Bitcoin Forum

Updated. The original bounty on this thread is finished.
Now I'll pay 20 hbn to each person who is first to bring to my attention any error of fact I made in my posts.
I know I've made several, incuding the number of roommates and the fact that Met's shower area may not have been a common area used by all roommates. The first post that points out an error is paid.

In addition there is still a 200hbn bounty for anyone who finds real evidence in any of the news articles that shows Met is. guilty. There is a fairly high standard for this proof, it cannot just be "it seems possible he might have done it". The main proof I am aware of is posted on the bounty thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=645898.0   The bounty is for adding something meaningful to the discussion, not for whining about the standard of proof the bounty requires.

  ***

A fellow recently was sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole for an extremely violent murder of a young child. The bounty is for anyone who can explain the evidence against this person in a way that will help me understand that he is guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt.

I will pay the bounty to the best answer and will pay it to someone even if no one can find a reasonable answer. A hundred hobonickels isn't much, about ten us dollars, not sure how much it is in european pesos or any others.

The person is Esar Met and here is a start on looking for the evidence that convinced the judge and jury he was guilty.

He is a Burmese refuggee who speaks no English. He was living with three other refugees in Utah. He was friendly with a neighbor's child, who was later violently murdered. The forensic people said the violence of the attack was extreme.

He used to give piggyback rides to the victim and other children, called 'elephant rides'by Burmese. The victim had a cut on her finger at some point, the parent's of the victim said, and it seems likely some of the blood from this cut got on the back of Mr Met's jacket.

Additionally there were microscopic traces of dna from Mr Met under the fingernails of the child. This seems more consistent with horseplay than violence. Most people will have microscopic traces of dna under their nails of people they have been in close physical contact with.



Other evidence seems even weaker, but as I said, anyone who simply trirs to help me understand the evidence that convinced the judge and jury is eligible for the bounty.

edit to add
This bounty has finished.

add https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=841949.msg9395452#msg9395452

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

the best narrative wins, from my "Decision-Making and the Brain" class

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/juryseminar/storymodel.html
^not from the class I took, but from a google search for "the story model"

framing and perception management go a long way

DNA under her finger nails establishes physical contact and blood on his jacket establishes the fact that she was bleeding in his presence. The possible injuries the accused has on his body indicate he has been in a violent altercation. In the eyes of a jury these facts are rather damning. It is unlikely in their minds that all of these circumstances just coincidentally occurred at the same time as the murder.

I don't know the details of the case but people have been convicted with far less evidence.     

who was Mr. Met's lawyer?

Probably not a good one. Was all this evidence you provided not brought up in court?

Edit. Reading up on the case she was found in his apartment with blood all the place. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542689/Esar-Met-guilty-killing-Hser-Ner-Moo-7.html

I suppose it all depends on how much blood was found under his nails and how long after the murder, but can people confirm that he used to play around with her?

What was Mr. Met's alibi/testimony to events? I understand that English is not his strong suit.

Oh well, that changes everything - not guilty. Do you have an agenda here? Are you implying that they found him guilty because he was a Muslim and not a Christian? 

They may or may not have been hostile towards him, but what are you suggesting by this?

Who are you suggesting did it then? Possibly one of the three Christian guys or somebody else? Did his aunt and Uncle give him an alibi or was there still a timeframe when he could have committed the murder as well?

So in addition to the blood and nail scrape, the body was found in his apartment and he has no alibi? If he's not guilty, I hope he has a good lawyer.

Being nice to children doesn't mean anything really. It's called grooming when paedophiles do it. So are you saying you believe it was more likely one of the other three just because they didn't like him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming

Yes, I've read some but I can't say whether he or anyone else did it because I haven't got access to all the available evidence. And what evidence do you require? Aside from video evidence of the actual killing you probably couldn't ever say 100% what happened.  You could have three peope say they saw you murder somebody and the police find your clothes covered in blood with fingerprints all over the weapon, but that can all be easily fabricated. You have to go with the available evidence. Do I think there's enough here to convict him? I don't know. Can you tell me what evidence points to his innocence though?

