Rubio is appealing to those on the far right end of the spectrum here and is discrediting Trump.

I feel that the candidates of the republican party are more hostile towards each other in comparison to the candidates in the democratic party. They are more focused on gaining audience support by lashing out on each other in some way and trying to prove their credibility.

This is a subtle lash to Trump because there are hats you can buy with trumps slogan "Make America Great Again". There are even pictures os Trump wearing these hats.

Here Cruz is appealing to the lower class. He is appealing to people struggling with adversity such as single moms working multiple jobs to support their families, truck drivers, steel workers, and mechanics.

Here Rubio is showing that he is the "bigger person" and is presenting himself as a family man. This appeals to the people who are offended by Trumps attacks on others and to the people who are family oriented in their day to day lives because they feel that they can connect with Rubio.

Here Trump is showing that he is involved in modern thing such as social media and is appealing to the younger audience.

Proof that Trump starts with an insult. However here he is appealing to the republicans that did not agree with Mitt Romney as well as some independent voters who may not have Supported Romney but now agree with what Trump is presenting.

This shows that Trump cant respond to questions with quality substance, instead he feels the need to answer with an insult. This takes away from Trump and some people may not support him because of this.

This appeals to Trump supporters because it shows that trump is a strong candidate and will go through anything to beat his competitors.

Throughout the debate both Sanders's and Clintin's main objective is to persuade the audience that he or she is the better candidate. Both of them are really big on using audience appeals and appealing to what the audience wants to hear. Logos is no really used in their answers, but some ethos and a lot of pathos is.

Here Clinton really connects with her audience. Who doesn't love money? By telling the people in distress that she supports the funding they are requesting and believes that money should be "immediately" given to them appeals to the audience, ultimately causing their support for Clinton to increase.

Here Clinton is showing that she is a team player and supports her "opponent", gaining audience support.

Here Sanders is appealing to the middle and lower class voters. He is trying to connect with them by talking about how he understands that these economical classes have been struggling while there are millionaires out there having tax breaks. Although this doesn't really pertain to the initial question, Sanders is still connecting with his audience.

This brings some credibility to Sanders, showing that he has actually met with some of the residents of Fint rather than just researching and speaking on secondhand information.

Annother possible inquiry question: While this may be bad news for the world's commercial fishing industry and recreational fishing, what about for the ecosystem as a whole? Or even through a smaller lens, what about the organisms living in a toxic environment that they have no control over?

This also sheds some light on the view of fishermen and how the pollution of the ocean is directly affecting themas well.

This article mainly focuses on the stakeholder view of environmentalists. It examines the negative effects of the carbon dioxide that is being released into the environment and how it is severely affecting the marine organisms.

This increases the credibility of the author by discussing a scientific study.

What information was found by this study? How is it beneficial to the authors claim?

By brining in information from a University this increases the credibility of the author.

Here the author uses logos. They are showing the harsh reality of how close our oceans are to having severe consequences due to our own pollution.

Another possible inquiry question to be asked here could be: Although the incentive of a monetary reward is appetizing, why is it necessary for there to be a tangible reward present when an entire ecosystem is at risk of extinction because of our own wrong doing?

Shouldn't we be morally obligated to take care of the ecosystems that surround us and play a major role for life on planet earth?

A possible inquiry question to be asked here could be: If we continue to litter and pollute the oceans, how will the rest of the ecosystem be affected by the loss of these systems?

"Rising Ocean Pollution Levels Are Making Fish Drunk." The Inquisitr News. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This is a popular source, therefore we can expect an informal approach to gain audience attention. The claim of this article is that the increase in carbon dioxide levels in the ocean due to climate change is negatively affecting that fish that live in these marine environments and giving them a drunken affect.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while presenting credible and relevant information to support their claim. They present the view of the stakeholder position of environmentalists and researchers.

(http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/climate_change_and_the_oceans.php)

The link above is an article that discusses acidification and global warming. Although the two are slightly different they are both similar in the way that they are caused by the emission of CO2. Plastic products are known to release CO2 into marine environments. This scholarly journal also discuses the carbon cycle and how plastics are responsible for some of the excess CO2 being released (http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu:2048/science/article/pii/S092181810800012X). Plastic also releases CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a major cause of global warming as well. Because of the CO2 emitted by plastic in both marine ecosystems and into the atmosphere, the Thompson and Hamer discuss how it is also a main stressor present in seabirds and how it is negatively affecting these organisms.

