In today's news is a story about the murder of Karina Vetrano, a woman killed in 2016 while jogging in NY.

Shortly after her murder, people pointed out similarities to an unsolved murder from 1995, that of Maria Alves.

When Ms Alves was killed the NYPD commissioner put 50 detectives on the case and a vast amount of resources, but no progress was made.

Shortly after people began pointing out the similarities between the two cases, police solved the older case, accusing a person who died in 1997. https://nypost.com/2017/01/03/focus-on-joggers-murder-helps-cops-solve-1995-cold-case/

There are some questions about the person arrested in the recent murder https://www.thedailybeast.com/he-confessed-to-karina-vetranos-murder-but-did-he-do-it but this question is about the 1995 murder.

Do you think the case was really solved? Or was it 'closed' for other reasons?

There is one bounty thread on this old case  and this is a separate bounty on the same case.

This involves the Hser Ner Moo murder case, a young child killed in Salt Lake city some years back.

To get this bounty, a person has to best explain the motive of the killer, regardless who the killer is. In other words you can't look at the accused and say "He was mad at such and such ehnicity because...", rather you have to look at all of the evidence and say the evidence points to such and such a motive.

Was the motive sexual as most people assume? Or was it to cover up an accidental death? Or was its purpose to 'punish' or 'make an example' of the victim or another motive? 

Whichever answer is best and posts a ltc address will get the bounty in two weeks, if nobody posts the bounty expires in two weeks.

You can google "Hser Ner Moo" and "Esar Met" and the word trial to find some testimony.

[Did Met flee or was his visit to family planned?]

This will be probably the last bounty thread on this subject, as there hasn't been much interest, but if you can answer any of the questions on this thread in a way that substantially clarifies an issue then you could get up to 1/2 ltc per question, at my discretion.

Esar Met was arrested for killing Hser Ner Moo, both were Burmese immigrants living in Salt Lake City Utah.

Met was held for several years while the prosecution tried to build a case. Finally they got the defense attorney to apparently convince Met to plead guilty. But once Met got to the court he started yelling that he was not guilty.

His 'confession' video was kept secret from the public and from jurors. It is available now and anybody watching it should be able to figure out why the prosecutors wanted it kept secret.

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 in 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.

Arkansas is famous for things like executing Barry Lee Fairchild.

Look at his photo and guess whether he confessed.



There was not much evidence against him but he did confess.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/31/us/ex     LINK BROKEN DELETE THIS SPACE ecution-of-retarded-man-is-fought.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/01/09/in-arkansas-a-death-row-struggle-and-doubt/772108c9-1db5-4f2e-8ffe-0c512c842a1b/?utm_term=.e70760a4204c

Next month they are going to make space on death row, 8 cells will be freed up to be precise http[Suspicious link removed]cution-dates-for-8-inmates/

edit ~ scroll down for translation

Extract from Chuck Erickson's confession https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCyKnc1BVV8

Details of Lourdes Torres confession https://www.innocenceproject.org/charges-dropped-in-nyc-case-after-dna-proves-womans-confession-was-false/

"More than 1 out of 4 people wrongfully convicted but later exonerated by DNA evidence made a false confession or incriminating statement."
https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/false-confessions-admissions/

Interview
https://www.innocenceproject.org/in-his-own-words-qa-with-false-confession-expert-richard-leo/

Archimedes said "Give me a lever big enough... and I will move the world". The police version of that is "Give me enough leverage and I will make anybody confess to anything". It's something a lot of Russians learned a few generations ago. http://listverse.com/2013/05/22/10-controversial-convictions-based-on-false-confessions/

add
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8g4utm8d67nyyi0/IMAG0088bc.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3sfz02udfnr7zw1/IMAG0101bc.JPG

[Issue Number 1]

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 to portray themselves as having done things adequately. http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=8872390&itype=NGPSID

If Met is not guilty, as the evidence indicates, it suggests the police let him be prosecuted so they could keep their jobs.


0.01 btc to one random comment on this thread per week, more or less, depending on my finances.

Try to answer any of the issues below and win up to 0.01 btc per week.

~

First tape English http://pastebin.com/59LjA7xq
Second tape English http://pastebin.com/Cy6461kY
Third tape English http://pastebin.com/gR984YPG
~
Post below was copied from websleuths then edited. Topic headline edited.
...

Issue Number 1

"¶55 After reviewing a video recording of the interview and a transcript, the district court ruled that the transcript could be admitted for impeachment purposes because “[Met's] statements to the officers were voluntary.” The court reasoned that the interrogation did not employ the types of coercive interrogation techniques that could lead to the conclusion that testimony was not freely given. For example, the district court noted that the interview lasted less than two-and-a-half hours; that the interrogation “techniques used by the officers in this case did not create a coercive environment that overcame [Met's] will”; that the officers were not unreasonably persistent; that the “interpretation problems, although pervasive throughout the interview,” were not coercive and did not cause Met to make incriminating statements; and that Met demonstrated a calm demeanor throughout the interview..."