You ignorantly assume quite a lot. I'm not American and I never said being nice to children makes you a paedo. You used this as if it's a case for his innocence. And grooming is used to gain trust whether to abuse or abuse and kill. You haven't pointed out any likely evidence of his innocence at all, just that you think he is unlikely to have done it based on no solid evidencel. You seem to be doing the exact opposite of what you're complaining about. It's a good job you're not the psychologist in trials. And were the time cards the only evidence? It's a little bit different if their boss and fellow employees all confirm their alibi and there's CCTV evidence or whatever to corroborate that. Where did they all work exactly?

if I was on the jury I couldn't send a man to prison for life without certain evidence. too circumstantial and not substantial enough. but that's just me

No jury should ever convict on circumstantial evidence and should be beyond all reasonable doubt of guilt.

i thought you were talking about these hobo nickels :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobo_nickel

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Ball_Cap_Hobo_Nickel2011crop.jpg/640px-Ball_Cap_Hobo_Nickel2011crop.jpg

F4S2M8MFaQF9KwnxqeiuankJJH3VKv3obp

I hope your friend finds justice. Unfortunately most of the time in the US you innocent until proven indigent.

I think you mean to explain his conviction. To be concise I will say: Overwhelming circumstancial evidence and lack of a corroborated alibi.

Now to be more wordy:

I have read hundreds of criminal trial transcripts and use to help inmates to file appeals. I haven't read the trial transcript in this case, so my opinion is very provisional and I reserve the right to change it after reading the transcript and police reports (especially concerning the alibis of the roommates).

The girl was obviously assaulted by a sexually frustrated male that was unable to complete the act, then murdered her to cover his identity.

I can see that the prosecution worked very hard to make sure that the jury would be heavily swayed by emotion. Not a good sign by itself.

I would question the DNA evidence under his fingernails. Some labs have been known to fabricate evidence if they feel the person was guilty. Finding DNA there, just seems very convenient. But then he is a foreigner and was probably ignorant about cleaning his hands of DNA.

I hope the alibis of the roommates was heavily corroborated. The police report would be important for that.

That being said, I strongly suspect that he is guilty. Girl's body found at his place, roommates with an alibi. The only alternative would be if he was gone and somebody else decided to bring her to his place. I find this idea of a stranger using his room to commit the crime to be preposterous. Regardless, in that unusual case he would have an alibi.

Which is why the transcript is so important. I want to hear his alibi. Does it make sense? Is it corroborated?

I tend to be very skeptical of evidence (about 20% of the trial transcripts I read, I would have voted "not guilty"), but I have a gut feeling that I would have found him guilty if I was on this jury.

Hello,

First of all, I would like to say that I do not anticipate winning your contest, but I would like to weigh in.

If you think my post is worth anything then feel free to contribute any amount to my BTC address (144Cu4na3iLHstJgdMPYWCBnrSs55iPqBe)

The first important note is that the standard in the United States criminal system is "beyond a reasonable doubt" Your standard of "beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt" is now what a judge/jury (most likely a jury) will look for in this case.

The next important thing to note is that the only facts that a jury is able to consider are fact that are presented by witnesses at trial. If a witness is determined by a jury to be unreliable then the jury is able to take that into consideration as well.



It would be likely that it is determined by a reputable witness that there was in fact the victims blood on Mr Met's jacket. This fact would likely not be questioned.

The question that the jury would have to make with this fact is how the blood got there. This paragraph says that the victims parents seem to think that the victim's blood got on Mr Met's jacket from his piggy back rides. A jury may or may not find this testimony reliable. Even if the jury finds this evidence reliable, it seems like the parents do not know for sure, and the jury would likely find this testimony as speculation, even if the parents are deemed to be reliable witnesses.


The fact that there was DNA of Mr Mets under the victim's fingernails seems to be indisputable evidence. The question that the jury would need to make in this situation is if this evidence is constant with violence (that would lead to murder) or if this is constant with "horseplay" The article does not mention any level of credibility of various witnesses or what they had to say. At trial it would be likely that witnesses would say both that this amount of DNA is constant with horseplay/close physical contact and that it is constant with violence. It would be up to the jury to determine who is more credible, and if the witness who says it is constant with violence is more credible, then the jury needs to determine if this credible outweighs the other witness to reach "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Your last paragraph says that the additional evidence against the defendant is even more flimsily. This may be true, but it is still important to take into consideration how credible the evidence is.

It seems the major missing piece of information is how credible evidence presented is as well as how credible the witnesses are.

I hope this at least helps in some way.

Again feel free to send BTC to : 144Cu4na3iLHstJgdMPYWCBnrSs55iPqBe

The concept of guilty beyond a shadow of doubt is not really applied in our court system. Prosecutors only need to prove it was possible then make the jury dislike the defendant enough to believe he or she is guilty. 