This also increases the authors' credibilty. Here they discuss an experiment that took place over an eight year period of which seabirds in the tropical Pacific stomachs' were examined to see exactly what kinds of plastics were being digested and how the birds were being affected by it.

The authors increase their credibility (ethos) by citing information from other scholarly articles and researchers. This also allows the authors to further support their claim with relevant and reliable information suggesting that plastics are a main stressor to the seabirds.

Thompson, David R., and Keith C. Hamer. "Stress In Seabirds: Causes, Consequences And Diagnostic Value." Journal Of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress & Recovery 7.1 (2000): 91. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This is a scholarly article written by two credible authors, one from the University of Durham and one from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. The title indicates that the article will be discussing the causes, consequences and diagnostic values of stress present in seabird. I believe that the claim of this scholarly journal is that, seabird are a very important part of the marine ecosystem, however the amount of stress present in these birds is increasing due to various stressors that are being introduced into their environment.

The authors argue that a big misconception about ocean pollution is that is only affects the organisms that live beneath the surface. They state that while that statement is somewhat true, ocean pollution also affects the organisms that feed off of other species such as fish.

This article is focusing on the stakeholder position of environmentalists. It shows how they view the topic of ocean pollution, specifically by plastic, and why it is such an important issue that is rising in generation.

Here the author uses more statistics to talk about how more could be done to decrease plastic pollution in oceans, and around the world in general. They state that 58% of paper and 90% of iron and steel get recycled whereas only 14% of plastic does.

What are some solutions to this? Maybe the general public is not as informed about the requirements of recycling. There is a significant emphasis placed on paper products being recycled to "save the trees". Maybe if the public were to become more aware that plastic is recyclable to, and if a movement such as something along the lines of "save the fish" or "save the dolphins" were to be started, then possibly more plastic products would get recycled.

"Plastic For Dinner?." Earth Island Journal 31.1 (2016): 11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This source is a periodical, or a scholarly source. By reading the title it is pretty evident what the article is about, it even almost indirectly states the claim. I think the claim is that there will soon be so much plastic in the oceans that fish and other marine organisms will be "having it for dinner" and how it is going to effect the marine ecosystem, fishermen and pescatarians.

Although its a scholarly source, it appeals to readers in a more simplistic and understandable way. Rather than appealing to students and other researchers, this article seems to focus more on appealing to the general public that may be concerned about the increasing problem of ocean pollution. This article also does a fairly good job at remain objective while presenting information in a less formal way, but also keeping it credible.

( http://patch.com/new-york/northfork/countywide-single-use-plastic-bag-ban-pitched-suffolk-legislator)

Here the author brings in a the side of a CEO from a Plastic Pollution Coalition to increase their credibility. She states that one of the biggest problems is single use and disposable plastic. The article linked above discusses the negative effect of single use plastic as well as focusing on a proposed ban of single-se plastic bags in New York.

Here the author uses ethos and logos. They use ethos by using a World Economic Forum to get statistical support for their claim. They then use those statistics in the form of logos, stating "8 millions tons of plastic end up in our ocean each year". This both increases their credibility and gives the audience statistical information. The author also uses and analogy to connect with their audience by comparing the amount of plastic present in the oceans to the amount plastic dumped into the ocean by a dump truck per minute. This allows the reader to better understand how much plastic is actually being released into the marine ecosystems.

This is the main idea that the author will be discussing throughout the article. It also can be seen as a hook that pulls in more readers by gaining their interest in something they might see as an exaggerated statement. The reality of it is that its a potentially true statement that is supported by evidence throughout the article.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while discussing their claim and presenting relevant and supportive information.

Here they use ethos by discussing information that was presented in another scholarly article, increasing their credibility on the topic the are about to address in this next section of their journal. They bring in information from many outside sources throughout their entire journal to support their claim.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto address the stakeholder position of future generations and how the excess CO2 emissions will effect them. They talk about how our future generations will have to bear the burden of things such as dealing with the consequences of a warmer climate and contaminated water sources. While there are some solutions to this problem, Nusbaumer and Matsumoto bring up the questions of how much excess CO2 is too much? And once it reaches a certain point is it even possible that the affects can be reversed let alone fixed? These and many more are all questions future generations will be forced to deal with due to our generations actions, or lack of.