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 of course is Rohingya from Burma. Many of his relatives killed in the past and 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 Number 2

In the confession, which the prosecution went to great lengths to keep secret, http://pastebin.com/59LjA7xq , 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, 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 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1755558.html

If he did flee abruptly, and just by blind chance managed to select the right bus to take to another bus stop 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.

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 215 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 at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1755558.html
¶15 ... 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 Number 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. What are his options? 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 would a person recommend be done in a case like this?

Please don't say gofundme.

If this lady https://www.gofundme.com/help-homeless-wheelchair-woman can't get $1, then Met won't get enough for a fair trial.

~

Issue Number 4 note none of the common file sharing sites nor imgur etc are working where I am. If the files linked below are not visible I can email them or post them anywhere anybody suggests. Here is a 7z file that has the images linked below

https://www.dropbox.com/s/juio4dsjqe0ran4/gif.7z?dl=0

http://wikisend.com/download/118782/gif.7z

Should a person wonder why one of the roommates returned home an hour earlier than the others the day the child was murdered?
http://tinypic.com/r/28tgz9f/9 or http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=28tgz9f&s=9#.WL5GmjsrIdU

Should they wonder about the obvious discrepancies in the stories the roommates gave, including their knowledge of whether a child had gone missing?
http://tinypic.com/r/lfigm/9 or http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=lfigm&s=9#.WL5GfzsrIdU
http://tinypic.com/r/311lx50/9 or http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=311lx50&s=9#.WL5GRDsrIdU

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 juice previously on the spot where the victim had been killed?

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

"But in several places in the basement where forensic analysts collected DNA swabs, the child wasn't the only DNA profile present, Grundy said. Most samples were too faint to tell who they might belong to, save one: a DNA sample collected from the west wall of the basement.

There, Grundy said, experts were able to exclude everyone in the home as being possible contributors — including the defendant — except for..."

Issue Number 5

The issue of when Hser Ner Moo died is central to who might have killed her. The body was found 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~ http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593861/Responders-at-scene-of-7-year-old-girls-death-describe-evidence-findings.html?pg=all

Issue Number 6

Notice on the first two tapes he finally gives a confession http://pastebin.com/HLUh5RhM but 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 maybe 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 Number 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 tape 3 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 an aside, and not likely related, there is a note in the police report than 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, were given permission, 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 that made him scratch.

~Those two issues are the only ones that I notice as needing further research regarding Met~

~There has never been 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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guROoUM8_24

Posted this link on another heavily ignored thread, but the question arises

and once the men were rounded up... what did the police do with the women?

a) Offer them jobs in the tourism industry.

b) Bring them food and chat about the weather.

c) Help them with household tasks since the men of the village were busy elsewhere.

~

An old case, but a person wonders too if 4 years is too harsh? Or too lenient? What would they get today?

http://www.omct.org/violence-against-women/urgent-interventions/myanmar/2004/04/d16844/

The Esar Met confession videos were kept secret from the jury for obvious reasons. They show a young man being coerced into creating a confession, but getting fact after fact about the crime wrong.

On most video cameras there is a timestamping option. The time and date are inserted into each frame. On police videos that option is almost always used of course. It is very hard to find a video tape of a police confession in the United States that has had that feature disabled.

Is it a coincidence that the videos have been cropped? Some of the videos start or end while the interrogation is in progress.

The only other police confession video easily findable without a timestamp is the central park jogger confession

http://time.com/4523257/donald-trump-central-park-five/

http://thepsychreport.com/conversations/coerced-to-confess-the-psychology-of-false-confessions/

note
The tapes were obtained legally, purchased from the police department, along with other documents.

Have not translated any of this yet and the characters come up differently on different programs so 3 links are provided for anybody who wants to view.

This has not been translated nor viewed by anybody including me yet, except for the police who had it done and declined to share it with the public.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1ug6xrkeuz05yk/Confession%20tape%201.docx?dl=0

http://pastebin.com/2ANpRMCb

http://s0.docspal.com/files/processed/29/11577629-ufaunhdo/Confession%20tape%201.txt