HBN: F4RMPWNfT4UHKuY58NDrnm6W6SnddLWRCb

If you feel appropriate please send your coins to the above address for HoboNickels, otherwise send BTC to: 144Cu4na3iLHstJgdMPYWCBnrSs55iPqBe


In the US legal system the only people who are truly qualified to make that conclusion are members of the jury that are hearing that specific case (or the judge in the case of a non-jury trial). I would say that it certainly shows that is a possibility that he killed her.

As far as how he killed her, that is really not relevant. As sad as this sounds, the prosecution does not need to show a motive, nor how a crime was executed to convict a defendant, only that the crime was in fact committed and that it was committed by the defendant as defined by the law.

This was likely explained by a forensics witness that was regarded by the jury as qualified (probably highly qualified) who was able to give an explanation as to how the result of him killing the victim would result in blood on the back of his jacket. One probably explanation would be that the defendant could have wiped and/or cleaned his jacket while still wearing the jacket.


Any skin cells that you have under your fingernails are likely microscopic. Your list of facts do not list a quantity other then the fact that one witness said the amount is constant with a specific activity.

The skin cells certainly prove that the two were in close contact and at some point there was physical activity between the two. The giving horseback rides would give somewhat of an explanation of this but if he somehow pinned down the victims hands then there would be a lower amount of skin cells then otherwise (assuming he was the killer).

Having skin cells under one's fingernails is generally considered consistent with defending yourself against the person whose skin cells are under your fingernails. As mentioned early there are other explinations to this as well.


There should have been a translator present at trial so the defendant could have understood what was being said as well as the opportunity to question witnesses that testified against him. If a translator was not present then it may be possible that he did not have the opportunity to discredit witnesses that testified against him. This would be speculation and personality I would find this unlikely.


You are correct to say that I do have faith in juries of peers. What my biggest concern is that laws are often written ambiguously (not so vague that it is found to be unconstitutionally vague) so it is hard to know what is legal and what is illegal.

While it is very unlikely that you will ever be questioned, let alone be put on trial for a murder, there is a much greater chance that you will be put on trial for something that, to the majority, even if you did commit a specific act, would not be considered wrong, but also several legal conclusions must be made to determine if you broke the law (remember that only judges and juries are qualified to make legal conclusions - and only for a specific case they are hearing).

Again the validity of the verdict rests on the credibility of the witnesses.

The victim's family thinks that Esar Met is the perpetrator. The cops thinks that Esar Met is the perpetrator. The jury thinks that Esar Met is the perpetrator. Why we should distrust all of them?

Got the hobo nickels. Thanks! I have not owned them before. This is my first POS coin.

I got the hbn, they are really cool and I will have to look into them further.


The problem with our society/legal system (in the US) is not just with people in prison, but also with people who have pled guilty/been found guilty of crimes, but especially with people who have pled guilty.

It is not uncommon for the government to charge people with a number of very serious crimes that carry stiff punishments and long term consequences and then later offer a plea deal in which the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser number of much less severe (in terms of consequences) crimes. This gives defendants a strong incentive to potentially admit to crimes they did not commit in order to take away risk of going to jail/prison. These people often would get a "slap on the wrist" when compared to the potential consequences of the crimes they are being charged with but are very severe when compared with having a clean criminal record.

I would be more then happy to further discuss this with you all day (I have to work and sleep, but besides that...). One of the more enjoyable things in life (to me) is to debate an issue with someone who does not have the same viewpoint as you. If you wish to agree to disagree then I can respect that also.

Hmm.
So you 'forgot' to mention that the child was found dead in his apartment, and that he confessed?
Seems that those are both quite relevant factors.

The evidence that convinced the jury is:
- There is evidence that he knew the victim
- The victim's blood was found on his clothing
- His DNA was found under the victim's fingernails
- The victim was found dead in his apartment
- He confessed

I'm not at all surprised that he was convicted, under those circumstances.
The last two are really quite important, and to present the case without including them is to be purposefully misleading, IMO.
You think they count as "Other evidence seems even weaker"?

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that 100% explicitly confirms he did it, and I don't know the full details and the significance of the evidence to say whether I think he is or isn't guilty, but I think you're guilty of doing the exact opposite of what the prosecution probably did by trying to paint him out as if he couldn't have possibly done it because he was a simple and kind religious immigrant man etc. There are always two sides to a story and both defense and prosecution will use whatever dirty tricks they can with whatever bullshit they can come up with to sway the jury.



My cryptsy key is 053b7f761d8a9aa939ea580c3af002cfb98e3735 if you're still giving the coins out. Thanks.