(https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8 ) (http://www.dictionary.com/)

Two outside sources that were helpful during this article. Because it is an academic journal, the authors used a lot of vocabulary that is not commonly known. I found myself looking up a lot of words and using the dictionary for definitions.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto use logos to appeal to their audience. While they have provided many numbers and statistics throughout their journal so far, here they implement graphs to give their audience a visual representation of some of the data they have been discussing and how it can be applied.

I think this is where the authors are articulating their claim; that the addition of CO2 into our environment can have many harmful effects however it can affect many different people, animals, ecosystems, etc. negatively and that many groups are having difficulty coming to a consensus on this and their values.

Nusbaumer, Jesse, and Katsumi Matsumoto. "Climate and Carbon Cycle Changes under the Overshoot Scenario." Global and Planetary Change 62.1-2 (2008): 164-72. Web.

This is an academic journal. Academic journals are very reliable sources because they are written by credible authors who attempt to remain objective while discussing their claim. This article is written by two authors, one from Perdue and one from the University of Minnesota.

I think this is one of the main point that Finn is try to portray in her supporting of the ban the bag movement. Throughout the article she uses many rhetorical strategies to support and strengthen her claim as well as appeal to her audience.

Here Finn uses both logo and pathos to strengthen her claim. She makes the audience feel sad for the helpless animal being killed by the bags while also using statistics for the actual number of bags that were removed from the water. It is also evident that Finn is biased towards her claim and wants the "bag to be banned".

Finn uses this to connect with and appeal to her audience

"They": In the article, Finn is addressing the general public who both support and disagree with the idea of a ban on single-use plastic bags. She presents a lot of biased, but supportive, information to help argue that the proposed ban should be passed. She is also bringing light to the fact that almost every one agrees on the fact that ocean pollution and general pollution by plastic bags is bad, including the companies making them. She states that business owners "feel with the current movement to reduce their use a countywide policy would make sense" and that the "time has come to work together and tackle this issue". This also illuminates the view of the stakeholders (the plastic bag companies) position on the idea of their product causing pollution and what course of action they are going to take.

Here Finn is addressing the concern of the consumers who fear that if plastic bags are banned from supermarkets that they will not be able to afford a new type of bag. Here she uses logos to support her argument. She states that the bags are actually causing an increase in product costs, whereas with the new bags a reusable bag would be a single cost of 10 cents and lower prices. She also states that $10 million a year is spent to dispose of plastic bags. This information supports her argument and persuades her audience that plastic bags should be banned.

Finn, Lisa. "POLL: Should Single-Use Plastic Bags Be Banned?" North Fork, NY Patch. 09 Mar. 2016. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

This article is published by the North Fork Patch, a local news station for North Fork, New York that presents information on breaking and local news, events, weather, sports, schools, shopping, and restaurants. The article is written by Lisa Finn, a journalist for the station. In the article Finn talks about the proposed ban on Single-Use Plastic bags in places such as grocery stores and how the general public is reacting to the proposal. This is a popular source rather than an academic source or scholarly journal.

Throughout the article Finn quotes William Spencer, a Suffolk County Legislator who is also a Doctor of Medicine; he recently passed a bill to "limit the use of disposable plastic bags". This increases her credibility because she is bringing in outside sources who have experience in the area she is discussing (the usage of plastic bags) and who have titles of credibility (legislator, M.D.).

Finn does not explicitly articulate her claim however she argues her claim throughout the entire article: she argues that a ban on single-use plastic bags should be passed in North Fork, New York despite some opposing views on the topic. While she presents bias throughout the article she also uses evidence and some rhetorical strategies to support her claim and to increase her credibility.

This is a liberal point of view. Its just thrown into the article but is surrounded by a lot of opposing opinions, so the reader may read this and become more angry about the way the Democratic senator is trying to support gay marriage. The author may be trying to use ethos here.

This article is most likely going to be more on the conservative side. First off, it explicitly begins by stating the opinion of a republican senator. It states that traditional families will feel "disrespected" if the words "bride" and "groom" are removed from marriage license forms. Here they are beginning their argument to oppose gay marriage.