01:00
T: မင္းနာမည္ ေမးေနတယ္ ဘယ္သူလဲတဲ့
01:04
S: အာ ဆာမက္
01:06
T: မင္းနာမည္ ဆာမက္
01:29
T: စႏိုးေတြ႕ဖူးၿပီလား ဒီမွာ
    စႏိုးေတြ႔ဖူးၿပီလားတဲ့
01:32
S: ေတြ႔ဖူးတယ္
02:02
T: ညီေလးဒီကို ဘာေၾကာင့္ ေရာက္လာတယ္ဆိုတာ သိလားတဲ့
02:06
S: မသိဘူး
02:12
T: ညီေလး ဘာ့ေၾကာင့္ ဒီေရာက္လာတယ္ဆိုတာ သိလား မသိဘူးလား
02:23
T: သူ အားလုံးနဲ႔ မင္းအိမ္မွာ ေနတဲ့သူေတြ အားလုံးနဲ႔ စကားေျပာၿပီးသြားၿပီတဲ့ မင္းအိမ္မွာ ဘယ္ႏွေယာက္ေနလဲ လူအားလုံးနဲ႔ သူစကားေျပာၿပီးသြားၿပီတဲ့
02: 42
T: ၿပီးေတာ့ ဒီ ခုနက မင္းရဲ႕ အိမ္ထဲမွာ ရွိတဲ့ ျဖစ္ပ်က္ခဲ့တာ အားလုံးကို အေၾကာင္းအရာ အားလုံးကိုု သူသိၿပီးသြားၿပီတဲ့ ဒီေလာက္ဆို သိၿပီလား

02:55
T: မင္းက ေတာ္ေတာ္ကို ေတာ္ေတာ္လည္း ခုနလိုေပါ့
03:10
T: သူတို႔အားလုံးသိတယ္ ေနာက္ မင္းနဲ႔ အတူတူ ေနတဲ့လူေတြေပါ့ေလ သူတို႔အားလုံးကို စကားေျပာၿပီးတဲ့ အတြက္ အားလုံးသိတယ္
03:23
T: သူတို႔ အေနနဲ႔ မင္းကို ဇာတ္လမ္းေလး တစ္ပုဒ္လိုေပ့ါေလ ျပန္စေျပာမယ္
03:38
T: ဒါ မင္းရဲ႕ ဘဝအတြက္ကို ေတာ္ေတာ္ဆုိးဝါးတယ္ ဒီကိစၥေတြက ေနာ္..မင္းလုပ္ခဲ့တဲ့ ဒီကိစၥေတြက မင္းရဲ႕ ဘဝအတြက္ကို ေတာ္ေတာ္ ဆုိးဝါးတယ္
03:57
T: သူ႔အေနနဲ႔ မင္းဆုံးျဖတ္ေစခ်င္တယ္ ဘယ္လိုျဖစ္တာလဲတဲ့
04:03
S: ဘာကိုလဲ အစ္ကို ဘာကိုလဲ
04:24
S: အစ္ကို ဆုိလိုတာ ကၽြန္ေတာ္မွ သေဘာမေပါက္ဘဲ
04:27
T: မင္းျမန္မာ စကားေရာတတ္တယ္မလား
S: ဟုတ္ကဲ့တတ္တယ္
T: သူတို႔က အခု အခု အျဖစ္အပ်က္တစ္ခုကို ျဖစ္ေနတယ္
04:48
T: ဒီကေလး အခု ေသသြားၿပီတဲ့ မင္းသတ္တာတဲ့
S: မဟုတ္ဘူး

05:06
T: မင္းကိုေျပာျပမယ္ သူ႔အေနနဲ႔ မင္းကိုေျပာျပမယ္ သူတို႔ အေနနဲ႔ ေျပာသင့္တာ ေျပာထုိက္တာ ေျပာျပမယ္
မင္း အေနနဲ႔ကလည္း မင္း အမွန္တရားကို မင္း ေျပာရမယ္ ခံဝန္ခ်က္တစ္ခု
05:19
T: ခုနလိုေပါ့ ေျပာၿပီး ဆုိၿပီးတဲ့ဟာ အားလုံးကို မင္းတိတ္ဆိတ္စြာေနရမယ္ တိတ္တိတ္ ဆိတ္ဆိတ္ေနရမယ္
05:25
T: နားလည္လားတဲ့ နားလည္လား
05:37
T: ခုနလိုေပါ့ ခုနလိုေပ့ါ မင္းေျပာတဲ့အရာေတြ အားလုံးက ဘာပဲ ေျပာေျပာ ဒီအရာေတြ အားလုံးက ေနာ္ ဒီေန႔မင္းေျပာတဲ့ ခုန သူတို႔ ေမးခ်င္တာ ရွိ ေမးလိမ့္မယ္ ဟုတ္လား ေမးၿပီးေတာ့ မင္းျပန္ေျဖမယ္ ဒီေျပာတဲ့ စကားေတြ အားလုံးက တရားရုံးထိ တက္ရမယ့္ စကားေတြခ်ည္းပဲ အဲဒါ ေနာ္
05:55
T: မင္းနားလည္လားတဲ့
06:06
T: ခုနလုိေပ့ါ မင္းအေနနဲ႔ စကားတစ္ခု မေျပာခင္မွာ မင္းအေနနဲ႔ ျပန္ေျပာ.. ခုနလိုေပါ့ မင္းသိတဲ့ အေၾကာင္းအရာေတြ ျပန္ေျပာပိုင္ခြင့္ရွိတယ္ ခုနလိုေပ့ါ မင္းမဟုတ္ဘူး ဘာျဖစ္တယ္ ညာျဖစ္တယ္ မင္းျပန္ေျပာပိုင္ခြင့္ရွိတယ္ အဲဒါ မင္းရဲ႕ လြတ္လပ္ခြင့္
06:20
T: နားလည္လားတဲ့
ကိုယ့္ေမးလို႔ ကုိယ္ဟုတ္ရင္ ဟုတ္တယ္ ကုိယ္မဟုတ္ရင္ မဟုတ္ဘူး အမွန္အတိုင္း ေျပာရမယ္ အားလုံးက မင္း တရားရုံးမွာ ဒါေတြအားလုံးရင္ဆုိင္ရမယ္
06:37
T: ခုနကလိုေပါ့ ဒီဘာ မင္းကို တြန္းအားေပးတဲ့ အေနအထားမ်ဳိး မင္းကို ဒီမွာ ဒဏ္ေငြျဖစ္ျဖစ္ သို႔မဟုတ္ ခုနလိုေပါ့ တစ္ခုခုေပါ့ အျပစ္ေပးျခင္းတစ္ခုခုေပါ့ ဒါေတြက ခုနကေပါ့ ျဖစ္လာတဲ့ ျပႆနာေပၚခံရမယ္