Ne real evidence ... apart from the dead girl in his basement?


You seem to be ignoring the evidence.
The girl was found in his basement.
His roommates have alibis proving they didn't do it.
He confessed.

Is it 'reasonable' doubt to argue that some one broke into his apartment (seemingly leaving no evidence of forced entry) and killed the girl there?
I wouldn't buy that, if I were on the jury.

If the defendant had confessed to the crime then it is likely that he in fact did it. With that being said there are still a lot of questions to ask about the confession, like how long was he being questioned by police prior to confessing, did he deny committing the crime prior to confessing, could the defendant have thought that the police would "leave him alone" if he simply admitted to it (as crazy as this sounds confessions that are simply intended to end an interrogation are not uncommon).

If the victim was found in his apartment (and all of his roommates have solid alibis) then it was likely him that had committed the crime. Generally speaking the location that a body was found is reliable as it can be corroborated with several witnesses. Although there are "reasonable" explanations as to how the body ended up in his apartment other then he killed the victim (someone broke in, someone moved the body) it looks very bad for the defendant.

They had alibis, he didn't.
He knew the victim.
The victim's blood was found on his clothing.
His DNA was found under the victim's fingernails.
Oh, and he confessed.

Seriously, you may well believe he didn't do, but it simply isn't rational to say that there was no case against him, and deluded to say that his isn't the most likely suspect of the four.
And not only did he not testify in his own defence, the defence didn't call a single witness. Right or wrong, a conviction doesn't seem surprising.

You don't seem able to look at it objectively.
Objectively, there is enough evidence for it to be reasonable for a jury to convict.
Everyone has agreed with that, except for you.
When the evidence is listed for you, you respond with small issues which don't undermine it.
You really really want someone to tell you that a massive injustice was done, but no one is.

Why, so you can ignore it again?
It doesn't seem like repeating the same information again and again is really going to get us anywhere.

HBN: ExDpAS2NuMw9MNWPAyEqtZ4Y6gnXBhX6cx (in case you feel that my response is worth your bounty.

I had just downloaded the hobonickels client and downloaded the blockchain (it took a long time) and it looks like this is a pretty cool coin.

It sounds like this person was convicted on a lot of circumstantial evidence. The prosecutor likely wanted to get a conviction from someone.

Although he does have an explanation as to some of the evidence against him, this explanation is flimsy.

The fact that he does not speak English likely played a role in his conviction as he may have given up certain rights and/or provided evidence against himself when not understanding fully what he was doing and that he was not obligated to do so.

The massive case load that public defenders have likely did not help his situation. Even though his client was facing life in prison the public defender probably did not have or invest sufficient time to look for evidence that would help his client's case. He probably also did not invest sufficient time to research witnesses against his client to attempt to find holes in their stories/explanation of evidence.

I am personally surprised that he did not receive (or accept) some kind of plea deal that would result in him serving a lesser sentence based on the amount of evidence against him.

Should he accept a plea even if he is innocent of the crime? Yes he absolutely should. By accepting a plea deal he will make his worse case scenario much more in his favor.

In the early stages of his sentence he can (or more likely someone on his behalf) can try to find evidence of his innocence and/or evidence of someone else's guilt. Once enough of this is found then he can appeal his sentence/guilty plea and request to have his case reopened and get a new trial with this evidence (or if someone else is convicted then the prosecutor can just not recharge him).

If there is enough evidence to possibly convict you then it is advisable to try to get some kind of plea deal. 

HBN: ExDpAS2NuMw9MNWPAyEqtZ4Y6gnXBhX6cx Lets see if I can convince you, or at least add something that shows Mr. Met is guilty

Per http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_020200.htm The statute for aggravated murder is (the relevant line in the statue)

The above statute says that a person is guilty of aggravated murder if that someone has killed someone (criminal homicide) under certain circumstances




The above articles say that  a jury found him guilty of aggravated murder. In order to be guilty of aggravated murder you must have killed someone. In order for a jury to find someone guilty of a crime, they must hear evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of such crime.

When a jury finds a defendant guilty of a crime then it is determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in fact committed the crime (in this case kill the girl) until the defendant is either pardoned or a higher court reverses the verdict (both are very rare).

I understand this is probably not what you are looking for, however in the eyes of the law the guilty verdict does prove that Mr Met killed the girl.


I have more from this article but would like to discuss these quotes first.

