chaudry In Undisclosed

Sarah Koenig in Serial, and Rabia Chaudry in Undisclosed begins their investigations with preconceived reasons for Adnan Syed’s innocence. Chaudry is personally connected with Syed through her brother Saad Chaudry, Syed’s best friend, so Rabia Chaudry believes Syed’s awesome and cannot commit murder. Thus, as a lawyer, Chaudry has previously reviewed the state’s case thoroughly. On the other hand, Koenig begins her investigation with a different reason for doubting the state’s case against Syed. Koenig believes that Syed’s defense lawyer, Christina Gutierrez, might have messed-up; Koenig wrote an article in the Baltimore Sun about Syed’s defense lawyer when she was disbarred from law, for mishandling client’s money. Koenig in Serial, and Chaudry in Undisclosed confirm their preconceived notions; Koenig, about the lawyer, and Chaudry about Syed’s innocence. Was the investigation conducted honestly, or was it all confirmation bias? Confirmation bias is when one finds one’s preconceived notions to be true, because of one’s search to prove their preconceived …show more content…
Koenig writes an article in the Baltimore Sun about Gutierrez after she was disbarred from law for mishandling client’s money. Gutierrez was Syed’s defense lawyer. Therefore, Koenig is suspicious of Syed’s defense lawyer, before her investigation begins. Koenig states in her introduction: “I used to be a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, and she'd come across some stories I'd written about a well-known defense attorney in Baltimore who'd been disbarred for mishandling client money. That attorney was the same person who defended Adnan, her last major trial, in fact.” Koenig lacks faith in Syed’s defense lawyer, and therefore understands that Syed is in prison, even though Syed lacked a fair trial. However, her belief is less helpful to Syed than Chaudry’s, who believes Syed is great, and thus cannot commit