06:57
T: နားလည္လား အခု ေျပာတဲ့ဟာေတြ အကုန္လံုးကို
07:09
T: မင္းအခု စိတ္ကို ေအးေအးထားေနာ္ စိတ္ကို ေအးေအးထား တည္တည္ၿငိမ္ၿငိမ္ထား သူတို႔ေမးတာေတြ အားလုံးကို ေအးေအးေဆးေဆးေျဖ
ၿငိမ္ၿငိမ္ေနေလ ညီေလး ၿငိမ္ၿငိမ္ေနေလ ဘာျဖစ္လို႔လဲ ဗိုက္ဆာလို႔လား
S: ခ်မ္းလို႔ ခ်မ္းတယ္
07:36
T: အခုနတုန္းက မင္း ခ်မ္းတာ တစ္ခုတည္း မဟုတ္ဘူးတဲ့ သူသိတယ္တဲ့ မင္းတစ္ခုခု သူတို႔ကို ေျပာျပခ်င္လို႔တဲ့ ဘာေျပာျပခ်င္လဲ ေျပာလိုက္
07:45
S: ဒီကေလးေလးသိတယ္ဆုိုတာ ဒီကေလးက ကၽြန္ေတာ္နဲ႔လည္း ခင္တယ္ ကၽြန္ေတာ္နဲ႔လည္း အၿမဲကစားတယ္ စက္ဘီးေတြဘာေတြ ေတာင္းစီးတယ္ ကၽြန္္ေတာ္အၿမဲ စက္ဘီးနဲ႔တင္ေပးတယ္ စက္ဘီးတူတူစီးတယ္
အခုသူေသသြားၿပီဆုိေတာ့ ဘယ္သူသတ္လို႔ သတ္မွန္းမွ မသိတဲ့ဟာႀကီးက ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ကို တုိင္ၾကားတယ္ ဆိုေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ ဘယ္လုိလုပ္ ေျပာလို႔တတ္ေတာ့မလဲ
08:13
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ညီမေလးတစ္ေယာက္လို ျဖစ္ေနၿပီ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ ညီမေလး အရင္းတစ္ေယာက္လို ျဖစ္ေနၿပီ အဲဒီကေလးက
08:48
T: သူေသသြားတာ မင္းရဲ႕ ေရခ်ဳိးခန္းထဲမွာ ေသသြားတာတဲ့
09:05
T: ကေလးရဲ႕ ခႏၶာကိုယ္မွာ မင္းရဲ႕ ဒီေျခေထာက္နဲ႔ ကန္ထားတဲ့ အရာ ေသြးေတြထြက္ၿပီးေတာ့ ေတြ႕ရတယ္တဲ့
မင္းရဲ႕ေရခ်ဳိးခန္းထဲမွာ
S: အဲဒါေတာ့ မျဖစ္ႏိုင္ဘူး
ဘယ္လိုျဖစ္လို႔ မျဖစ္ႏိုင္လဲဆုိေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္လည္း အဲဒီေန႔မနက္က ရီႏြတ္က ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ကို ဖုန္းထုိးၿပီး ေျပာတဲ့ မနက္က ကေလးေပ်ာက္တယ္လို႔ ေျပာတဲ့မနက္က ကၽြန္ေတာ္ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ဦးေလးအိမ္သြားတယ္ စက္ဘီး ဘီးေပါက္ေနလို႔ ေကာ္ဝယ္လုိ႔ရတယ္ ဆိုလို႔ အဲဒါ ေကာ္သြားပုိ႔တာ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ ေကာ္သြားပို႔ေတာ့ ဟိုေရာက္လို႔ ႏွစ္နာရီ သုံးနာရီေလာက္ၾကေတာ့ ဒီကေန ဖုန္းထိုးၿပီး ေမးတယ္ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ကို သိလား မင္းနဲဲ႔ ကစားတဲ့ ညီမေလး ေပ်ာက္ေနတယ္တဲ့
T: ဘယ္သူက ဖုန္းထိုးတာလဲ ဘယ္သူက ဖုန္းထုိးတာလဲ
S: ရီႏြတ္က
T: ဟင္
S: ရီႏြတ္
T: ရီႏြတ္ ဆိုတာ ဘယ္သူလဲ
10:11
T: မင္း ဘီးေပါက္တယ္ ဘယ္သူ စက္ဘီးေပါက္တာလဲ
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ဦးေလး
T: မင္းဦးေလး..ဘယ္အခ်ိန္က မင္းကို လာေခၚလဲ..ဘီးေပါက္တယ္ ဘယ္သူက ဘီးေပါက္တာလဲ မင္းက ေပါက္တာလား မင္းဦးေလးက ေပါက္တာလား
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ဦးေလးကေပါက္တာ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ကို စက္ဘီးဖာဖို႔ ေကာ္ဝယ္ခဲ့ခိုင္းတာ
