Bitcoin Forum

This thread serves as revised successor of two (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1814169.0) threads (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1811501.0) orginally started by user Agruw. Those threads were started "hoping somebody who knows something useful about how to resolve this situation will read it" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1814169.msg18098091#msg18098091). Upon Agruw's request I collected information from the old threads here. The old threads will be closed and this thread will pick up where the previous two left off.

You're help is requested.

Read the material collected in this thread and try to answer on any of the issues below to win up to 0.01 btc per week. An good example is the post from darkangel11 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1811501.msg18113750#msg18113750) in one of the old threads. I currently hold the funds to pay for contributions made by users of the forum. Currently that's BTC 0.055. BTC 0.01 will be paid for the best response, one every week for three weeks. After that the bounty will drop to BTC0.005 unless more funds are available. Donations can be send to: 14ugaSH1AcFXPr4mr8yyvrsCQiVAD3s2Ns

_______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

Esar Met is Burmese and was interrogated in his native language. Read the translation of the interrogation before awnsering on the issues:

Tape 1, 42.16kb, 466 lines (http://pastebin.com/59LjA7xq) What’s your name?

Tape 2, 9.27kb, 121 lines (http://pastebin.com/Cy6461kY) T.Where did this child watch

Tape 3, 19.86kb, 158 lines (http://pastebin.com/gR984YPG) T-Didn’t you ever visit to

Tape 4, 9.73kb, 182 lines (http://pastebin.com/140yTbg1) T-How did it happen? Explain them

Tape 5, 4.74kb, 72 lines (http://pastebin.com/FzY8PEZb) T- Was that up stair, the ground


All 5 tapes (http://pastebin.com/u0L49ikk)


Tape 1 Burmese (http://pastebin.com/J02FibLX) No translation

Tape 2 Burmese and English (http://pastebin.com/ybHGFq7j) In original tongues, no translation



Here is a longer term timeline (http://pastebin.com/KetF7bw0) to put the case in local context.


Some additional articles regarding the case (finds courtesy of creepyjas):

Experts: Murdered Utah girl Hser Ner Moo died a painful death  (http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/55267717-78/met-girl-hser-moo.html.csp)

Utah murder victim's family tearfully testifies about her (http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/57367776-78/met-moo-hser-ner.html.csp)

Esar Met gets life without parole for murder of Hser Ner Moo (http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/57939886-78/met-moo-hser-ner.html.csp)

Burmese girl, 7, died a painful death 'after she was raped and brutally beaten by her Utah neighbor', experts testify after police officer chokes up on the stand
 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537449/Experts-testify-Burmese-girl-7-died-painful-death-raped-brutally-beaten-Utah-neighbor-police-officer-chokes-stand.html)




Issue 1

Esar Met, Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1755558.html)

1) Met was beaten during his arrest, just prior to the interrogation. The police had knocked down the door, he went to them to try and find out what was going on. They beat him to the point that there was blood on his clothing. Note that the blood on his clothing was tested and all of it was found to be his. It was only much later that a bloodstain on the back of his jacket was supposedly found.

Does the fact that he was beaten by the police just before the interview not suggest a coercive atmosphere?

2) During the interrogation he states that although he did not commit the crime, he is willing to give a confession. He also asks if he can speak to his mother before he is killed.

Does that not suggest an element of coercion?

3) During the interview he tries to give information regarding the day of the crime. The FBI agent cuts him off each time, saying things like 'no no no no no' any time Met tries to speak, unless Met says what the FBI agent tells him to say.

Does that not indicate coercion?

4) Met is Rohingya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people) from Burma. Many of his relatives were killed in the past and are still being killed today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guROoUM8_24).

Considering that he was in the country only one month, did not speak the language etc, does that not indicate that the police should have assumed a coercive atmosphere would exist even without the points above?

Note that the judges are now trying to portray the prosecution as having been okay with the confession.

a) Met's interests would have been served by having the confession visible for scrutiny by people knowledgeable about the mechanics of false confessions.
b) The prosecutors realized that if the confession were public and received any scrutiny by experts, there would be even more negative publicity regarding how the case was initially handled. So they went through hoops to keep the confession secret.
c) Once it had been made public, and was visible for scrutiny, they must have been
surprised that for 2 years nobody translated it.
d) An 'appeal lawyer' was hired to represent Met, but his actions suggest he had no interest in the facts of the case, he merely wanted to blow smoke for the prosecution, creating the appearance of a fair defense when the opposite was the fact.


Issue 2

In the confession found on tape 1, which the prosecution went to great lengths to keep secret, Met states that his uncle called him and said he had a problem with his bicycle. Met then went with a friend named Yanut to buy some sealant for bicycle tires. He arranged with his uncle to visit the next day and fix the tire. According to the state (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1755558.html), depending on which piece of evidence you look at, Met either did or didn't leave abruptly to his uncle's house, he either did or didn't tell anybody where he was going.

a) If he did flee abruptly, and just by blind chance managed to select the right bus to take to another busstop that just by chance was the stop that had a connecting bus to the area where his uncle lived, then it would be an indication he fled and just by amazing chance ended up meeting his uncle.
b) The prosecution appears to give the impression the visit must have been unplanned, i.e., that he fled. There is no indication they checked phone logs to see if he had spoken with his uncle the day before. The evidence however suggests he did speak with his uncle by phone, that the police/fbi knew that he had, and that they misplaced that bit of research in order to allow the prosecution to pursue him as fleeing a murder scene.

Also note that the child was initially reported as having last been seen around 2:15 pm (http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=8872390&itype=NGPSID). If that were the case, Met would not have had time to kill the child and catch the bus. So the witnesses were 'interviewed' the same way Met was, until their testimony pushed the time back enough that he might possibly be the killer if he knew the bus routes and took the last possible bus he could have taken to his uncle's house.

Note/compare the statement under ¶15 in Esar Met, Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1755558.html); When asked about Met, one of Met's roommates told the agents that he believed Met was at his cousin's house in Cottonwood Heights and provided a phone number. This, besides indicating that the prosecution lied about whether Met's visit was planned, by extension is another piece of evidence that his uncle received an interrogation similar to his, probably by an fbi fixer. His uncle would have more negative experience with police from Asia and could be relied on not to challenge the police version, unlike Met who has no family and is happy to live or to die.


Issue 3

Met obviously cannot afford a lawyer. The state obviously is not going to provide him with a lawyer who is interested in the truth. I do not have money for a lawyer to help him in that kind of case. It would probably be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend him in court properly.

What are his options? What would a person recommend be done in a case like this?


Issue 4

Have a look a the following snippets of text copied from police interrogation reports:

https://i.imgur.com/uhE0qdX.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/epL3U36.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/lPDvv7Z.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/LvkTxpb.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/lDlWASF.jpg

Should a person wonder why one of the roommates returned home an hour earlier than the others the day the child was murdered?

Should they wonder about the obvious discrepancies in the stories the roommates gave, including their knowledge of whether a child had gone missing?

Should a person wonder why the only DNA evidence from the crime scene, that might reasonably be seen as indicative of the killer, belonged to one of the roommates? And why did the police try to portray that evidence as "irrelevant", possibly the result of that roommate having spit betelnut (https://www.drugs.com/npc/betel-nut.html) juice previously on the spot where the victim had been killed?

New evidence prompts mistrial motion in Esar Met's murder trial - The Salt Lake tribune (http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/57399926-78/met-hser-moo-ner.html.csp):



Issue 5

The issue of when Hser Ner Moo died is central to who might have killed her. The body was found (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593861/Responders-at-scene-of-7-year-old-girls-death-describe-evidence-findings.html?pg=al) 29 hours after Mr Met was known to have left the apartment, but was dripping wet from water, somebody trying to wash the body. In fact the body was so wet that it was commented on by the FBI agent during the 'confession' and by others. If he had tried to wash the body, would it still be dripping wet 29 hours later?

~The furnace was next to the bathroom and the door was open. Although it was chilly, the humidity was very low~


Issue 6

Notice that on tape 1 (http://pastebin.com/HLUh5RhM) of the translations, he finally gives a confession. However, the confession is based on what he has been told and does not match the evidence that was gathered. There is one glaring problem even beyond that though, and a person who has not researched the case might not see it:

The child was found with her hand clutching a handful of hair she had yanked from an attacker. Sometimes when a person dies during a violent struggle some part of the body, such as the hands, can go into something like instant rigor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaveric_spasm).

That was the case when this child died. A person who examined the body said she may have been subject to abuse for perhaps up to an hour. The moment of death was abrupt though and may've been caused by a hard punch to the chest. The girl was very small obviously, her ribs would have been thin and the killer hit her hard enough to cause a substantial hole in her heart. This in addition to numerous heavy injuries to most of her internal organs, broken bones including a bone in her arm that was snapped to an odd angle etc. It wasn't remotely a sex crime. It wasn't an accidental killing. Somebody wanted to "teach her a lesson", or "punish her" for something. Remember, she was a Karin, the roommates are Karin, the translator is Karin. Met is not. One of the roommates made no secret of his dislike for people of Met's ethnic group. The child should not have been watching television with, riding a bicycle with etc somebody from Mr Met's ethnic group.


Issue 7 Counterpoint \ Is he guilty?

All of the other issues indicate that he did not commit the crime, in my opinion, but here are issues that suggest he may have. These are the only compelling reasons to consider him a suspect, in my opinion.

1) He says in part 2 on the interrogation that he threw the kid's shoes in the bathroom toilet. This was mentioned prominently a few times. The only question is whether there is evidence from the very first people at the scene that the shoes were in the toilet or around the toilet. As this is the most compelling evidence of his possible guilt, it's source as evidence, comparable to 'chain of possession' with dna, has to be examined.

Just as a sideline, and not likely related, there is a note in the police report stating that during the first search police saw shoes like the ones she had been wearing when they searched an apartment. The apartment had a locked door and the person at the house said they did not have a key to that door so the police left. Later they returned and asked if they could break the door. They were given permission, knocked down the door and the room was empty. That is one of only two references to shoes that I remember from the police report.

2) One person testified at trial that Met had scratches on his upper legs that could have come from a child. This would seem to be an indicator of guilt as long as a) the evidence was described accurately and b) the 'description' was interpreted accurately. That person was an expert in child assault cases and could generally be trusted not to understate the evidence. If it was clear that the scratches came from a child she would not use ambiguous language to help protect a child rapist or murderer. Her language does seem to have been a bit ambiguous though. She wanted to help with the prosecution but she was not able to go 100% with what the prosecutor said.