The article goes through and explains how people in the Indian reservations want to marry their "partners", however they still are unable to do so even though the US Supreme Court has legalized it. This article mostly puts a negative view on the Indian reservations for not accepting gay marriage and still supporting the Dine Marriage Act. This may be considered more liberal because liberals tend to support gay marriage rather than oppose it.

"ONLY 10 have legalized gay marriage" This news source is going to probably have a pretty liberal opinion in supporting gay marriage. I can tell this simply by the way this opening paragraph is worded. It is suggesting that since the US Supreme Court legalized gay marriage then the American Indian Tribes should have done it as well. Instead ONLY 10 of them have.

I think that Susan Simpson, Rabia Chaudry and Collin Miller are credible and reliable sources. They display their credibility by using ethos in the article, and by displaying a lot of evidence that was also presented throughout the Serial episodes and even by introducing new evidence and interviews throughout the episode. Because of this I find these three to be credible and reliable sources. I think that the intended audience for this podcast are the listeners that were already listening to serial; however I think it is also narrowed down to the more serious listeners. This podcast isn't so much for entertainment like Serial was. It more about present facts and evidence and questions about the case. Since it doesn't have that "catchy" appeal, I think that people that are very invested into the case, and people who the case more directly affects (such as Adnan's family, people in the muslim community, etc.) are the people who are listening to this podcast. Also because of the more seriousness of this episode in comparison to serial, I think that this episode tends to focus more so on logo and ethos to appeal to their audience rather than on pathos like serial does.

This is claim statement. Here they are talking about how Koenig turned a simple case, that typically would've gone unnoticed. However, here they go deeper into the claim and broaden it to fit the information that was just discussed throughout the article. They address the fact that there are issues with how Koenig proceeded with broadcasting the Serial podcasts but also address that they should not ignore her "experiment".

I think that this could possibly be the claim. I think they are talking about and supporting how Sarah Koenig just stumbled upon this case and turned it into a "cultural phenomenon".

I think this is more of a popular article source rather than a scholarly article source. Throughout the article, I feel like while the author attempts to support her claim she is also attempting to entertain her audience. Here it says "COMING NEXT" as though its like a TV episode, or an episode of serial, or something that people tune into because its interesting and catchy rather than strictly educational.

I think that this is Natasha Vargas-Cooper's claim for the article. I think she is focusing on the fact that Jay was a crucial witness and piece of the Hae Min Lee case, and that reporter Sarah Koenig wrongfully depicted him, pointing out and focusing more on his flaws rather than his contributions. This could have been because Koenig thought that Adnan was really innocent the whole time, and although she tried her best to remain unbiased, some bias still came through.

Another incosistency

Maybe here Jay is suggesting that this trait is what might make Adnan capable of murdering his ex-girlfriend HAe

Jay had numerous inconsistencies within his story. He stated his side of the case about six different times, each time it changed more and more. Like anything, the inconsistencies started out small and then began to escalate quickly into more serious inconsistencies, such as where Jay first saw Hae's body.

However, there are many inconsistencies and flaws with this trial, so the verdict may not have been justified.

Here Koenig uses pathos to appeal to her audience. By revealing both the good and bad sides of Adnan Koenig is allowing her audience to sympathize with her. It also allows the audience to sympathize with Adnan because now that he is behind bars, every mistake he's ever made is being showcased and used against him although they may have no correlation to the case in any way. The audience may realize that we are all human and everyone makes mistake, and those mistakes don't automatically make someone capable of murder.

This also increases Koenig's credibility because Ali just said many good things about Adnan. When people hear good things and positive rumors about someone or something, they are probably more inclined to believe they are actually good. However here she goes back to the idea that Adnan is guilty. Showing her audience both the positive and negative sides of Adnan's personality. This allows the audience to decide on their own whether or not Adnan is guilty of murder.

Are the parents of the children in the community afraid of racial prejudice? Are they afraid that their child will be linked to the murder based off of their religion and race?

Here Koenig is appealing to her audience by drawing similarities between Adnan's community and our own community. Previously the Muslim community had been presented in a negative and suspicious light. But now Koenig shows us that ultimately we are not that different.

This can be taken in two different directions. This could be seen as an increase to Koenig's credibility by admitting that she hasn't been revealing the whole truth about Adnan throughout the podcasts, or it could be seen as a decrease in her credibility due to the fact that if her listeners just realized she was siding with Adnan this whole time on purpose, they may not trust her future statement as much as they would have before.

