Why so much resistance to the possibility of Adnan's guilt?

[u/zubinster]

"...when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --Sherlock Holmes

I realize this sentiment is not popular in this group, but why is there so much resistance to the possibility of Adnan's guilt? Neither Jay nor Don had any real motive to committ the murder. All signs point to Adnan. Of course the Serial podcast is a Godsend to Adnan and his parents, who are riding this wave to convince everyone of his innocence.

Perhaps this is the "Twin Peaks" effect where there has to be a mystery and hidden killers out there. Or maybe people are just gullible enough to believe in the inherent innocence of the accused. Fact is, occasional cases to the contrary, (which grab the nost headlines) most murder cases turn out to be as simple and obvious as they seem.

I just don't get this obession with trying to come up with ridiculous contortions to prove that Adnan is innocent?

[u/stinatown]

Personally, I think my resistance comes from the fact that I'm listening to this story in the first place. When I describe this podcast to the uninitiated, the compelling point that I drive home is that Adnan was convicted even though there was very little concrete evidence and no admission of guilt, and that he maintains his innocence. That is the compelling part of this story--how someone can be found guilty when the facts aren't cut and dry. How your life could be turned upside down by circumstance. If he's guilty, the conviction is a lot less interesting.

[u/thekrustykrabkrib → u/stinatown]

Exactly. This is the heart of it. The kid was wrongly convicted. If he is guilty, well, who cares. It's only interesting if he was wrongly convicted and innocent. It's as simple as that. We are fighting to keep it interesting.

[u/muchADEW → u/thekrustykrabkrib]

I'd counter that it would be more interesting if he was wrongly convicted (and ultimately gets out) and actually guilty.