Are there other possibilities that explain the scratches on his upper legs? Actually he had scratches on a lot of his body, as the defense pointed out. From the early photos it is clear he has some skin problem. 30 days earlier he had been living in a refugee camp on the edge of tropical forest. Then he moved into a cheap apartment that may have had some creatures like bedbugs or other insects that made him scratch. hose two issues are the only ones that I notice as needing further research regarding Met.

Also, there was never any research done on the evidence that regards a roommate

3) If anybody finds other evidence that indicates he might be guilty then I will add it here. Please look at the case first though. To my knowledge the 'evidence', aside from the two issues raised here, points to his not being guilty.

Sidenote, if Met is given a fair shake and the feds burn a few local cops I'll delete all my posts on this topic, where I can, and send messages to anybody who has copied posts asking them to delete.If Met had not been prosecuted, if the state had chosen to follow the evidence and investigate the roommates, a large number of high level law enforcers would have lost their jobs. After the body was discovered, police went on a public relations offensive (http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=8872390&itype=NGPSID) to portray themselves as having done things adequately. If Met is not guilty, as the evidence indicates, it suggests the police let him be prosecuted so they could keep their jobs.

reserved for comments

One issue isn't clear to me: I hold BTC0.03 and BTC0.025 for bounties and here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1811501.msg18110452#msg18110452) I am told to pay 0.01 but here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1811501.msg18118123#msg18118123) the bounty is 0.005

What to do?

I thought I missed the chance to reply to the case. This is interesting. I don't have any background in crime scene and such, but I love watching them. Let me have a try:

Issue 1
1. Does the fact that he was beaten by the police just before the interview not suggest a coercive atmosphere?
For me, beating a person before an interview establishes something like "tell what is in line and you'll be fine or tell whatever you like and you're dead".

2. Does that not suggest an element of coercion?
Since he was beaten before the interview, he is now under their influence. He is willing to give a confession just to eliminate the threats that he was given.

3. Does that not indicate coercion?
During an interview, IMO, the interrogator should have at least listened to Met. This is so they could get his part of the story.

4. Considering that he was in the country only one month, did not speak the language etc, does that not indicate that the police should have assumed a coercive atmosphere would exist even without the points above?
Since Met is not a native, it is clear to him that he must fear them [police] and must act accordingly.

Issue 2
Phone logs should have at least been checked whether Met was telling the truth that he indeed received a call from his uncle (that is requesting Met to buy sealant for his bike).

Issue 3
I really don't have any idea about getting a lawyer. But, is there a chance for him to get a Public Attorney from the Public Attorney's Office? But since Met is an "outsider", nobody cares about the truth and nobody cares about him.

Issue 4
If one of the roommates regularly comes home at a regular time, then coming home earlier than the usual is something - he could probably be doing something for that one hour of his time.
Also, any DNA samples or evidence should not be tagged as irrelevant since it may hold the key to unlock who the culprit is.

Issue 5
The body might not be that wet after 29 hours, just moist.

Issue 6
Broken bones in her arm may have been the result of giving her punishment - punishment from being to close to "a Muslim" because she was a Karen.

IMO, it seems like they really didn't bother to get the truth from this case since they already have a "suspect" for this case, and the suspect is an outsider.

This probably be too long to read. And sorry if what I have above didn't made sense.

Ok I got you. Will use BTC0.01 for the best response, one every week for three weeks.

After that bounty will drop to BTC0.005 unless more funds are available.

The adress on my profile can be used for donations, will add it to OP.

double posted photos have been removed.

I'm all about the timelines as this is the easiest way to see if the facts match.

The child was last seen at 14:15
She's been coming to watch tv downstairs, without knocking.
Met left at 14:39
This gives him only 24 min to commit the crime, clean himself up and leave.
Myint Kyi arrived home at 16:00, which gives him 45m to commit the crime, that's 20 min more than Met would have had.
Maung Myo Mye returns home at 16:45 and says that his roommates usually return at 17:30. This means Myint Kyi was out of schedule on that day and he knew it. He knew he had at least an hour before his roommates come home, but on that day he wasn't the only one who came early. Maug also came back early, at 16:45, which might have caught Myint off guard. Maug thinks he's being questioned because of the blood stain on the floor, which shows he is scared, he thinks he's about to get charged, but the police decide not to push further. I suspect he knew everything, he came back the second and caught Myint washing himself and the two decided to cover up and blame Met.
The rest of the roommates came home at about 17:00, which could have been 17:30, because they do not give the exact time and Maug claimed that was their usual time of arrival.

They ate and continued to watch videos until 21:00. What were they doing later? It's reasonable to assume they went to wash themselves and prepare for bed.
The police search started at 20:45, why didn't they open the door. They were all inside and it's very unlikely none of them heard the knocking. Maybe they were drunk or high, why did nobody ask about that?
Out of over 20 searched apartments they were the only ones that did not open, even though they knew a girl was missing. What are the odds?

You posted the interviews with Maug and Ku Nu twice, but there is no statement from the 4th roommate, Po Dee.
Why did they ask so much of the first two, but Ku Nu was asked only a couple questions and allowed to walk?

It was as if, "he's a suspected law breaker, might as well put him in jail", even if Gregerson didn't really do anything. Maybe, it's easier for the police to pinpoint someone that has a high probability in doing the crime and close the case. Easy as pie - the case is off their shoulder.

That case isn't necessarily related, but after that case there was a lot of negative publicity and the police had to solve the Hser Ner Moo case quickly. They had two children disappear in a small neighborhood in two years, and both times the bodies turned up in neighbors' apartments that had supposedly been searched.

If there had not been an arrest quickly in the second case it would have been a career ender for a lot of high level cops because the amber alert was not issued until the next day. http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=8872390&itype=NGPSID

Whether Gregerson is guilty is a separate issue, he probably is, but that case was very poorly handled at every step. Met's guilt is much more doubtful. None of the evidence used in the Met case actually suggests he is guilty. The evidence is more consistent with his being innocent.

A lot of people look at one piece of the case against Mr Met and say for example
1) "the body was found in his shower, so he is the killer", but he knew his roommates schedule and if he had been the killer he would have moved the body
2) "there was blood from the child on his jacket", but the blood on his jacket is not what you would find if he killed the child. The blood would have had to have dropped on the jacket when it was parallel to the floor.
3) "dna from the Mr Met was under the victim's nails", but actually the dna under the nails was from a number of people and in all of those it was dead skin cell dna. Worse, if you look at the actual dna results it does not look anything like evidence against Mr Met. The only dna that was found in a context that would suggest it came from the killer was not from Mr Met.
4) "he confessed", but it's pretty well known in a lot of circles that confessions are easy to get unless you need them to be accurate. Any person can be made to confess to anything by a skilled interrogator who is after non factual confessions. Google 'false confessions'.
5) "he ran from the police", but actually even though that is what the police reported it was not true.

And so on. If you can find some piece of evidence against him that is stronger than the evidence against others then I'll give you a bounty. So far the strongest evidence against Mr Met is that he had scratches where he might have been scratched by the victim and he knew that the shoes had been thrown in or near the toilet. That's the sum total of real evidence against him. How does a simple guy with no education commit such a crime and not leave behind one piece of evidence?

The real proof he probably did not do it though is the condition of the body. Utterly attacking the child with that kind of viciousness is not something he would have any motive to do. That motive would exist though among other possible suspects.

Thanks for pointing that out, I made some changes and it should be ok now. I also added the 'longer term timeline' to OP.

It looks like he moved the body to the shower to wash it, but didn't finish. The whole scene looks like the murderer was interrupted, which would be on par with my previous post. (1 roommate came back an hour early and the second one 45 min later, 15 min before his normal time of arrival)
There is more. There was a lot of blood everywhere.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542689/Esar-Met-guilty-killing-Hser-Ner-Moo-7.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542689/Esar-Met-guilty-killing-Hser-Ner-Moo-7.html
Yet, only small amount on Met's jacket, no traces on his body. He had no time to take a shower, so how did he get rid of blood from his clothes?
Why did he get it off his clothes and body, but not off the floor?
There are big stains on the floor that look like someone was trying to wipe them off. Were there no footprints leading from his part of the building to the staircase?
Was any DNA obtained from the girl's genitals? From what I've read there was no rape, the body was only made to look like it was raped.
This is why he was sentenced. Had he not confessed there would have been no hard evidence and it would have been much harder to persuade the jury.

The arresting officer stated that Met was calm and didn't seem to know why he's being arrested. How could they report that he run when the facts prove otherwise? He locked the door to his apartment and spent the whole evening with his siblings. People knew where he went, because the girl's mother phoned him.


I think there were more pieces of evidence like the hair, possible footprints, blood stains leading from Met's apartment to the one occupied by the four roommates. If there were bloodstains there must have been fingerprints. As an investigator I would have swiped the whole shower and hallway for fingerprints of the roommates. They all stated that they never went down to the basement, so finding their fingerprints there would prove they were lying. Why didn't they try lie detector on Met or the roommate, who came back first? I know such evidence is rarely used in court, but it would gave the investigators a reason to question them further.

That's true, especially that such violent crime leaves a person full of adrenaline, that's why hit and run drivers usually escape and hide, drive home and pretend they're not at home. You need to be a real psycho serial killer to kill someone and continue with your daily routine.
I read that the prosecutor showed pictures of the naked victim to influence the jurors. This was a good move on his part, because after seeing what was done to the child, they started seeing Met as a monster. It didn't matter if he did it or not. People are emotional and these violent pictures played on their emotions.

Hadn't thought of that, it's a good point.

~


There was a footprint found from the killer and an expert testified it was consistent with Met's footprint, but he later admitted it was also consistent with the footprints of anybody else in that house.
~



As far as I know the public was never told that it was made to look like a rape, they were told a sexual assault happened. The only place that indicates it may have been somebody trying to make it look like a rape is the police report. I haven't researched dna evidence or tried to figure out the dna papers but most of them are variations of 'y strand dna was obtained from sample', 'evidence was inconclusive', 'not enough material is available to test' or various things like that. I'll post them when I'm able.