This increases Koenig's credibility as a journalist by showing that she is on top of her game and talking to all of the people that were close to Adnan.

Why would you turn down a proposal to help organisms regain their role in the environment?

Why do people find it humane to take part in shark finning?

Why would you oppose the regulation of ocean fish if it is helping our ecosystem and their species as a whole? Is it just because of the profit made by fishing them?

Although the incentive of a monetary reward is appetizing, why is it necessary for there to be a tangible reward present when an entire ecosystem is at risk of extinction because of our own wrong doing?

While this may be bad news for the world's commercial fishing industry and recreational fishing, what about for the ecosystem as a whole? Or even through a smaller lens, what about the organisms living in a toxic environment that they have no control over?

If we continue to litter and pollute the oceans, how will the rest of the ecosystem be affected by the loss of these systems?

Maybe pathos here because the author is somewhat evoking fear by saying that the "sharks dont seem to be going anywhere for awhile" because many people have a rational or irrational fear of sharks. This approach may also help protect the sharks during their time here on the coast.

This could have both positive and negative effects. People may become more aware of the sharks and become more mindful and respectful of them and their environment. Or people may continue to spread the bad reputation the sharks have, making their environment not so safe.

This could possibly be an appeal to pathos, trying to get people to stop polluting our oceans.

This is logos and ethos. Ethos because these scientists ran their own experiment to see all the real effects of plastic in the oysters diet versus just algae and phytoplankton in their diet, increasing their credibility. Because of their experiment they obtained statistics and were able to logically apply them to the rest of the presented information.

Oysters play a vital role in the oceans ecosystem and without them the ecosystem will fall out of balance and lose order. The worst part is that as humans we have the ability to control this and still some of us decided to liter and continue to pollute the environment.

Imagine if you were almost blindly "forced" to consume plastic or other harmful substances that would kill you

This is a stereotype of Asian women

Maybe here Koenig is trying to appel to the pathos of the audience. I think shes trying to make the audience feel bad for Adnan because he had to stay "mute" for five weeks without being to speak his side and opinions. Koenig is right when she says this is hard for anyone, also showing that Adnan is pretty strong and can control himself pretty well.

Here I think logos and ethos are being applied. By not testifying and listening to his attorney despite his major urge to do otherwise, Adnan is being very logical. Also by using this logic Adnan is able to maintain his credibility; he may say something wrong that could be used against his if he had decided otherwise.

Here I think that Koenig is appealing to logos. She explains that if the murder didn’t happen at best buy, then couldn't have happened at the school library. She explains this is because the library is always swarming with kids; the audience can easily understand this. Ultimately the way Koenig explains it makes sense in a more logical way giving her more support on her other observations and that ups her credibility to the audience.

Its pretty sad to think about this. It makes human seem very inconsiderate and almost selfish, assuming that the whole world is just their, not even considering that there are thousands of organisms who live in the ocean, and because humans pollute and liter, many of them are dying off every day. Here the author may be applying to pathos.

It's crazy to believe someone who's just 21 came up with something that could eventually save the worl

I find this article really interesting because this young man came up with such a simple yet effective idea and its almost mind blowing that someone hasn't already thought of this or acted upon it. I think the intended audience for this article is the general uninformed public. Not only is this a great story to put out there, it also raises awareness that we as an international society need to work together to keep our ocean clean and help the wildlife that call the ocean their home.

I think here Koenig is using logos to appeal to her audience. She explains how its logical that Enright is so optimistic and positive because of how hard it is for a case to actually be overturned and for someone to become innocent.

This may be an example of ethos, or credibility. This shows that now there are more people who don't think that Adnan is guilty or that his should not have been decided the way it was based on the evidence that was provided. This is just another reason that Adnan should push for a retrial.

Maybe Koenig is trying to throw some humor into this episode (pathos)

Maybe here pathos is being used because Adnan is saying that he insists that he is innocent however he has no way to prove it and that people should feel some sort of sympathy toward him or something. Or maybe pathos is being used here because since Adnan has no case to support that he's innocent, there is a lack of sympathy towards him as a victim.