T: မင္းမွာ ဖုန္းရွိတယ္ေပ့ါ
S: အိမ္ဖုန္းပဲေပ့ါ
11:00
T: အခု မင္းက ခုနလိုေပါ့ မင္းဦးေလးဖုန္းဆက္တယ္ မင္းက ေကာ္သြားဝယ္ေပးတယ္ ေကာ္သြားဝယ္ၿပီး မင္း
မင္းဦးေလးဆီ သြားပို႔ေပးတယ္
S: သြားပုိ႔ေပးတဲ့ ေနာက္ပုိင္းမွာပဲ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ကိုဖုန္းနဲ႔ လွမ္းေျပာတဲ့သူက ကေလးတစ္ေယာက္ ေပ်ာက္ေနတယ္တဲ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္က ကေလးက ေပ်ာက္တယ္ဆိုေတာ့ ဒီကေလးက သြားလည္ေနတယ္ပဲ ထင္ၿပီးေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ ေအးေဆးပဲ ေနေနတာ ေနာက္ေတာ့ မနက္အေစာတုန္းက ကၽြန္ေတာ္ျပန္လာမလို႔ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ အေဒၚကေျပာတယ္ မသြားနဲ႔ဦး သူတို႔နဲ႔ အတူတူ ျပန္မယ္တဲ့ သူတို႔လည္း လာမယ္ေပ့ါ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ အေမကို သိတယ္ဆိုေတာ့ လာမယ္ဆိုေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္အိပ္ေနတယ္ ေနာက္ခဏေနက်ေတာ့ ဒီက ပုလိပ္ေတြ ေရာက္လာတယ္ ေရာက္လာၿပီး ေသနတ္ေတြနဲ႔ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ ဘာလုပ္မွန္းေတာင္ မသိလုိက္ရဘူူး
11:50
T: အစက ျပန္ေျပာကြာ အစကျပန္ေျပာ
12:01
T: အိုေက ညီေလး အစ္ကုိ႔ကို တစ္ခုစီ ရွင္းျပေနာ္
ခုနက မင္းေကာ္သြားဝယ္တယ္ေျပာတယ္ သူေမးတယ္ ဘယ္ဆုိင္မွာ ေကာ္ဝယ္လဲတဲ့
S: ေကာ္ဝယ္တာ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ဝယ္တာ မဟုတ္ဘူး ရီႏြတ္ဝယ္တာ
T: ရီႏြတ္ ဆိုတာ ဘယ္သူလဲ
S: ဒီကေလးမေလးနဲ႔ တန္းလ်ားတစ္ခုတည္းပဲ ေနတာ
T: မင္းခုနကေျပာေတာ့ မင္းသြားဝယ္တာဆုိ ေကာ္က
S: ေကာ္က ကၽြန္ေတာ္သြားဝယ္တာမဟုတ္ဘူး ရီႏြတ္သြားဝယ္တာ ရီႏြတ္ဝယ္ၿပီးမွ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ လာေပးၿပီးမွ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ သြားပို႔ေပးတာ ရီႏြတ္နဲ႔ အဲဒီ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ ဦးေလးတို႔နဲ႔က စကားမေျပာဘူး
T: ရီႏြတ္ဆုိတာ ဘယ္အရြယ္ရွိၿပီလဲ
S: လူငယ္ပဲ
T: ရီႏြတ္ဆိုတာ ေယာက္်ားေလးလား
S: ေယာက်္ားေလး
12:58
T: မင္းသြားမဝယ္ဘူးေပါ့
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ္သြားဝယ္တာမဟုတ္ဘူး
13:08
T: ဘယ္တုန္းက စေတြ႕လဲ ဒီကေလးကို  ဒီကေလးကို ဘယ္တုန္းက စေတြ႕လဲတဲ့
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ္ အဲဒီဘက္ စစ ေရာက္ခ်င္းပဲေပါ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ စေရာက္ေတာ့ တစ္ရက္ ႏွစ္ရက္ေနေတာ့
T: ေအးအဲဒါ ဘယ္တုန္းကလဲ ဘယ္ႏွလပုိင္း ဘယ္ႏွရက္လဲ ဒီလပုိင္းလား မတ္လလား ေဖေဖၚဝါရီလလား
ဘယ္လကလဲ တစ္လပုိင္းလား ႏွစ္လပုိင္းလား သုံးလပုိင္းလား သူ႔ကို ဘယ္တုန္းက စသိလဲ စျမင္ဖူးလဲ