The public, including future jurors, was told that he fled. Evidence that he did not was kept from the public when the judge issued a gag order in 2012 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865566454/Witnesses-in-Hser-Ner-Moo-case-testify-about-arrest-visit-of-murder-suspect.html

The people involved were probably told that the gag order was to reduce the chance of the crime escalating into an ethnic issue. This would have been credible to most Burmese. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18395788

Here is tape 4 English http://pastebin.com/yLP4pU7A

Tapes 1 through 4 English http://pastebin.com/efudJHbQ

For English speakers / Tapes 1 through 5 Burmese conversation translated to English  http://pastebin.com/u0L49ikk

Tape 1 Burmese, no translation http://pastebin.com/J02FibLX

Tape 2 Burmese and English, in original tongues, no translation http://pastebin.com/ybHGFq7j

Random link
https://twitter.com/Marissa_Jae/status/424254795394740224

added to OP:

Tape 4 English (http://pastebin.com/efudJHbQ)

Tape 5 English (http://pastebin.com/gR984YPG)

Tapes 1 through 5 (http://pastebin.com/wWhLjEDh) Burmese conversation translated to English

Tape 1 Burmese (http://pastebin.com/J02FibLX) No translation

Tape 2 Burmese and English (http://pastebin.com/ybHGFq7j) In original tongues, no translation

Met had a constant, unchanging story about Hser falling down from the stairs, that Hser will be telling this to her father, consoling the child and not to tell the father about what happened, and blood coming from the child's mouth. Hmmm. The broken hand... if you're going to pull a person forcefully, I'd still think that you will not break the hand in a weird angle. Putting Hser's body near his bed is also consistent...then changed to dragging the body to the bathroom. Translators also kept on asking if he had sex with the child - which he turned down immediately. The missing underwear... Looks like someone's setting up a rape-murder scenario.

One part that caught my attention, non verbatim: I will tell you that I put her there (in the bathroom). Please do not accuse anyone else (aside from me). Do not involve anyone in this accusation.

He confessed to a crime he didn't commit. "Confessed" because he thought that he was the reason why Hser died accidentally.

1) He started by saying he did not know the child was dead. He is very convincing in this, probably because he was telling the truth.

2) The interrogators gradually convince him that it is in his interest to confess, and to make the confession look like the truth. He has to do this for the benefit of the child, the child's family and his own family.

3) So he goes through his mind, based on his own experiences and knowledge and concocts a story that is 100% believable to him. But it should be 0% believable to anybody who has researched.

a) He starts with the basics he was told, dead child, blood on a wall, body downstairs.

b) He creates a story with those elements, but he gets the wall wrong and puts the body in the wrong place.

c) He lived his life in a refugee camp where death is informal. He had probably seen some deaths that vaguely matched 'the person convulsed a bit then was quiet', or maybe he saw that on tv. But it does not match the death.

d) He maintains his own integrity, in other words tries to keep some of his own personality, by challenging elements of the confession that are not believable to him. He does not believe it is possible that he would have raped the child and he tries to help his new 'friends' by refusing to put an element in his story that would not have happened.

4) In a regular confession what is shown on the video would be called "a preconfession" and would not be recorded. He was given the basics of the crime, enough information about the crime, and agreed to confess. The reason no follow up "real confession" was ever videotaped is probably because they never got his story close enough to the truth, and there was a lot of public scrutiny in the case. Easier to just bury the video in legalistic bullshit. Remember, both the prosecution and defense actively tried to keep the confession secret.

5) Of course his trial was not delayed for so many years because nobody could find a translator. Google existed back then, as did a lot of locally competent translators in that language. There was never any way to bring this case to a proper conclusion without reinvestigating the case, which would have led to a lot of lost jobs among police etc. It also would have opened up scrutiny of the Destiny Norton killing since most of the same people were working on both cases.

~

RJX the op looks great but you should post a new btc address specifically for this case so it is separate from your regular address. If somebody wants to fund bounties there should be a specific address only for that.

Here are accurate links to the English translations.

All 5 tapes http://pastebin.com/u0L49ikk

Tape 1 http://pastebin.com/59LjA7xq 42.16 kb 466 lines
What’s your name?

Tape 2 http://pastebin.com/Cy6461kY 9.27 kb 121 lines
T.Where did this child watch


Tape 3 http://pastebin.com/gR984YPG 19.86 kb 158 lines
T-Didn’t you ever visit to


Tape 4 http://pastebin.com/140yTbg1 9.73 kb 182 lines
T-How did it happen? Explain them


Tape 5 http://pastebin.com/FzY8PEZb 4.74 kb 72 lines
T- Was that up stair, the ground

edit to add one tape has been reposted to delete material which has been replaced by "[deleted]". If you notice something in the tapes that you think is inappropriate mention it and the material may be deleted.  

I will update donation adress and OP tomorrow evening, I'm sort of busy.

Agruw could you announce who this weeks winner is so I can send bounty tomorrow?

creepyjas started the process of analyzing why Mr Met would lie even though he claimed he was telling the truth, which is an important step in people seeing how a false confession is cultivated by interrogators, and coolcoinz noticed a few things that somehow nobody had noticed before and had the idea of a timeline to look at scenarios, which might be a gamechanger, so my suggestion is to split the bounty among those two, but you can also flip a coin or whatever to decide who gets the bounty.

I think my comments put people off the topic so I'll avoid interfering.

Your thread not mine.

Wow, thanks! If it would be split to two, that's fine and fair. :)

I guess we'll split the pot then, if creepyjas and coolcoinz can provide me with an adress I'll send asap.



This thread provides you with sparringpartners so your replies are sorely needed, and highly apreciated by those who try to understand the case.



My thread upon your request, plus it's your BTC.

Adress changed. Fund moved:

db1ccf349152a59e8c61ffe03535518d115f4a47637dcc97d0f58def32afb3d4 (https://blockchain.info/nl/address/14ugaSH1AcFXPr4mr8yyvrsCQiVAD3s2Ns)

Here's my btc address: 33qzdgRZZDHac2EkoWde6ek8wDZLWSiBUf
Thank you

Reward sent. f285022de2a4221b8d646d7878afe999536adf8135aa4fbe90a88abfa5b69827 (https://blockchain.info/tx/f285022de2a4221b8d646d7878afe999536adf8135aa4fbe90a88abfa5b69827)

Congratulations and thanks much for participating. Please stick around, you're not disqualified after winning once.

One last point, it does not matter whether a person says he is innocent or guilty. I am a bit obnoxious about arguing and have my opinion, but for the bounty and discussion, if a person can point to some excellent indication that he might be guilty, that has the same value.

Probably my last input for a while / most of the evidence seems to be what you would expect to see if he were not guilty. But there is no casecloser, no absolute strong indicator one way or another. If a person can provide one massive piece of evidence either way, I'll add what I can to their bounty. In my opinion the best place to look for that is in time of death.

Thank you. Payment received. I'd still be looking for some articles related to this case.

   
Here you go: 14wueYfNGRHNLN4BQEU99vCJ93ekRnbPMe
Thank you very much.


I honestly think he could be innocent. It's not even about of the lack of evidence, but the mistakes made by the investigators, the police and the prosecutor. Usually in a high profile case losing a vital piece of evidence is huge, but not here. Somebody should be held responsible for the loss, because somebody had to bring that into the lab and fill in the form. Some technician's name is on that form, why wasn't he asked to testify in court?
They didn't try to hold the suspects (roommates) in custody or under observation, they asked them a couple questions and let them go.
They did not use all technology in their power to interview all the suspects.
The prime suspect was beaten up before the questioning, why wasn't that brought up in court?
Why wasn't a lawyer present during the questioning?
Why weren't the roommates asked what they were doing when the police came to their house. Why didn't they respond? They were at home with the body at that time!
Why was there blood in their room. They spent 24h with a big stain of blood on the carpet.

Quotes from articles that could make you doubt his guilt:
"Police have said the girl was likely dead within an hour of leaving her family's nearby apartment."
Wrong assumption. She died later than 2:30 according to the medics.

About the time of death:
"He beat and sexually assaulted her, prosecutors said, inflicting no less than 21 injuries to the small girl.
Then, prosecutor Robert Parrish said, he left her to die.
Her broken body was found the next day after a widespread search of the South Parc homes..."

Now we know that death occurred later, when Met wasn't there. It's possible that she died from injuries after some time and that's how it was explained in court.
This could point either way, but since we know she was left to die, we also know that it's possible the roommates were present at the time of death. Why wasn't this pursued further?

"Frasier explained that injuries to Hser's genitals were extremely rare and probably caused by forceful penetration.
There was no DNA evidence found on the body to suggest a sexual assault took place..."

Rare, means not caused in an intercourse. And no DNA confirms it.
Met was sentenced for rape and murder and every newspaper and news site screamed that he raped her, even though the ME said there was no rape. There was a possibility the damage was done post mortem, and this would mean Met was not able to do it, because the death happened after he left the apartment!

Mikal Wersland, a sergeant with the South Salt Lake Police Department:
"They told me they found what they believed to be blood evidence in the stairwell of one of the apartments we hadn’t been able to search"
A stairwell the 4 roommates were using for 24 hours after the murder...

The judge:
"That's part of the reason she sentenced him so harshly, she said — she feared he was "extremely dangerous" and could kill again."
The judge let her personal feelings guide her verdict.

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt...

Reward sent. 82e634b223d97836953a58eaff9f9e93277b97157329a3eec088b2c6888369e8 (https://blockchain.info/tx/82e634b223d97836953a58eaff9f9e93277b97157329a3eec088b2c6888369e8)

Congratulations and thanks much for participating. Please stick around, you're not disqualified after winning once.

I found several articles that included additional description regarding Hser Ner Moo's body.
Experts: Murdered Utah girl Hser Ner Moo died a painful death  (http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/55267717-78/met-girl-hser-moo.html.csp)

But basing from the tapes, he never, ever did raped Hser Ner Moo.

My goodness, they kept on saying that Met raped Hser Ner Moo.
Utah murder victim's family tearfully testifies about her (http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/57367776-78/met-moo-hser-ner.html.csp)

It is just sad that they had sentenced a man on a life sentence without parole for a crime he possibly didn't commit.

It could be possible that one from his roommates killed Hser Ner Moo and set it up as Met's doing since he's suspicious - never ate with them and rarely talks.

Esar Met gets life without parole for murder of Hser Ner Moo (http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/57939886-78/met-moo-hser-ner.html.csp)

<!-- EDIT -->
Additional articles:

This might indicate something that something is off in this trial and in the investigation process. Burmese girl, 7, died a painful death 'after she was raped and brutally beaten by her Utah neighbor', experts testify after police officer chokes up on the stand
 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537449/Experts-testify-Burmese-girl-7-died-painful-death-raped-brutally-beaten-Utah-neighbor-police-officer-chokes-stand.html)

That's some good finds there, I'll add them to OP later today.

Thanks for sharing and keep on sleuthing!

OP updated with articles' links.

@creepyjas/coolcoinz:

Since it's been another week and we've seen the same sleuthers as last week I'd like to suggest splitting this weeks rewards again because you both made an effort to add to the case, either by providing analysis or information.

Same adresses? If not please let me know.