As previously discussed in this thread Mr Met's DNA was found under the girl's fingernails. The defance offers the explanation that this is from Mr Met giving the girl elephant rides. The witness says that it could have been. This alone is not a new detail.

It should be noted that any evidence that could help a defendant's case will be given to the defendant's attorney prior to trial. With that point being said, it is important that his attorney did not ask if there was any other DNA under the girls fingernails. If other DNA had been found then his attorney would have known about it.

If there was other DNA then his attorney would have asked as it would help show that he is innocent. If there was not other DNA then he would not want to ask this question as it would help the prosecution in this case.   I would infer based on this that there was not other DNA found under the girl's fingernails (I was not able to find an article that says this specifically, nor court transcripts for this case).


I do not believe this has been discussed so far.

Mr. Met had scratches and marks on his body that were consistent with being from a child. She said they were smaller from what would come from an adult. The nurse admits that some of the scratches could be from the police. This means that at least one of the scratches would have likely come from a child. This means that Mr. Met likely had scratch(es) and mark(s) from a child.

Mr Met's attorneys say that some of them came from himself but do not offer any evidence to back this up and this cannot be considered fact.

I can't find it anymore but I did see a timeline that said she was last seen between 130 PM and 2 PM and that the latest Mr Met could have caught the bus was 2:39 PM.

It should also be noted that most crimes do not have a "smoking gun" that when looked at alone would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain person committed a crime. A jury must take all pieces of evidence to reach a conclusion.


Based on the fact that the timeline matches him being able to commit the crime (no facts/evidence to prove that he would not be able to commit the crime because of time limitations), his DNA under her fingernails (a weak argument to say that this DNA was not the result of the crime in question), scratches and marks (at least one) from a child was on him the day after the crime (when he was arrested), no evidence presented that shows someone else's DNA under her fingernails, and the location the body was found (in Mr Met's bathroom) would leave me and a reasonable person to believe that he did in fact kill the girl.

The two facts that show his guilt are the DNA and the scratches when put together. His scratches show that a child scratched him (duh) and his DNA under her fingernails put them together at the time of the crime.

You could argue that someone had broken into Mr. Met's apartment and put the body there, however there was not evidence that supported this, and would be speculation and cannot be treated as fact.

Yes he had very few relatives/family in the country, however even without someone trying to prove his innocence, if he can see that he is going to be convicted (or there is a good chance of such) it is best to take a plea deal to get a lesser sentence.



I figured that would not work for you. However the logic is true. If he somehow got his sentence reduced and was released on parole and subsequently was re-arrested and charged with another serious crime when using sentencing guidelines that take into account prior crimes, the conviction (and lack of a pardon and overturn by higher court) he would be sentenced in the other crime as if he killed the girl



Let me ask you this: If you were to scratch yourself in a violent way (similar to how someone would scratch you in self defense) could you see any of your skin without a microscope? If not, then do you think a little 7 year old could get skin that could be seen without a microscope?

Do you have anything to show the difference between the levels of DNA from self defense and from just "horsing around"?


The above article says that skins cells are used as DNA evidence.

In regards to was it asked if other DNA was found under the girl's fingernails. The witness would have had to have tested for all DNA. If the results would show that there was other DNA that might exonerate the Mr. Mets then it must have been given to the defense attorney. The results that show Mr Mets's DNA under her fingernails must have been given to the defense attorney. At trial the prosecution is not going to ask questions that could possibly damage their case, that is simply not how court cases work. If there is evidence that could help the defense then it must be given to the defense attorney. If the defense attorney knew the results and knew that there was no other DNA found, then why would he ask that question? The fact that it was not asked by the defense would show that there was not additional DNA.


This nurse in this situation is a neutral and does not have a stake in the outcome. The same should be true for other expert witnesses. If a witness says something that is a lie then they could be convicted of perjury. This establishes that she does not have an incentive to testify against Mr Mets, and does have an incentive to tell the truth.

The article does not say specifically what her qualifications are above the fact that she is a registered nurse 
however you would not be able to testify if you are not qualified to testify about what you are testifying about.

The fact is that she did not see Mr Mets get scratched so she does not know for sure what happened to him. She says that they are too small to be from an adult. They could be from a child. There are not many other possibilities as to where the scratches came from if they were not from an adult. There would not be any possibilities that they could reasonably come from.