S: ႏွစ္လပိုင္းေလာက္ကေပါ့
T: ႏွစ္လပုိင္း
13:49
T: လွလားတဲ့
S: လွတာေပါ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ညီမေလးလိုပဲ
13:58
T: ဓာတ္ပုံကိုင္ထားတဲ့
14:01
T: လွလားတဲ့
S: လွတာေပါ့
14:06
T: ႀကိဳက္လားတဲ့ ႀကိဳက္လားတဲ့
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ ညီမအရြယ္ပဲ ဘယ္လိုလုပ္ ႀကိဳက္လို႔ရမွာလဲ
14:23
T: မင္းဒီေကာင္မေလးကို လွတယ္လို႔ မေတြးမိဘူးလား
14:30
T: ရုပ္ဆုိးလားတဲ့
S: ရုပ္ေတာ့မဆုိးဘူး
14:40
T: မင္းသူနဲ႔ အခ်ိန္ျဖဳန္းဖူးလားတဲ့
14:46
T: မင္းခုနလိုေပါ့ အတူတူကစားတယ္ အတူတူ စက္ဘီးစီးတယ္ ေနာက္ေတာ့ဘာလဲ
S: အဲဒါပဲ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ စက္ဘီးထြက္စီးေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္စက္ဘီးထြက္စီးတဲ့အခ်ိန္ သူနဲ႔ေတြ႔မွပဲ သူေတာင္းစီးရင္ ေပးစီးတယ္ တစ္ပတ္ႏွစ္ပတ္စီးၿပီး ျပန္ထားလိုက္တယ္ အဲဒီစက္ဘီးကို
15:04
S: သူတို႔ အဲအေရွ႕မွာပဲ
15:26
T: ဒီေကာင္မေလး ညီေလး ညီေလးတို႔ ေအာက္ထပ္ကိုေပါ့ေလ ဘယ္အခ်ိန္ေလာက္ ပထမဆုံး အရင္ စလာလည္လဲတဲ့
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ္ရွိတုန္း သူေအာက္ထပ္ တစ္ခါမွ မသြားဖူးဘူး ကၽြန္ေတာ္နဲ႔ ခင္ေနတာေတာ့မွန္တယ္ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ ေအာက္ထပ္ကို သူတစ္ခါမွ မလာဘူး
15:50
T: ဒါေပမဲ့တဲ့ မေန႔က မေန႔ကတည္းက ဒီေကာင္မေလးက မင္းေအာက္ထပ္ကို ေရာက္ေနတယ္တဲ့ မင္းရဲ႕ ေရခ်ဳိးခန္းထဲမွာတဲ့ ေသေနတယ္တဲ့
16:04
T: မေန႔က မေန႔က အဲဒီကေလး ေပ်ာက္တဲ့အခ်ိန္မွာ ဒီအိမ္မွာ ရွိတဲ့လူက မင္းတစ္ေယာက္ပဲ ရွိတယ္တဲ့
16:27
T: ခုနက တနလၤာေန႔က ဒီေကာင္မေလးလာသြားတာ ဘာျဖစ္လဲတဲ့ မင္းတို႔အိမ္မွာ
S: သူလာတာကေတာ့ သူ႔အေဖာ္နဲ႔ လာတာပဲ သူနဲ႔ရြယ္တူကေလး သူနဲ႔ ရြယ္တူ တစ္ေယာက္ပါတယ္ သူ႔ထက္ ငယ္တာ တစ္ေယာက္ပါတယ္ ရုပ္ရွင္ေတြၾကည့္တယ္ ၾကည့္ၿပီး သူတို႔ျပန္သြားတယ္
T: သုံးေယာက္လုံးျပန္သြားတာလား
S: အင္း
T: ဘယ္အခ်ိန္ေလာက္လဲ
17:22
T: ႏွစ္ေယာက္ပဲ ျပန္သြားတာ မဟုတ္ဘူးလားတဲ့
17:26
S: သုံးေယာက္လုံးျပန္သြားတာ
17:28
S: တူတူပဲ ျပန္သြားတာ သူတို႔
17:38
T: သူတို႔အေနနဲ႔ မယုံၾကည္ဘူး
17:51
T: အခုနက ဒီေကာင္မေလး သုံးေယာက္လာၿပီးတဲ့အခါမွာ ေနာ္ မင္းအိမ္မွာ သြားလည္တယ္ သြားလည္ၿပီး
အဲဒီကေလးမေလး အဲဒီအိမ္ကို ေရာက္ၿပီးတဲ့အခ်ိန္မွာ ဘယ္သူမွ မေတြ႕ေတာ့ဘူးတဲ့
18:09
T: ေနာက္တစ္ခါမွာ တစ္စုံတစ္ေယာက္ေသာသူက ေတြ႕တဲ့အခါမွာတဲ့
18:16
T: ေတြ႕တဲ့အခါမွာ အဲဒီေကာင္မေလးက ေသေနၿပီ မင္းရဲ႕ မင္းရဲ႕ ေရခ်ဳိးခန္းထဲမွာ
18:28
S: အဲဒါဆုိရင္ေတာ့ မဟုတ္ႏိုင္ဘူး
18:31
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ဆီ လာတဲ့အခ်ိန္က ရီႏြတ္ညီမေလးရယ္ သူရယ္ ရီႏြတ္တူေလးရယ္ သူတို႔သုံးေယာက္လာတယ္