I have been following this peripherally, The Fool has donlminated my news feed like most Americans (refreshing change from the Kardashians though). I have not immersed myself in this, on the surface however, I am siding with the prosecution, as I see breach of protocol, but seemingly evidence of wrongdoing by the defendant (DNA evidence doesn't lie). As I examine this, if I should develop a critical voice, will you still field my arguments, and will I still be eligible for your reward, if our argument achieves synthesis?

I think this awnsers your questions:


So yes, step right up and share your point of view.

Here is a summary of the dna evidence that I am aware of.

1) Dna from Hser Ner Moo's blood on his jacket.

There were 6 stains on the back of his jacket, according to the technician. 4 of them were arranged in a linear pattern, so obviously from the same source. Those four stains were the blood, according to the evidence technician.

However,
a) the stains were not identifiable as blood before testing, i.e., they were not fresh blood,
b) Met's clothing was all tested for blood after his arrest, and the only blood found was his.
c) These stains appeared later, and are not among the dna evidence nor samples listed in the evidence part of the police report. The appearance is that they might have been added to strengthen the case. Whether that is the case or not, those stains are not consistent with the crime by any stretch of the imagination. Four tiny stains deposited linearly would have to be either from gravity while the jacket was parallel with the floor, or  deposited deliberately. They are not visible on the jacket when he was being interviewed https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=03b_1424109209 and they were not found shortly after that when his clothing was tested for blood.

2) Dna from one of the roommates on one of the walls near where the body was found.
The police speculated this might have come from the roommate spitting betelnut juice, but people do not spit betelnut juice on the floor and walls of their residence. The prosecutors and police were contorting the evidence to avoid considering more obvious suspects because, again, if Met did not kill the child then it means the child may have been alive while the police were deciding whether a foreign kid warranted an 'amber alert' http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/news/ci_8779265

3) Dna under the child's fingernails.
There was dna from a number of people under the child's fingernails, including family, schoolmates and the accused, as well as unidentified dna. All of the dna was dead skin cell type dna. So either she did not draw blood or whoever washed the body also washed their blood from under her nails.

4) Unknown male dna was found at the crime scene.

5) The child's body was found with a handful of hair she had yanked from the attacker. a) Met was not missing a handful of hair, the roommates were not checked. b) That hair probably would have had roots, useful for dna, and it probably was tested, but it disappeared. It appears to have been sent to the fbi.

6) A fresh blood stain was found upstairs but never tested. Met's confession was pushed and prodded to where at one point he mentions the child trying to go upstairs, but the bloodstain was in the roommates living area. Nobody was told about this bloodstain until well after the trial was underway, and it was never tested. My guess is that person may have helped fudge the case and when he finally saw that there really wasn't any authentic evidence against Met he decided the facts might be better than the fictions.

Additionally, if you look at the dna papers they do not seem to point to him. Whatever was used at trial may have been other dna tests but something does look fishy.

Same address, thank you. Still looking onto this. Might find some new article / evidence floating elsewhere in the web.

Sent BTC 0.005 to 33qzdgRZZDHac2EkoWde6ek8wDZLWSiBUf:

a85a9b7633caeff10c945369959e1e51b4bea842183ba3b595f76c9fae25e82c (https://blockchain.info/tx/a85a9b7633caeff10c945369959e1e51b4bea842183ba3b595f76c9fae25e82c)

Thanks again, stick around.

I have the same one as well, but I haven't added anything new, so I'm not asking for any reward. I also have no new ideas, but it's in the attorney's best interest not to look for evidence and let people forget about the case. If someone made a breakthrough that proved Met's innocence it would be a major career ending event. Even if he is guilty we can see that people used their feelings to judge him, instead of hard evidence.

Thank you, btc received.

Looking for documentaries regarding the case, I hope they have one.

Sent BTC0.005:
455a1a3c9a2d7a281b157a6dbe93fdef1815ebdefe116cb7c917faf38136386b (https://blockchain.info/tx/455a1a3c9a2d7a281b157a6dbe93fdef1815ebdefe116cb7c917faf38136386b)

Sorry for being a bit late.

This is probably off topic...
I found this while looking for any documentary/ies related to the case.

Hser Ner Moo Community (http://www.uw.org/our-work/promise-partnerships/school/hser-ner-moo.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/)
Hser Ner Moo Community PDF File (http://www.southsaltlakecity.com/uploads/documents/Hser_Ner_Moo_opt.pdf)

I find this...good. Since from Met didn't or can't talk purely in English, they have set up a community where they teach and help refugees - like Met. Quick thought: if Met could speak in English - the investigation could have been smooth. No coercion before the interrogation and probably, no misunderstandings.

I agree, this initiative may well add in the prevention of rulings such as in Met's case although for him it arrived on the scene a bit tardy.

Better late than never one could argue.

Here is the third tape with everything in the original language. English in English, Burmese in Burmese.

https://pastebin.com/5SW7xNJZ
36.25kb
"A1: Okay. We’ll need to go over this again. We’ll need to go over this again."

I have better versions of tape 4 but they are in an odd format that can't just be copied and pasted.

~at this point~

He still seems to not be the killer.

Possible questions though
1) How did he know the shoes, or one of the shoes was in the toilet?
It's possible he was given that information at some point before or during the interrogation. It is an odd small piece of information, and it is the only part of the confession that he seems insistent on, like he is sure it is true, as if somebody told him perhaps.

2) Is it significant that at one point he says the child tried to go upstairs, where a blood stain was found?

~

I'm still very far from where the police report is stored but will upload the relevant parts when possible. The rest of the translations done by the 2nd translator should be done soon. Here is a rough copy of one that I got that is a bit jumbled because of the formatting, I'll clean it up and repost it when I get the last tape https://pastebin.com/hw3612bv

This is worth adding from today's news http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epic-drug-lab-scandal-results-more-20-000-convictions-dropped-n747891

One lab tech falsified data in such a way that it was obvious to her superiors that she was falsifying data, but nothing was done for years. Today 20,000 cases that she was involved in were dismissed.

She was costar of an article a year and a half ago about similar practices http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/10/massachusetts_crime_lab_scandal_worsens_dookhan_and_farak.html

Why is this relevant to the Esar Met case?

The case against Esar Met was built on two things, dna evidence and a confession, both of which were either hidden or misrepresented. The confession has been made public, but the details of the dna evidence used to convict him are murky...

 :o    :o    :o    :o    :o    :o    :o    :o    :o

http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/top-of-content-image/scientist.jpg

Some quotes from the second article above/

"Crime Lab Scandals Just Keep Getting Worse
How many people are in jail based on faked data?"

"Of course, there are also an awful lot of folks whose convictions were predicated on a massive fraud. Many of them don’t even know this, and most cannot afford to hire attorneys to reopen their cases."

"In Massachusetts it doesn’t even end there. Only a few months after Dookhan’s conviction, it was discovered that another Massachusetts crime lab worker, Sonja Farak, who was addicted to drugs, not only stole her supply from the evidence room but also tampered with samples and performed tests under the influence, thus tainting as many as 10,000 or more prosecutions. Records show Farak used cocaine, crack, or methamphetamines daily or almost daily while she was at work, as well as ketamine, MDMA, ecstasy, phentermine, amphetamines, LSD, and marijuana."

"Documents revealing Farak’s addiction were kept from defense lawyers for more than a year and a half, despite multiple requests."

"Despite the ongoing scandal, the district attorneys take the position that it is not their responsibility to help identify Dookhan or Farak defendants. They lack the budgets or resources to do so, and—as they have argued in oral argument in the Bridgeman case—prosecutors have no special duty to notify defendants that their convictions might have been obtained with evidence that was falsified by government employees. "

"Everyone knows that if you make a mess, you have to pay for it or clean it up. Companies know this, drivers know this—even kids know it. What most people don’t realize is that even in cases where prosecutors’ misconduct or negligence results in gross violations of due process, colossal disruptions of the criminal justice system, or grave threats to public safety, prosecutors remain essentially immune from any real consequences."
  ::)
"Over the past decade, crime lab scandals have plagued at least 20 states, as well as the FBI."

...
...

More reading if anybody is interested

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Technician-boss-in-S-F-police-lab-scandal-6169230.php

https://www.nacdl.org/criminaldefense.aspx?id=28286

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/why-do-crime-labs-keep-screwing-dna-tests

Here is the translation of the first tape by a professional translator. I still am not near where the additional material is kept and it may be a while still before I can get it. This case does not seem to attract much interest, but it should eventually