Time of death is something that is more of an art then a science. There are a number of things that can affect what "time of death" is calculated to be. My understanding of how to determine this is by taking the temperature of the body when it is found, then using the room temperature to make a calculation. I believe that changes in temperature can affect this as well. This is my understanding from watching CSI so it may not be 100% accurate but I think the general principle is correct. I also believe that "time of death" is usually presented as a range of time, sometimes several hours. Giving the estimated time of death would likely not affect the case either way. I would not be surprised if the "time of death" would be estimated to include a period prior to when she was last seen by her parents.

6 - I was just attempting to counter what I anticipated to be your counter points.

My main point for this was that if evidence is not presented that there was forced entry, then you would need to assume that there was not. Having a dead body (of a person who was murdered) found in a place that you are in control and are in possession of is serious evidence against you. That fact alone would not be able to secure a conviction but a smaller amount of additional evidence would need to be presented in order to prove that you are the killer.

I would say that your counter points about that his DNA could just be horseplay would be stronger if her body was not found in a place that he controls and is in possession of.

I think it would be fair to say that it was either Mr Mets or one of his roommates that killed the girl (lack of evidence of forced entry). The scratches, the DNA, the timeline, the confession can all be somewhat explained. Lets say for example that if each (taken separately) of the above evidence was all the evidence against him there would be a 40% chance that he is Innocent (very far below beyond a reasonable doubt). I think that is giving him a lot of credit but hear me out.

Based on that logic if the scratches is the only evidence against him then there is a 40% chance that he did not kill her.

If the scratches and the DNA is the only evidence against him then there is a 16% chance that he is innocent (.4 * .4 =.16).

If the scratches, the DNA and the timeline is the only evidence against him then there is a 6.4% chance that he did not kill her

If you take all of the evidence into consideration then there is only a 2.56% chance that he did not actually commit the crime in question.

Again I think that 40% is giving him too much credit. I think a more reasonable amount of doubt would be 15-25% for each piece of evidence. Using 25% then the chances of his innocence are: 25%, 6.25%, 1.5625%, and ~0.4% respectively.

You are massively out on that.

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/timedeath.pdf

I'd be very surprised if the estimate could be better than a two hour window.

Can you give a source to science/technology and/or a specific example of when the time of death could be measured accurately within 15 minutes when the death was not observed by someone?

So you should be able to point us to what that test is then?


It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what actually is. Point us to a source which backs that up.

You say, with no scientific experience or knowledge to back it up?


Because time of death calculations are extremely inaccurate, as we have been telling you.


Only to you, not to anyone else.
You seem so desperate for this result to be wrong that you are just making science up as you go along.

No. I'm not a medical examiner, and am not qualified to say that. I'm pretty sure you aren't either.

As much as I have enjoyed debating the subject with you, ICE, it seems like you have somewhat of a closed mind.

Are you related to any of the parties in this case? Do you have another conflict of interest?

It is important to remember that anything that a lawyer says should not be treated as evidence nor as testimony, the lawyers are simply trying to help the jury reach a particular conclusion based on the facts provided by the witnesses.

I have noticed that you say "I think..." or otherwise give an explanation to evidence against Mr Met. However this appears to be speculation and not backed up by facts. Even when one person quoted an article regarding determining time of death that said any doctor that tried to pinpoint time of death in a range of time less then in one-hour increments would be subject to ridicule, you still said that there would be a way to pinpoint the time of death. Regardless of possible methods of determining this, the time of death was not proven at trial.

It should be noted that a medical professional can only look at the science/medicine of the situation, not what other people have said. The fact that the girl was alive at a certain time is only know due to witness testimony, if the jury believes both witnesses then they can conclude a shorter possible period that the girl could have died.

One thing that I would like to point out is that on the comments on one of the articles, one poster called Mr. Met's attorney a scumbag for defending him, and another posting pointed out that he was just doing his job to see that he received due process. This is not evidence but is something that I wanted to point out.

Without knowing exactly what the girl ate, and the exact quantities these measurements would be useless.

Another issue is that witnesses cannot rely on testimony from other witnesses. A doctor cannot say "since according to the girls mom the girl had a banana sandwich at 11:30 therefore based on what was in her stomach she had to have died at 3:15" The doctor can only testify to what her can independently scientifically verify.

I did not see anything about the level of anything in her body food related in any of the articles in the girl's body. I believe that the medial examiner testified that his professional opinion was that the girl died within a certain time frame. This time frame is within when Mr Met could have killed her.