T: ခဏေလး သူရယ္
S: သူရယ္ ရီႏြတ္ ညီမေလးရယ္
T: မင္းရဲ႕ညီမေလး ရွိေသးတယ္ေပ့ါ
S: ရီႏြတ္ ရီႏြတ္
T: ရီႏြတ္
S: ေအး
T: ရီႏြတ္ဆုိတာ ကရင္လား
S: မြတ္စလင္ပါ
T: ရီႏြတ္ညီမေလး
S: ေအး ေနာက္ၿပီး ရီႏြတ္ တူေလးတစ္ေယာက္ရွိေသးတယ္
T: ရီႏြတ္ တူေလးရယ္
S: ေအး သူတို႔ သုံးေယာက္ အတူတူလာတယ္ ရုပ္ရွင္ၾကည့္တယ္ ကာတြန္းကားေတာ့ သူတို႔ဟာ သူတို႔ ဖြင့္ၾကည့္တယ္ ကာတြန္းကားၾကည့္ၿပီးျပန္သြားတယ္
T: ဒီေကာင္မေလးရယ္ ရီႏြတ္ရဲ႕ညီမေလးရယ္ ရီႏြတ္ရဲ႕ တူရယ္ သုံးေယာက္လာတယ္ ရီႏြတ္က မင္း ဟိုဟာ မြတ္စလင္ပဲေပါ့
S: ဟုတ္ကဲ့
19:45
T: အဲဒီ သူတို႔လာေတာ့ မင္းအိမ္မွာ ဘာလုပ္ၾကလဲ သူတို႔
S: သူတို႔ တီဗီ ၾကည့္တယ္ ကာတြန္းကားလည္းၾကည့္တယ္
20:00
T: တယ္လီဗီးရွင္းလား ဒီဗီြဒီလား
02:03
T: ဘယ္အခ်ိန္ေလာက္လဲ
S: မနက္ပဲေပ့ါ
T: ဘယ္အခ်ိန္လဲ
20:08
T: သူေမးတာ ဘယ္အခ်ိန္ လာလဲတဲ့
S: မနက္ပုိင္း အဲဒီေန႔က သူလာတာ ၉ နာရီေလာက္ရွိတယ္
02:26
T: ခုနက ေန႔ခင္း  ၂ နာရီေလာက္မွာ သူျပန္သြားတာမဟုတ္လား သူျပန္လား မျပန္ဘူးလား
S: ျပန္သြားတယ္ သုံးေယာက္တူတူပဲျပန္သြားတယ္
T: ဘယ္ႏွနာရီေလာက္ျပန္သြားလဲ
S: ၂ နာရီေလာက္ျပန္သြားတယ္
T: အကုန္လုံးလား
S: သုံးေယာက္လုံးတူတူပဲ ျပန္သြားတယ္
20:56
T: အဲဒီ ျပန္သြားတဲ့သူ သုံးေယာက္လုံးရဲ႕ နာမည္ကိုု ေျပာလို႔ရမလားတဲ့ ျပန္သြားတဲ့သူ သုံးေယာက္လုံးနာမည္
S: ရီႏြတ္ညီမနာမည္ ညီမ အငယ္ရယ္ ေနာက္ ဟိုကေလးေလးတစ္ေယာက္ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ နာမည္ ေခၚမတတ္ဘူး သူ႕နာမည္လည္း ကၽြန္ေတာ္မသိဘူး
21:29
T: သူ႔နာမည္သိလားတဲ့
S: မသိဘူး
21:36
T: မေန႔က
21:39
T: ၂ နာရီေလာက္မွာ
21:46
T: အဲဒီ ကေလးႏွစ္ေယာက္နဲ႔ အတူ ျပန္သြားတယ္ ဟုတ္လား ၂ နာရီ ေလာက္မွာ
S: အင္း
21:54
T: မင္းအိမ္မွာ ဘယ္ႏွနာရီေလာက္ ေနခဲ့လဲ
S: သုံးနာရီေလာက္ ေနခဲ့တယ္ သုံးနာရီေလာက္ အတူတူ ေနခဲ့ၿပီးေတာ့ သူျပန္သြားေတာ့ သူျပန္သြားတဲ့အခ်ိန္ လြယ္အိတ္တစ္လုံး လြယ္သြားတယ္ သူတို႔လည္းသြားၿပီးေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ဦးေလးအိမ္ သြားမယ္ဆုိၿပီး ကၽြန္ေတာ္ ထြက္သြားတယ္
23:11
T: ခုနက ရဲေတြကေနၿပီးေတာ့ ကေလးကို လုိက္ရွာေနၾကတယ္ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္မွာ မင္းဘယ္ေရာက္ေနလဲတဲ့
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ ဦးေလးအိမ္မွာ ရွိေနတယ္
23:28
T: မင္းသိလား ဒီကေလး ေပ်ာက္လို႔ဆုိၿပီး လူေတြ လုိက္ရွာေနတယ္ဆိုတာ မင္းသိလားတဲ့
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ကို ရီႏြတ္လွမ္းေျပာတာေပ့ါ ကေလးတစ္ေယာက္ မင္းနဲ႔ ကစားတဲ့ ကေလးက ေပ်ာက္ေနတယ္တဲ့  ရဲေတြရွာေနတယ္တဲ့ ရွာေနတယ္ဆိုေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ဆီက ျပန္သြားတဲ့ ဥစၥာ ဘယ္လို သြားေပ်ာက္မလဲ ဒီကေလးက