/////////////////////////////////////////

01:00
T: (What’s your name?)
01:04
S: (Samar) [Can't be heard clearly]
01:06
T: (Your name is Samar?)
01:29
T: (Have you seen the snow here?)
01:32
S: (Yes.)
02:02
T: (Do you know why you are here?)
02:06
S: (No.)
02:12
T: (Do you or do you not know why you’re here?)
02:23
T: (They have already talked to each and every one of your roommates.)
02: 42
T: (And they have already know every detail of what happened in your home. Now, you know why you’re here?)
02:55
T: (You’re very very.. as I said earlier..)
03:10
T: (They know everything and they have already talked to everyone who lives with you. So, they know everything.)
03:23
T: (They would like you to tell them the story of what happened.)
03:38
T: (This is a really terrible thing happened to your life. The things that you did are really bad for your life.)
03:57
T: (They would like you to decide what happened.)
04:03
S: (What do you mean?)
04:24
S: (I don’t understand what you mean.)
04:27
T: (You even understand Burmese Language, right?)
S: (Yes, I do.)
T: (Now, there’s something happening here.)
04:48
T: (They said the girl is dead and you killed her.)
S: (No.)
05:06
T: (He’ll tell you all the things that need to be said and you will have to tell them the truth. A confession.)
05:19
T: (And after that, you have to be quiet. You need to stay quiet.)
05:25
T: (You understand?)
05:37
T: (Everything you have to say today, alright? They will ask you some questions and you have to answer them. Everything you say here will be presented at the court, alright?)
05:55
T: (Do you understand?)
06:06
T: (Before you say something, as I said earlier, you can tell them what you know and you can also tell them if you didn’t do it. This is your right.)
06:20
T: (Do you understand? When they ask you a question, you tell them the truth – if you did it or you didn’t do it. You will have to face all those things at the court.)
06:37
T: (And depending on the crime you have committed, you will be punished with a fine or some other sort of punishment.)
06:57
T: (Did you understand everything just said?)
07:09
T: (Now, calm down. Okay? Calm down and answer their questions. Please stay still. What’s wrong? Are you hungry?)
S: (I’m cold.)
07:36
T: (They know it’s not only that you’re cold. They know you want to tell them something. Tell them what you want to say.)
07:45
S: (I know this girl because we always played together. She used to ask to ride my bike and we rode the bike together. Now that she’s dead, how am I supposed who killed her. I don’t even know what to say that I have been accused of her murder.)
08:13
S: (She was like a sister to me. This kid. She’s like my real sister.)
08:48
T: (She died in your bathroom.)
09:05
T: (She was found dead in your bathroom with all the footprints of yours and blood on her body.)
S: (That’s not possible because Yenoot called me that morning and told me that the girl I always played with was missing and I was at my uncle’s house at that time. I had to buy the glue and take it to my uncle’s home to fix the bike tire. Yenoot called 2 or 3 hours after I got to my uncle’s home to tell that she was missing and ask me if I knew about that.)
T: (Who did you say called you?)
S: (Yenoot.)
T: (What?)
S: (Yenoot.)
T: (Who’s Yenoot?)
10:11
T: (Who had got the flat tyre?)
S: (My uncle.)
T: (What time did your uncle come to pick you up? And whose bicycle tyre went flat – yours or your uncle’s?)
S: (My uncle’s. That’s why he asked me to buy the glue.)
T: (You have a phone?)
S: (Home phone.)
11:00
T: (So, your uncle called you and you went to buy the glue for and took it to him.)
S: (Yes, I took it to him. And then, Yenoot called and said that the girl was missing. I just thought that she might have been going around and playing so I was just relaxed. Then, my aunty told me not to leave yet as would also go together with me so I was sleeping at my uncle’s home until the cops came in with all the guns and I didn’t even know what I had done wrong.)
11:50
T: (Say it from the beginning. From the beginning.)
12:01
T: (Alright, bro. Please explain this to me again. You said you went to buy the glue. Now he’s asking ‘Where did you buy the glue?’)
S: (I didn’t buy the glue. Yenoot did.)
T: (Who’s Yenoot?)
S: (I had lived with that girl in the same place.)
T: (You said you bought the glue.)
S: (No, I didn’t buy the glue. It was Yenoot who bought it for me to take it to my uncle. Yenoot and my uncle don’t talk.)
T: (How old is that Yenoot?)
S: (He’s a young man.)
T: (Is Yenoot a boy?)
S: (Yes.)
12:58
T: (So, you didn’t buy the glue.)
S: (No, I didn’t.)
13:08
T: (When did you first meet the girl?)
S: (Not long after I have moved there, about one or two days later.)
T: (Yeah, when was that? Which month? Which day? This month or March or February? When did you first see her?)
S: (February.)
T: (February.)
13:49
T: (Is she beautiful?)
S: (Of course she is. She was like a sister to me.)
13:58
T: (Hold the picture.)
14:01
T: (Is she beautiful?)
S: (Yes.)
14:06
T: (Do you like her?)
S: (How could I like her? She was just the age of my sister.)
14:23
T: (Have you ever thought that this girl is beautiful?)
14:30
T: (Is she ugly?)
S: (No, she’s not.)
14:40
T: (Did you spend time with her?)
14:46
T: (You played with her, rode the bike with her and what else did you do with her?)
S: (That’s all. When she saw me when I was riding the bike, she borrowed the bike from me and she brought it back after she was done riding.)
15:04
S: (Just in the front.)
15:26
T: (When was the first time she was ever in your basement?)
S: (She had never come down to the basement. It’s true that we were friends but she had never come downstairs.)
15:50
T: (But she was downstairs and dead in your bathroom yesterday.)
16:04
T: (You were the only one at home when she went missing.)
16:27
T: (What happened when she came to your house on Monday?)
S: (She came with her friends, the one who’s the same age as her and the one younger than her. They watched movies and then, they left.)
T: (Did all three of them leave?)
S: (Yes.)
T: (When?)
17:22
T: (The two went back, right?)
17:26
S: (All three of them went back.)
17:28
S: (They left together.)
17:38
T: (They don’t believe you.)
17:51
T: (Three of them came to your house but no one saw her after she had visited your house.)
18:09
T: (The next time anyone saw her,)
18:16
T: (She was dead in your shower.)
18:28
S: (That’s not possible.)
18:31
S: (When they came to me, there were three of them, Yenoot’s sister, her and Yenoot’s nephew.)
T: (Wait a moment, it was her..)
S: (Her, Yenoot’s sister..)
T: (You have got a sister?)
S: (No, Yenoot’s.. Yenoot’s sister.)
T: (Yenoot’s sister)
S: (Yes.)
T: (Is Yenoot Karen?)
S: (No, he’s a Muslim.)
T: (Yenoot’s sister..)
S: (And Yenoot’s nephew was also there.)
T: (Yenoot’s nephew.)
S: (Yes, they came together and they left after watching movies, cartoons.)
T: (It was that girl, Yenoot’s sister and Yenoot’s nephew. Yenoot is a Muslim?)
S: (That’s right.)
19:45
T: (What did they do when they came into your house?)
S: (They watched TV and they watched cartoons.)
20:00
T: (Television or DVD?)
02:03
T: (What time was it?)
S: (In the morning.)
T: (What time?)
20:08
T: (He wants to know what time they came.)
S: (It was round about 9 o’clock when they came that morning.)
02:26
T: (She went back from your house at 2 P.M., right? Did she go back or not?)
S: (Yes, she did. All of them went back together.)
T: (At what time did they go back?)
S: (Around 2 p.m.)
T: (All of them?)
S: (Yes.)
20:56
T: (Can you say all three children’s names?)
S: (Yenoot’s younger sister’s name was.. and the other kid.. I don’t know their names.)
21:29
T: (Did you know her name?)
S: (No.)
21:36
T: (Yesterday,)
21:39
T: (at about 2 o’clock,)
21:46
T: (She went back from your house with two other kids?)
S: (Yes.)
21:54
T: (How long did they stay at your house for?)
S: (They stayed there for three hours and when they went back, she carried a bag with her. I also went to my uncle’s house once they left my place.)
23:11
T: (Where were you when the police were looking for the girl in your neighborhood?)
S: (I was at my uncle’s home.)
23:28
T: (Did you know that people were looking for her?)
S: (Yenoot called and told me that the girl who always played with me was missing and the police were looking for her. I don’t know how she went missing after she went back from house.)
T: (Yeah, where did Yenoot tell you that?)
S: (He called me from his home when I was at my uncle’s house.)
24:29
T: (So, you knew it from the beginning that the girl was missing, right?)
S: (Of course I did because Yenoot called me as soon as they knew she was missing and then, I thought ‘This girl doesn’t usually go around much. She must be in the neighborhood. Yenoot is just trying to mess with me.’ So, I was relaxed and stayed at my uncle’s home for the night until the morning..
T: (Where did you sleep that night?)
S: (At my uncle’s home.)
T: (At your uncle’s home.)
S: (That’s right.)
25:51
T: (How come you did not call the police and say that she was playing together with you until 2 o’clock? Why didn’t you call the police?)
S: (I can’t. I can’t speak their language.)
26:12
T: (Did you tell anybody else that you saw her with two other kids?)
S: (I told my aunt about it. I told her that the girl was playing with her friends when I left the house.)
T: (So, you told your aunt.)
S: (Yes.)
27:04
T: (Was it an accident? Do you think it was an accident that she died in your bathroom?)
S: (That’s what I have been thinking. The fact that she died in my bathroom makes other people think that I killed her. But actually, I didn’t know anything.)
(When Yenoot called that morning and asked my uncle’s home address, I gave him the address. Then, I called him again and asked why he wanted the address, if something was wrong.)
T: (Where were you at that time? At your uncle’s house?)
S: (Yes.)
28:16
T: (Don’t lie.)
28:20
T: (It’s not gonna be good for you, if you continue to lie.)
28:45
T: (They know you did it.)
28:50
S: (I’ll tell you something.)
29:04
T: (They know you did it.)
29:19
T: (No one else stays in your room, right?)
S: (Yes.)
29:28
T: (No one else lives in your basement.)
29:37
T: (Your roommates can’t even talk with you because you don’t speak the same language.)
S: (That’s right.)
29:50
T: (You were the only one that was home yesterday. Other people went to work.)
S: (Yes, they went to work on that day.)
30:00
T: (You were the last person to see her alive..)

I haven't visited this post recently, ah, lack of device and connection. Anyways, this translation is much better. I will still be here, lurking... and waiting for another update and material from you :)

Me neither but I'm still holding the fund.

PM me when payments should be send in regards to additional efforts put into this.

If activity is still low by the end of June, I'll retire and send the remaining funds to an adress Agruw provides.

Things still kind of on hold. When circumstances allow I will get the other material, including the dna reports that were in the file, but that stuff is a few thousand miles from where I am now and kind of not convenient to travel there at the moment. I tried to interest a lawyer in it but not successful. When convenient and able I'll move forward on this. For now just wait.

I am not sure if I had included or this was included in the thread before. This is a 2016 article.
Refugee appeals conviction in 7-year-old girl’s death (http://fox13now.com/2016/04/01/refugee-appeals-conviction-in-7-year-old-girls-death/)

Some do know that Met did not get any fair trial.

And then this part:

And another one, which is saddening:

He admitted that he committed the crime because of what he thinks would happen to other people if he wouldn't.

The case doesn't attract attention because of several reasons.
Nobody's interested in defending a migrant that doesn't speak English.
Not many people care about someone who admitted, even if he was forced to do it. If he doesn't try to defend himself people won't do it for him.
The case is repulsive, people usually don't want to go through a child rape over and over.

The best case scenario for Met would be to learn English and start writing statements explaining everything and the reasons why he admitted. I'd like to see a detailed description of the questioning from him. What techniques were used, how was he pressured, and so on.

I am also not sure about the point of OP. If the person in question pleaded guilty its all but closed, especially since he cant rely on western NGOs, but is subject to burmese jurisdiction.

Burmese government has no reason to let itself be scolded by nobodies over self-admitted child rapist and killer, that left DNA stains all over the body of victim.

Nobody sane (or moral) would go into international conflict over this man.

The basic problem is that there is little popular understanding of the mechanics of false confessions. For centuries it has been the secret of police and politicians that anybody can be made to confess to anything. In some of the oldest legal traditions it is expressly forbidden to trust a confession by itself, so we know this problem has existed for a while. Today there is a sophistication that has developed in the art of extracting a confession, but it is not balanced by an awareness that anybody can be made to confess to anything. So we have a lot of police officers, including those in the video, who are willing to build their careers on "confessions" without regard for fact.

In the United States roughly 3% of people in prison, according to experts, are factually innocent of the crime they are imprisoned for. Among crimes like this the number is much higher, because there is a lower standard of evidence for this kind of crime and, as you say, nobody wants to revisit this kind of case.