Maybe Koenig is suggesting that part of the verdict of the Hae Lee case was because of the race of Adnan Syed

Two very similar cases with two different verdicts... this case of Justin Wolfs shows that there is hope for Adnan if he really is innocent and gives him a reason to really try to push for a retrial.

The race for president can get very aggressive, and candidates may target others

changes in his story and credibility

Brings up ethos, or credibility, because Trump also said that thats how his mother would pronounce it, showing the changes in his excuses to the media

This appeals to pathos, or emotion, by presenting information that makes you more thankful for what you have and even by ending it with a quotes that makes you realize that you don't need a lot to be happy.

This is a very good way to spread awareness of the issue they are presenting

very innovative and still modern which is very impressive for a dumpster

this is very radical.... who would even think to live in a dumpster?

This article mainly focuses on ethos, or credibility. It brings up the questions of credibility of the judaical system that are presented throughout the serial series by Sarah Koenig and why Adnan has pushed for a retrial

Sarah Koenig does a good job of presenting this while attempting to remain unbiased

this shows that the judicial system may not always be fair because they miss important pieces of cases intentionally or unintentionally sometime

Asia plays a really important part in Adnans case and is one of the only people that can give him an alabi

this may be because of a mistrial, the court may not of looked into the case as well as they should've and should've used more witnesses and evidence to determine the verdict of the case

Recorded by Sarah Koenig, we listen to it for Comp 150, its cool to see what we are listening to is actually something that is happening in the real world

I think that there are many other ways to explore new ideas. I also think that because of todays technology, pornography is way to accessible and that many underage children may be accessing it as well.

I agree with this statement. Nowadays it seems to be more socially acceptable for people to objectify women, and pornography definitely isn't helping this. Pornography is typically associated with a negative connotation but is also just kind of set aside as not a big deal.

I find this really interesting considering Utah is known to have a very high population of mormons

a little different than serial, the shooting could be seen as less personal than something like a strangulation. but a murder is a murder and there is always a reason

similar to serial... what is the motive for the murder? who actually did it and why would they want to do it?

It's nice to see that the homeless population is getting more recognition. It seems that they often times go unseen and unheard simply because they are "homeless".

then maybe this is a hint that sharks shouldnt be held in cpativity?

First of all, a shark of this nature does not belong in captivity. A great white is a strong predator on the top of the food chain, and by putting them into captivity, you are basically setting them up to die. It is nearly impossible for anyone to build a tank large enough so that the shark can swim and hunt comfortably.

Koenig really earns my trust by keeping a fairly unbiased approach throughout the several serial podcast episodes. Although she tells adnan he seems like a great guy and feels that she may even know him on a more personal level, she still manages to question the facts and information presented from both sides pretty equally. She also gains my trust more specifically here in episode five. In adnans letter he says he is one-hundred percent sure that if someone tried to commit a murder according to Jays story in twenty one minutes, that it would be impossible. Koenig decides to go out and attempt to follow the path of the murder and see how possible the alleged story really is, earning a deeper trust with the reader by showing how she is not completely closing herself to one side and is open to hearing both stories and looking for support for both.

With the letters that Asia had written to to Adan and the affidavit, his case could have turned out very differently. Also, its interesting that Asia in one of the only people that could backup an alibi for Adan, yet she wasn't even questioned in court. This provides some proof that maybe Adan's case was handled the way it should have been, or that there was maybe even bias or prejudice present. However, as stated in the beginning of the podcast, all of the information that Koenig provides seems to be very meaningful and precise.

In this section, Koenig creates a sense of innocence and sympathy for Adnan by describing him as having "giant brown eyes". also, she compares him to a "dairy cow", a pretty simple creature, not known for aggression or violence. maybe she is trying to connect with the readers again some more, or even possibly showing that she is really holding on to her hope that Adan is actually innocent despite all the accusations against him throughout the past years

here Sarah Koenig states this to show her audience that she too is just simply curious about the case and is making herself more relatable to the audience

some kind of foreshadowing. refers to William Shakespeare's many stories of young, often forbidden, love ending in almost inevitable tragic events

here Koenig is showing how in depth she has to go and how deep she has to dig in order to find the details she really needs

Sarah Koenig shows that she has a need to get very "technical" about everything she encounters, and will be very precise throughout the rest of the podcast

Gabby Moreno: gabby_moreno

gabby_moreno: Gabby Moreno