You implied that when the girl disappeared she had food in her body that was being digested for two hours. How do you know this? Do you base this on the fact that lunch time is usually noon and she disappeared around 2 PM? Many people eat their meals at varying times throughout the day. It would be very plausible that she ate breakfast at 7 AM and her parents realized she was missing because they were going to eat lunch at 2:15 PM. Or maybe she did not eat breakfast and was about to eat lunch when she disappeared. Regardless this issue was not in dispute at trial so it is not an issue.

Unless he is specifically asked then about food in her system then the medical examiner would not disclose if there was food in her system or not.

Additionally food being in her system would not help provide a time of death, because, again a medical professional cannot use testimony by others to help form his own opinion.

I am not sure why a medical examiner would even check for food in her system. Based on his other testimony the medical examiner was able to determine the cause of death with a good amount of certainty and it was clear that she didn't die because of something she ate.

I would ask this question again, do you have some kind of bias in this case?

Again the medical examiner cannot rely on other testimony, nor information from others when making his conclusion. If he is able to find both the time and cause of death then he would have no reason to go looking in the stomach for evidence of food.

The medical examiner would have no way of knowing that she would go inside to get a drink.

On that subject even if she did occasionally go inside to get a drink of some sort does not mean that she did that day.


Why do you say that?


Again the prosecutor is not providing testimony he is merely trying to get the jury to make a conclusion based on the facts that were presented by witnesses.

Why would he leave sooner? I believe that he had been there for 30 days when he was arrested. I would think that he would be able to navigate his way to the bus station after being someplace for that long. If he was going someplace new then maybe, but the bus station is unlikely.


Again this is outside the scope of what the medical examiner's job is to do. All that they should be doing is to determine the cause of death and the approximate time of death as defined by clock time. They do not try to determine how much time had passed since they had last ate, especially if poison is not believed to be involved.

Not only that but the medical examiner would likely conduct his investigation shortly after the body was found and many facts would not be available to him at the time of his investigation. His investigation was possibly complete prior to Mr Met's alibi was put into question. He would certainly not know anything about how often she would get juice when she plays outside.


Your timeline of her dying several hours after she disappeared would not fit in with the other facts. The time between when she disappeared and when Mr Met would have likely left for the bus station is too great for this to make sense. If Mr Met was in his apartment prior to leaving for the bus station then she would have had to be held somewhere else prior to Mr Met leaving. This would mean that whoever the killer was would have had to moved a missing, girl that was likely screaming from one location to Mr Mets apartment. There was blood of hers found in the bathroom so it is likely that she died in the bathroom.


The father did knock on the door at 7PM the day she disappeared, the roommates said that they had not seen her. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57411054-78/met-hser-moo-ner.html.csp

The same article says that the police knocked on their apartment at 4 AM. If someone knocked at my door that early in the morning I would probably not hear it, and if I did I would probably not answer.


You are drawing a conclusion from facts that are not there. It is not fair to say that there was blood elsewhere in the apartment where the roommates lived, but rather that parts of the apartment were not checked. It should also be noted that the jury did not read what was said in the articles, they only relied on testimony given by witnesses, information presented poorly in articles does not change the facts nor does it allow facts to be put into question. It would also be possible that what the DNA expert saw was simply beatlnut spit.


It sounds like to me that you are giving too much weight to evidence that may show he is not guilty, and is reaching conclusions based on facts that were not presented but are instead speculation.

The precedent in court cases is to accept the level of detail used when determining the time of death, but instead you wish to want a more precise time of death.

You assume that professionals (most/all of them) make mistake of fact when they testify as an expert witness.

You accept what the lawyers say as testimony of fact. You accept what the defense lawyer says without question wile questioning the detail of what the prosecution says.


I would not wish for someone to be convicted for a crime they did not commit. With that being said I think he did commit the crime.

It really goes back to the fact that it was not testified that other DNA was found under her fingernails. Again if the defense lawyer knows that the answer would be damaging to his case then he would not ask the question.

Even his own attorney said that Mr Mets distrust of the legal system caused him to not admit to the crime.

This is simply how witness testimony works. A witness cannot say that x police officer told me so and so. This would violate Mr Met's constitutional rights to confront his accuser. Mr Met would not be able to try to find holes in the police officer's story if it is being told by someone else.

The medical examiner would have no reason to know that juice in the girls system could be of any importance.

Again all the medical examiner's job is to determine how the victim died and the time of death, as measured in at a minimum a range of hours prior to when the body was found. Any detail above that is outside the scope of the medical examiner's job.

The medical examiner is a neutral witness. He did not say who he though killed the girl. He only said how she died and when she died. It just so happens that the facts that he presented show that Mr. Met is guilty.