Still, why should it be his responsibility to learn English and get some expertise in order to get a fair trial. If you go to Burma would you like to be arrested for a crime you did not commit, and held in prison until you learned that language and the local laws? If you want to impose that kind of "lemons to lemonade" philosophy on somebody do it on yourself or somebody in your family. He is not interested in somebody's grand idea of making the best of a bad situation or whatever. He appears to be innocent. The trial was a farce. The burden is not on him to learn English nor do anything else, but you are welcome to put yourself in his position in some country and then follow the high path you outline for him.

Your last sentence is the core of the case, and eventually the techniques that were used to extract the confession may have to be articulated precisely, at the expense of the so called 'law enforcers' who used those techniques.

He is not in Burma actually, but there is a very important link to Burmese society.

Shortly before Hser Ner Moo was killed there had been some high profile rape accusations whose purpose was to convince people in Burma that certain racial groups were dangerous to 'local' women.

The evidence seems to be that

1) When Mr Met got the glue with his Muslim friend, he told a third person that he would be going to his relatives house the next day and might be gone for a while.

2) The oldest of his roommates was aware that he was going to be gone, and appears to have made some sort of plan to make a local political statement in support of people in Burma who were doing similar things. He wanted to start an ethnic problem locally, and he saw Esar Met as a candidate to help him.

3) It is possible that several other people were involved. Notice that the translator was a friend of the roommates, and that he was maybe a bit too helpful in some regards. Did he really want to translate to help the police? Notice how when the police asked him to ask Mr Met if he knew why he was there, the translator said in Burmese "Have you seen snow", trying to get a positive nod of the head. The translator was very clever in a number of regards. Several places in the tape he mumbles things to Met that cannot be heard clearly, even by Native speakers listening to it at high volume. He seems to have been feeding details, small things, to Met to guide the interview.

Regarding dna, again, there is no dna that is consistent with him being the killer. There is dna that points circumstantially to one of the roommates, as well as to an unidentified male. The dna used at trial was dna, but it was not dna evidence against him. The prosecutor said that it was, and he seems to have convinced some people that it was, but it wasn't.

Okay, before we continue let me say, that I tried to acknowledge all your well spoken arguments, yes?

Now, lets say for the sake of this case, that I am the burmese prosecutor.

1) What is your motivation on defending self-admitted killer? Politicization of the case? While making an example of muslim man in territory hostile to islamism is morally questionable - it doesnt prove innonence of the man. It is only convient to the public. Government perhaps tried to paint muslims in even more negative light and then here is a man, that just took huge leap in archieving it.

2) Again, that is convient for the government - but do you remember Breivik? Politically active aswell and his deeds helped government to crack down upon right aligned people. Nobody would say, that Breivik is innocent just because administrative used his case to justify its policies.

3) Your entire angle is based around convoluted theory, that Burmese pre-planned rape and murder of a child to frame policial activists from muslim background. If it was this simple, Burmese - given their authoritarian government would just straightly crush its muslim minority. This case would is not needed as justification at all especially given the risks involved.

Sometimes, the obvious answer is the correct one. The man is most likely the culprit aswell. And the human rights activists are doing themselves huge disservice by fraternizing with him.

This case occured in the United States, in Utah. There was no Burmese prosecutor.

The basic argument against him being guilty is not political, it is the simple fact that there is no evidence against him, while there is evidence against others.

This case does have obvious political elements, but basically it is a simple case of predatory law enforcers attacking a person only because they can. If he had the slightest ability to defend himself, or even an attorney willing to defend him, there would have been no case. He was held in jail for half a decade without a rrial because they had no evidence. The only reason they went to trial was because the defense attorneys were in agreement that he would not be defended.

As for Breivik, he was a murderer with very skewed beliefs. A person could argue he has some obvious deficits, but his guilt is not in doubt. How anybody profited politically is an aside.

Esar Met is most likely not guilty, and unlike Breivik also, he has no political beliefs, probably could not even name the president much less argue dogma.

Another comment about that.

Here is a basic timeline of his "confessional statements".

1) He is arrested and clearly does not confess, does not even seem to know why he was arrested, by all accounts.

2) He is interrogated, and again convincingly states he did not kill the child.

3) He is told again and again that he must confess, and finally he tries to confess, but at every turn gets basic facts about the crime wrong, to the point that it is clear he has no idea what happened, he is just trying to satisfy the people who are terrorizing him.

4) Once the confession tape is reviewed, all parties agree obviously that it shows a coerced confession. However without the confession there is no case. So the defense and prosecution agree to keep the video secret on technical grounds, but to not discredit it so that it can be used. In other words, their position is "We have a confession from him on video, and it is valid, but we cannot show it to anybody because it is secret".  

5) At every point after the coerced confession he made it clear that he did not kill the child, and this presented a problem for the prosecution, which needed to maintain the validity of the 'secret' confession video.

6) It was arranged that "a defense attorney" would get him to plead guilty and the case would look 'clean'. The defense attorney met with him at the jail, and Met was told that if he pled guilty he would not be killed. By now he knew how they were operating, so he turned the tables on them. He agreed to plead guilty, but when he got to the court he started shouting that he did not commit the murder. The defense attorney, in stead of even trying to pretend he was a defense attorney, now went fully to the prosecution. Media was told he had an outburst.

7) Eventually a trial was held and it was clear throughout the trial that there were two sides. The prosecution, which consisted of lawyers on both sides including prosecution and defense, and the accused on the other side. The trial was a complete farce which should have been thoroughly discredited by local media.

The basic message of the judges in this case is "False confessions, coerced confessions, are completely acceptable as long as lawyers can adequately prevent the facts from becoming public".

A lot of countries have trials like that. The only difference here is that the people all had nice clothing, expensive suits and access to all sorts of techno mumbo jumbo to bullshit everybody with.

In the Soviet Union there were prosecutors who got confessions from 100% of the people they interrogated. And the confessions would be videotaped or transcribed an a trial would be held. In some cases those prosecutors who got confessions from 100% of their victims were almost certainly dealing with not a single person who was guilty.

Got this one yesterday. Notice that he is trying very hard to convince them that he is giving an honest confession, the interviewers have made it clear that he must confess and his confession must pass as the truth. Notice too that despite trying desperately to create a confession, almost nothing that he says is consistent with the crime scene. Again, he wants to confess because he is scared of what will happen, to him and others, if he does not confess, but he simply does not know what happened. He was not present when the girl died.

add
Another observation, http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/57399926-78/met-hser-moo-ner.html.csp

-

A1: Where did she watch the video with you?
T: (Where did she watch the video with you?)
S: (Upstairs)
T: (Which one?)
S: (The first floor.)
T: The visiting room.
A1: The visiting room? First floor?
T: Yeah, first floor.
A1: When did you take her down the basement?
T: (When did you take her down the basement?)
A1: We know it was you. Your footprint is next to her body. Don’t lie to me.
S: (I didn’t take her down the basement.)
A1: When did he take her down to basement?
T: (When did you take her down the basement? Answer him. When did you take her downstairs?)
A1: Your footprint. It was right next to her dead body. We know you had her down the basement. Go ahead.
T: (They know everything. They found the black foot mark on her body. And what they found was the whole mark of your whole foot, not just the heel. Medical examiners have already checked thoroughly.)
A1: This is your only opportunity to tell us what happened.
T: (Now, they know everything.)
A1: Her blood is on your bed. Her blood. Her blood is on his bed.
T: (And they have also found the girl’s blood on your bag.)
S: (My bag?)
T: bag, alright?
A1: Bed, bed.
T: (Oh..on your bed. The girl’s blood is on your bed.)
A1: We don’t think that when she came into your house, you know, that you wanted to kill her. Kill her. Murder her.
T: (As I said earlier, when the girl came to visit your place, you..) {interrupted}
A1: because if you did, you probably would have spent more time planning it, like where am I gonna put the body when she’s dead.
T: (You may not have wanted to kill her. But you played with her. You spent so much time together.)
A1: You didn’t think about the fact that your room-mates would be home, eating dinner?
T: (You didn’t even eat together with your roommates when they asked you to join dinner with them.)
S: (I did.)
A1: What did he say?
T: (That night, Monday night..)
S: (When they came in on Monday night, I had already had my dinner. How could I eat again?)
A1: What did he say?
T: He already ate.
A1: Right, but that has nothing with.. What I’m saying is that you didn’t plan on all your room-mates being upstairs after you had killed this girl. I mean how are you gonna get upstairs with your roommates sitting down watching TV. How are you gonna explain a dead body over your shoulders and go out the front door? That’s what I meant.
Sorry..Okay..you take this girl downstairs in the basement.
T: (You take this girl downstairs in the basement. Just listen to him.)
A1: Her blood is on your bed.
T: (Her blood is found on your bed.)
A1: Her blood is on the wall.
T: (And on the wall.)
A1: And your room-mates are upstairs.
T: (Your roommates are upstairs. You know, the ones who you live with.)
S: (Yes, they were upstairs.)
A1: What did he say?
T: Yeah.. they’re living upstairs.
A1: They’re upstairs but there’s a dead girl..there’s a girl. How are you going to explain her being in the basement to your..to your room-mates? Ask him that. How is he going to explain dead girl lying…Why’s she down the basement with him?
T: This is he explains what did he see..
A1: No.. she’s down the basement with him.
T: (She’s down the basement with you, right?)
A1: He can’t explain to his room-mates why she’s down there with him.
T: (You can’t explain to your roommates why the girl’s down there with you. You were missing.)
A1: Especially when she’s dead.
T: (Then, the girl died.)
A1: And her panties are out. Her underwear, her panties are out.
T: (And her panties are out. Her underwear, her panties are out.)
A2: Was it an accident or did you plan this?
T: (Now, what he wants to know is if it was an accident or if you planned it. Was it an accident or did you plan it?)
A1: Say it again!
T: (Now, what he wants to know is if it was an accident or if you planned it. Was it an accident or did you plan it?)
A2: because we can understand it if it was an accident.
T: (But from what they understand, it was an accident.)
A2: If it wasn’t an accident, you must have planned to do this.
T: (If it wasn’t an accident, you must have planned to do this.)
A2: So, was it an accident or did you plan this?
T: (What they want to know is “Was it an accident or did you plan this?” They want to know the answer. Which one is it? “Was it an accident or did you do it intentionally?”)
A2: So, which is it? Was it an accident or did you plan this?
T: (Which is it? Was it an accident or did you plan this?)
A2: Accident or you planned it?
T: (Answer him.)
A2: Which is it?
T: (Which is it?)
A2: It’s time to tell us. What happened? We need to know why.
T: (Now, it’s time to talk. They’ve been doing this the whole day. You need to talk.)
A2: Do you want people thinking that you planned this out?
T: (Do you want people to think that you planned this out or do you want them to see it as an accident?)
A2: Or do you want people to understand what really happened down there?
T: (What happened down there was.. Do you want people to think that you planned this out or do you want them to see it as an accident?)
A2: We don’t think.. we don’t think you meant to hurt her. We don’t think you meant to hurt her. We don’t think you meant to hurt her.
T: (As I said earlier, for them.. you know)
A1: Go ahead. Go ahead.
T: (They think that you didn’t want to hurt the girl.)
A2: But things may have gone too far and we need to know what happened.
T: (You have been thinking very long and they want to know why.)
A1: Come on. Tell us.
T: (Tell them.)
A2: What happened?
T: (What happened?)
A2: What happened?
T: (What happened?)
A2: What happened?
S: (Okay. Then, I’m gonna tell the truth. But I’m afraid of them.)
T: (No, don’t be. They’re not gonna do anything to you. If you tell the truth, your charges can be reduced but if you lie, it’s not gonna be good for you because they have already known everything.)
A1: What was that?   
T: Let me explain! I will be explaining later.
A1: Okay. Alright.
T: (Why? We both are Myanmar and I really sympathize with you, brother. It is better for you to tell them the truth. Well, they have already known everything. They’ve got all the evidence so if you lie, and if they know that you’re lying, you can be charged for lying, too. They’re watching you. They’re watching how you lie. So, if you lie and they find out about that, that will double your charges. Do you understand? Now, tell them the truth and they can understand that it was an accident and reduce the charges.)
A1: Okay. Let us know, now.
S: (It was nothing, you know. People say that children are the most important ones in this country. She fell down the stairs while I was playing with her. And there was blood running out of mouth. She said she was gonna tell her dad about that and I told her “Why would you do that?” Then, I grabbed her and she slipped out of my hand and bumped into the wall.)
T: (So, did you kicked her again?)
A1: What did he say?
A2: What did he just say?
T: He knew about America.
S: (You can say it was an accident. They can assume it as an accident if they want. I didn’t do that to her intentionally. Actually, I killed her because she said she could make things up and put me into trouble.)
T: (Did you fuck her?)
S: (No, I’m not that kind of guy.)
A1: What did he say?
T: We got it.
A1: Hold on. Hold on.
T: Okay we got it.
A1: Okay, we’ll relax.
T: He just came here, United States. He knew about.. we have this orientation in Thailand, you know.
A1: You have what?
T: Orientation.
A1: Orientation. Okay. In Thailand, you have orientation about United States.
T: About the America is.. children is very important. And he knows about that. And then, the children is play, play and the children is lay down from the stairs. She got off from the stairs bleeding.
A1: Hit her head? On the stairs?
T: Yeah. She is. She lay down from the stairs.
A2: She fell down?
T: She fell down. And then she get the bleeding and then, the children is cry and then she talk to father and then like this. He is scared. If she talk to the father, he will be get the something. So, he is scared. And then, he is, you know, he is..
A1: Okay, we’re getting somewhere, alright? But you’re still full of shit. Tell him that.
T: Yeah.
A1: He’s still full of shit. He’s getting somewhere but he’s still full of shit.
T: (How did you kill her?)
S: (Huh?)
T: (How did you kill her?)
A1: Because if she would have fallen down the stairs completely by accident why not go and give her help?
T: (Like I said, if she would have fallen down the stairs by accident, why didn’t you go and give her help?)
S: (I did. But it didn’t work. I put her in my arms and soothed her but she didn’t listen to me. She said she would tell her dad about that and..)
T: (She would tell her dad?)
S: (Yes)
T: (Okay, is it possible? You could tell her dad that she fell down the stairs completely by accident. Right?)
S: (No, her dad is.. I’m scared of her dad.)
T: She fell down. The children cry. He put her.. ‘Don’t cry. Don’t cry. Don’t talk to father.’ But she’s not stop crying. And he’s very scared.
A2: Why don’t you shut her up?
T: (Did you shut her up?)
S: (No.)
T: No
A2: You wanted to make her be quiet?
T: (How did you try to make her be quiet?)
A1: You wanted her to stop crying.
S: (She cried after falling down and I soothed her. It was an accident so I told her to stop crying but she said she would tell her dad and I said “Don’t talk to your dad. We always play together, right? We ride the bike together and now you fell down the stairs while we’re playing. What happened to you?” She said her mouth bled and she ran out of my arms saying she would tell her dad. So, I grabbed her arm but I grabbed so hard that she hit the wall when she got out of my hand and fell down. When she got down, she was shaking and then, she died.)
A1: What did he say?
T: She fell down. The children fell down. She got the bleeding from the bleeding mouth. And she cry. He’s talk to ‘Hey, we’re..’ She talk to him about she will be talk to father, my father. He’s scared of her father. Don’t talk to father. We’re always play. We’re always playing, you know.  This time is this is an accident. Don’t talk to father. She’s not. She’s run out. And then, he’s catch and pull out. This is he cannot catch her and then, she hit the wall and then, she was like this you know shocked.
A1: Okay.
A2: And then, he put her in the shower?
A1: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. What happened after that?
T: (What happened after that?)
S: (She was shaking and I was looking at her. I was thinking what was happening to her. I thought she became unconscious. Or was it ..)
T: (Was she still shaking?)
S: (Shaking. After she fell down the stairs, she was shaking when I looked at her. She was shaking and I was looking. I thought may be she became unconscious. And then, there was blood running down from her mouth and nose and she was motionless.)
A1: What did he say?
T: And then, he’s pull out.
S: (I was so scared when she became so still that I didn’t even drag her to the bathroom. I left her near the entrance. But then, I realized that it was near the staircase and people would be able to see her. So, I pulled her aside and I ran away.)
T: (So, you didn’t leave her in the bathroom?)
S: (No, I didn’t.)
A1: What did he say?
T: And then, when she ran out, he is pull.. he’s pull a very force, you know. Hit the wall and then, she is fell, like this, shake. Shake and some of the bleeding from the nose and mouth and bleeding. He is still looking. This is die or something lost consciousness or he’s thinking about she is. She is no shake more. And then, this is.. this is downstairs.
A1: Down the basement?
T: Downstairs. He’s worried about somebody seeing her.
A1: Okay.
T: He pull to the door, the front door of the bathroom. Not inside. Just cover it inside. And then, he went out the home.
A2: He ran away?
T: Yeah.
A1: Okay. You’re getting close. Okay, but your story doesn’t match the evidence. Tell him that.
T: What’s that?
A1: His story is getting close to the truth. But it’s not the complete truth.
T: (But the story you said was.. it was..)
A1: We need you to tell us the whole truth.
T: (it’s just a piece. Not the complete truth. They need more. Tell them the truth.)
A1: Do you feel bad about what happened to her?
S: (That was what happened when I was with her. I didn’t take her to the bathroom.)
T: Not.. not.. he didn’t do about her.. he didn’t pull inside of the bathroom, just put the the front door of the bathroom and then he went out. That’s it. He no more do.
A1: Does he feel bad about what happened to her?
T: Bad?
A1: Does he feel bad about what happened to her?
A2: Does he feel sad?
A1: Upset about what happened to her?
T: (Did you do anything to make her cry or upset?)
S: (I didn’t do else to anything make her cry. She fell down the stairs and I soothed her. She ran out and hit the wall. And her body fell down the stairs. That’s it.)
T: The same. He talked the same thing.
(When did you fuck her, before she got off the stairs or after?)
A1: Okay. When did you have sex with her before she got off the stairs or after?
A2: Sex.
A1: When did he fuck her?
T: (Did you..)
S: (No, I didn’t. I can swear.)
T: He say. He guarantee.
S: (I didn’t do that.)
T: He guarantee. No, he didn’t.
A2: He what?
T: He didn’t.
A2: He didn’t.
T: Yeah, he didn’t.
A1: What did you do to her?
T: (What did you do to her?)
A1: Why wasn’t she wearing any panties?
T: (Why wasn’t she wearing any panties?)
A1: We’re gonna find it.
S: (I don’t know. Didn’t I say that I didn’t take her into the bathroom.)
T: (No. I’ll tell you what.)
S: (Yes.)
T: (Don’t lie.)
S: (I’m not lying. I’m just saying..)
T: (Now, the kid..)
S: (Now, I’ve talked.)
T: (Yes, but wait.)
S: (I’ve already talked. I’m telling the truth. There’re nothing to lie about, right?)
T: No, he already told the truth. He already talked to the he killed already talked to true.
A1: Okay.
T: That’s it. He no more do. He no more did. That’s it.
A1: But your story doesn’t match with the evidence.
T: (Your story isn’t there yet. What they know is more than that. They want to know the truth.)
A2: The whole truth. All the truth.
T: (They want to know the whole truth.)
A1: Everything.
T: (Everything.)
A1: To bring peace to her family. This is very painful. To bring peace to her family. Peace to her family.
A2: Peace.
T: Ah.. P-E-A-C-E.
A1: Yes. Yes.
A2: Sorry.  
T: I think peas.
A1: To bring peace to her family. We need to know the whole truth.
T: (Like I said, to bring peace to her family. They want to give them the truth. They know much more than this. They’ve already run the medical tests and now, they want to know the truth from you.)
A2: And to bring peace to you. You need to get it off your chest and tell the truth. The peace to yourself.
T: (Telling truth will also bring peace to your soul and to them, alright? Because they’ve already known everything. Now, they’re asking you just to put this in the record. They want to hear what you say. That’s it. They have every detail. In America, you can run tests and know what bruises are where and even the fingerprints. So, they’ve already known and they’re asking because they just want to hear what you have to say. Do you get it?)
S: (Yes. It’s true that the girl died after what happened with me but I didn’t rape her. I’m telling the truth. I can swear.)
T: He already talked everything. He killed but he didn’t fuck. He pray. This is he pray.
A1: He pray?
T: He pray.
A1: Okay. He prayed after she was dead?
T: No.. No pray about. He guarantee. If you buy the car, you have warrantee or guarantee.
A1: Guarantee!.. Okay. Okay.
T: This is he didn’t.
A1: After she was dead? After she was dead?
T: (After she was dead,)
A1: What did you do?
T: (What did you do?)
S: (Nothing. I dragged her from her hair and moved her. Then I left home until you came and arrested me this morning.)
T: (Where did they arrest you?)
S: (At my uncle’s home.)
T: After he done, he pull the hair. He pull the.. nobody see you know. If the downstairs is somebody see. He’s a little bit cover over there. He pull out and then ran out.
A1: Where did you go?
T: (Where did you go?)
S: (Huh?)
T: (Where did you go?)
S: (I was scared to death and I didn’t know where to run. So, I just went to my uncle’s place.)
T: He didn’t know about the where.. he’s very scared at this time.    And then, He doesn’t have the any idea about where can I go? And then, only one way. His uncle. He went to the his uncle.
A2: He went to his uncle’s. The place down there? His uncle’s house?
T: Yeah. Yeah.
A1: What did you do with your clothes that were all bloody? What did he do with his bloody clothes? He must have had blood on it as he’s dragging her around and she’s bleeding and shaking?
T: (Like I said, she’s bleeding, right? So, there must be blood on your shirt. What did you do with that shirt?)
S: (Yes, there’s some blood on my shirt. I washed it off with soap at my uncle’s home.)
T: A little bit bleeding and then, he..he..
A1: That shirt?
T: (That shirt?)
A1: That’s the shirt you wore?
S: (Yes.)
A1: Can I take that?
T: (Take it off. He wants to see it.)
He some soap and then he wash it.
A2: What about the pants?
T: (What about the pants? These pants?)
S: (Yes, these pants.)
T: Yes
A2: Those pants? Okay. What shoes?
T: (What shoes?)
A2: What shoes were you wearing?
T: (What shoes were you wearing?)
S: (I wasn’t wearing any shoes. It was in the house so..)
T: (You just ran away barefoot?)
S: (I was wearing white shoes when I ran away.)
T: (Where are those shoes?)
S: (They’re at the place where I was arrested.)
T: The shoe is his uncle home.
A1: Okay. Alright.
A2: What colour were they? We just want to make sure that…
T: (What colour were they?)
S: (White.)
T: White.
A1: Okay. What kind?
T: (What kind?)
A2: Brand?
S: (Just slippers.)
T: A little bit skinny. Not too thick.
A1: Okay.
T: He didn’t know about the what kind, what trademark.
A1: What else did you do other than trying scrap all his clothes?
T: Him?
A1: Yes..yes. Ask him. What else did he do?
T: (Then, then..what else did you do with the clothes?)
S: (I didn’t do anything else with the clothes.)
T: He didn’t do anything.
A2: Did you ever come back to the apartment?
T: (Did you ever come back to the apartment?)
S: (No.)
A2: How long after she died did he leave?
T: (How long after she died did you leave?)
S: (She was shaking and when she stopped shaking, I was so scared. I was thinking what if her father or one of her relatives had seen her? I ran away as I was afraid that they would hit me.)
T: He’s run out immediately.
A2: Immediately?
T: Immediately. Because he’s scared about somebody relationship or her dad fight with him. He’s scared. He went out.
A2: What time was it when you left the house?
T: (What time was it when you left the house?)
S: (Around four o’clock.)
T: (Four p.m?)
S: (Yes.)
T: (It wasn’t dark yet.)
S: (No.)
T: About 4 o’clock. 4 pm.
A1: Okay, 4 pm?
T: 4 pm.
A1: Who was at the house when you left?
T: (Who was at the house when you left?)
S: (No one.)
T: Nobody.
A2: Did you tell anybody about this?   You told anybody about this?
T: (Did you tell anybody about this?)
S: (No. I didn’t tell anyone.)
T: No, nobody knows.
A1: Okay. Alright. We’ll take a couple of minutes. Stay right here.
A2: We’ll be back. 2 minutes.