Again not reliant. See above regarding the medical examiner's job


Again not reliant, see #1. It was actually not testified if the girl had food in her system or not. Just because it was not discussed at trial does not mean that she did not have food in her system. As per above it is not the medical exanimer's job to make that determination.

As you have previously said, Mr Met was likely poor, and refugees like the girl were likely poor, and it would be very well fees-able that  that her family was not able to afford breakfast and that she would eat lunch at a time after she disappeared but regardless does not matter as it was not discussed at trial. If this was something of controversy then the defense attorney should have brought it up. If the defense attorney should have brought it up but didn't then Mr. Met should have appealed on the basis that he had incompetent council (attorney) but he did not.

He would likely understand the bus schedule and when the bus arrives after a few bus trips. It would be very reasonable for him to know when the bus will arrive.

Although your argument is not acceptable, if you were to accept your argument that Mr. Met arrived at the bus station early by 15 minutes he would still have had plenty of time based on the latest time that the girl disappeared. She disappeared at 2 PM at the latest, and Mr Met could have left at 2:39 at the latest minus 15 minutes is 2:34.


This is correct as his alibi simply says that it is possible that he committed the crime. The medical examiner would have no way of knowing that the time in dispute would come down to 15 or 30 minutes. Regardless, science would not allow him to make a determination of time of death within 30 minutes. Your point only points to him being guilty.


Your statement is not correct. The medical examiner gave a range of time as to when the girl died. The range of time included the time that Mr Met was at the apartment. As in every criminal trial the defense has the opportunity to hire it's own expert witness to dispute what the medical examiner testified to and did not do so (the defense did not have an expert testify as to when the girl died, so they either did not hire an expert or they did hire an expert and their expert came to the same conclusion).


You are saying there was a blood stain. Was there any evidence to say so? The only testimonial presented said that it looked like what could have been blood but was near a beatlenut juice spit cup and was likely beatlenut juice.

I have not seen any articles that say anything about the defense disputing this fact. Unless the defense attempted to get the DNA evidence excluded because of the beatlejuice there is absolutely no dispute in fact as to what it was. Even if they tried unsuccessfully to get the evidence thrown out the legal conclusion was that there was not issue with not testing this.

If you wish to put this in question then please see my previous post regarding how each piece of evidence may show a 40% chance that he was not guilty, but all the evidence him combined showed a 97%+ chance of being guilty


You say the door may have been unlocked. There was no testimony that said it was unlocked the day in question. Even if it was unlocked there was only a 1/5 chance that the killer would have picked an area that he controlled (4 roommates plus him is 5 people living in the apartment). My previous example gave a 40% chance of evidence showing he was not guilty this example shows a 20% chance which works against him. Not only that but he "Happened" to be spending the night away from his apartment the same day that a girl was found dead in an area of his apartment, this is really an additional piece of evidence that was not previously listed.

At 4 AM it is likely that people were not congregating outside. If they had answered they would likely spoken to the police and gone back to sleep. I did not ready any articles that said that every other neighbor had answered the door. A non-response to a door knock should not be unusual to the police, this could mean a number of things, that the tenants were not home (out of town), that the apartment was vacant, at work,  or simply sleeping. On a similar note I would doubt that every single apartment was occupied at that time. Obviously the vacant apartments would not have received a response. Additionally it is not illegal to not answer your door when someone knocks.


I stand corrected on point 7, however it was ultimately determined that this was not sufficient to exclude at trial and not sufficient for a mistrial. If the judge had made an error of law in these ruling then it would have been overturned on appeal.

There was still no evidence to show whose blood it was upstairs. The articles do not say that it was the girls nor do they say it was not her's. As a result as per the rules of evidence you cannot assume that it was her blood and you cannot imply that it was anyone's.

(And many other examples)

Have you seen the medical report?
Have you read the trial transcript?
Do you know what the witnesses actually said, not the snippets that have been reported?
How can you possibly say that the ME or lawyer are negligent when you have no idea what actually went on in the court room?

Normally that they are all just repeating the same story they got from a wire service, or from a shared local stringer.


But still, it is good to see you have an open mind about the case.

In which case the prosecution are required to hand that information over to the defence, who can use it at trial.
Was it used at trial by the defence? Was it used by the prosecution, for that matter?
You don't know, because you haven't read the transcript, and don't know what actually happened.

No, it isn't.
Trials are days after days of evidence.
A news article is a couple of paragraphs. They can't possibly include all of the evidence that was given.