This thread doesn't seem to have done much better than the previous ones. I'll make one more bounty thread asking short simple questions and pay small bounties if there are useful answers. On this thread if there is activity again I'll try to feed the bounty as I'm able.

The first question, for a 0.5 ltc bounty if a person has an answer that settles the question adequately... Did Met flee or was his visit to family planned?

This was posted on another forum and also got no response.

A central part of the prosecution is that Mr Met fled the apartment building after allegedly killing the child. The prosecution stated, and the defense did not effectively challenge, that Mr Met's visit to the relatives he had in the Cottonwood part of the city was unplanned.

The prosecutor said explicitly that Mr Met fled the apartment in a panic.

Mr Met had been held in jail for several years prior to trial, while this and other issues were investigated, so the prosecutor had at least as much information as is public.

Here is what is public

1) In the confession tapes Met clearly states the visit was planned, and he gives the name of somebody for the investigators to talk to if they want to check. The FBI agent is insistent that he does not accept that answer but that is the answer Met tries to give.

2) A neighbor called the relative's house where Met was, so there were people who knew he would be there and that is a strong indication the visit was planned.

3) An FBI agent said that Met's roommates knew that he was at that house visiting family and that one of the roommates provided the telephone of that house. "When asked about Met, one of Met's roommates told the agents that he believed Met was at his cousin's house in Cottonwood Heights and provided a phone number." ref http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-suprem...t/1755558.html

4) It would have been a simple matter for the defense to discredit the prosecutor in this regard. The defense could have called that FBI agent as a witness, they could have called the roommates as witnesses, they could have asked the first neighbor who called the house how they knew he was there. Did the defense call any witnesses to give actual facts? Or did they let the prosecutor's deception stand? The defense did not call any witnesses n the entire case, and they prevented the accused himself from testifying. One of many indications of gross collusion between the prosecutor and defense lawyers to gain a conviction despite a complete lack of any real evidence.

5) Prior to the judge issuing a gag order in the case, there had been questions raised publicly about discrepancies between witness statements and police versions of events. After the gag order there were no more public statements that questioned the police versions, aside from small matters raised and dismissed quietly. http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/55243318-78/met-moo-hser-ner.html.csp

Other questions will be added, anybody who answers a question first with some information or interpretation that adds significantly to the case, either towards guilt or innocence for the accused, can get the bounty if I agree that their comment is useful. Generally there will only be one bounty per question unless somebody makes a huge observation after a bounty is paid.

~copied post from websleuth website~
For anybody interested in researching further, in the last week I got the last two translations / transcriptions from a translator and uploaded all the translations / transcriptions in the original form that they were sent in.

https://transfer.sh/2hEAw/TwoTranslations.zip
https://transfer.sh/JfAfr/TwoTranslations.7z

The free file link is good for 14 days I think, if anybody wants them after that they can post and I'll reupload them or put them on another site that doesn't have a 14 day limit.

The two links are the same material in .zip and .7z forms.

Each zipped folder contains two folders.

One folder has five transcripts in English done by a refugee of Rohingya background. This person has limited English skills but is living stateless and trying to make money as a translator. He stated that he does not believe Met is Rohingya, but my impression was that he wanted to distance somebody accused of that kind of crime from his community.

The second folder contains ten pages which include the original Burmese language transcripted as well as a highly skilled translation. This translator is a person living in Burma with no direct interest in either side, aside perhaps from a reaction to the crime itself.

Here are the details of the two folders.
The 7z folder 312 KB (319,947 bytes)
The zip folder 353 KB (361,995 bytes)
The decompressed folder 461 KB (472,152 bytes) consisting of 181 KB (186,324 bytes) plus 279 KB (285,828 bytes)

-

add

Worth adding, there are a lot of small indications that he is not guilty which any person researching the case should come across. One example with regard to translations. If you run the Burmese transcription through Google Translate it produces a colloquialism as one of Met's answers which stands out as an indicator he is not guilty. I won't mention what it is because there are a lot of these little indications in this case and I keep wondering why nobody notices them.

On the other side, if a person wants to read guilt into the 'confessions', one of the strongest pieces, to a civilized audience, would be Met's comment that he 'would tell the truth, except he is afraid of the victim's family'. To most civilized Western ears that indicates guilt. But it ignores the context of the confession, and when looked at in proper context it is another indicator that he did not commit the crime.

1) He says clearly and convincingly at the beginning that he did not commit the crime.

2) At some point the FBI agent and the detective convince him that for his own well being, and the well being of others he is interested in, he has to produce a confession and it has to match the facts of the case.

3) He clearly does not give weight to the substance of what he says. His attitude clearly is "I will say whatever you want me to say", then as the confession develops his attitude changes to "You guys are pretty twisted, but you do have the upper hand and I will trust that in exchange for the confession you will follow certain rules". This is a sort of tacit social contract that is common and Met is trying to follow it honestly. Sort of the etiquette of victims. His message is "I am giving you the confession, almost anything you want me to say, because you have immediate power over me, you beat me a little while ago when I was arrested, you attacked my aunt and uncle too, so I recognize your threat. But the real threat is not from you who are pretending to protect the family's interest. The real threat is from the family itself. I am confessing to a crime I did not commit, and in exchange you have to pretend to protect me the way you are pretending to look after the family i.e., at least a little. You cannot use this "court" infrastructure to simply force me to confess and deliver me to the victim's family".

That may not be clear to some people, but there are many other examples of things that a person might think indicates guilt, but which does not.

If you see some piece of evidence in the case and you think "Oh, that is an indicator of guilt", simply mention it and it will be addressed. So far the only piece of evidence in the entire case that might be indicative of guilt seems to be his comment about the shoes being thrown in the bathroom. Again, that has been discussed earlier and there are possible explanations for how he would have known that. Aside from that unexplained piece, there is not one single piece of evidence against him in this case that withstands scrutiny.

There is some substantial evidence against one or more others which does withstand scrutiny.

Sorry for the delay. I posted the full translations a few weeks ago

new links

https://uploadfiles.io/8vnif   312 KB (319,947 bytes)

https://uploadfiles.io/28zj2  353 KB (361,995 bytes)

and have the material that should have the dna results that were purchased with the police report and which seem quite different from the dna results used at trial, begging the question of what evidence did they use to keep him in jail for several years if the dna evidence was not good and the confession was worse. It will take a few days at least to sort through and find the dna papers but I'm pretty sure I have them now.

Regarding the confession translations, they are in the exact formats etc which I received them. one translator was using an ngo computer and was not expert with formats so the originals have to be played with a bit to make them useable.

Here are some, I haven't found the full folder yet. There was male dna but it could not be identified as Esar Met's as of the time the first results were done. In other words he was kept in jail on dna results that did not indicate guilt and a 'confession' that did not indicate guilt until the trial. The confession has been exposed. The dna results that were used at trial, different than the dna results hidden from the public initially, are not available yet.

Note that much of the evidence, including hair evidence sent to the fbi, seems to have disappeared.

https://i.imgur.com/gpRaHaY.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ZGKTtyY.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/DyhHgg5.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/SY8iOz1.jpg

The rest will be posted before too long.