S: ေအး အဲဒီ ရီႏြတ္က မင္းကို ဘယ္မွာေျပာတာလဲ
T: ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ ဦးေလးအိမ္မွာ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ ရွိေနတယ္ သူ႔အိမ္ကေန ဖုန္းနဲ႔လွမ္းေျပာတယ္
24:29
T: ဒါဆို မင္းအေစာႀကီးတည္းက သိေနတယ္ေပါ့ ဒီကေလး ေပ်ာက္ေနတယ္ဆိုတာ
S: ကေလး စေပ်ာက္တဲ့ အခ်ိန္က ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ကို ဖုန္းလွမ္းထုိးေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ သိတာေပါ့ သိၿပီးေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ စဥ္းစားတယ္ ဟင္ ဒီကေလးက ဘယ္မွသြားတတ္တာလည္း မဟုတ္ဘူး သူသြားရင္ သူ႔နားတစ္ဝိုက္မွာပဲ ရွိမယ္ ဒီေကာင္သက္သက္ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္ကို ေျခာက္တာပဲေလ ဆိုၿပီးေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ ေအးေအးေဆးေဆး ေနမိလိုက္တယ္..ေနာက္ ေနာက္ ညအိပ္လုိက္ၿပီးေတာ့ ေနာက္ေန႔က်မွ..
T: ညက ဘယ္မွာအိပ္လဲ
S: ဦးေလးအိမ္မွာ အိပ္တယ္
T: ဦးေလး အိမ္မွာပဲ
S: ဟုတ္ကဲ့
25:51
T: ဘာလို႔ ဘာလို႔ ရဲကိုမေခၚလဲတဲ့ မင္းအေနနဲ႔ ဒီကေလးေလးက ကၽြန္ေတာ္နဲ႔ ႏွစ္နာရီ မတိုင္ခင္မွာ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္မွာ ရွိပါတယ္ ကၽြန္ေတာ္နဲ႔ အတူကစားေနပါတယ္ဆိုတာ ဘာလို႔မေခၚလဲတဲ့ ရဲကို သတင္းမပို႔လဲတဲ့
S: ကၽြန္ေတာ္သတင္းပို႔ရင္ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ေျပာမွ မတတ္ဘူး
26:12
T: မင္း ဒိျပင္လူေရာ ေျပာျပေသးလား ဒီကေလးေလး ႏွစ္ေယာက္နဲ႔ ေတြ႕ခဲ့တယ္ ဘာညာဆိုတာကို ဘယ္သူ႔ကို ေျပာျပေသးလƞ

[Which of these is most consistent with the confession he gave police?]

A question about the motive in the Esar Met case. Links and a summary are at the bottom.

*

The defense claimed that Esar Met was friendly with the child. The evidence supported that.
They supposed that maybe he had lost his temper at the child, perhaps killed her by hitting her too hard. This does not match the evidence obviously. The child had been beaten severely, most major organs had been damaged, the child's arm had been snapped so it was at an unusual angle and somebody had violated the body with an object, perhaps to simulate a sexual assault.

The prosecution suggested Met was a severe deviant who committed the crime for unusual motives having to do with sex.

So, the question is Did he accidentally kill the child, then commit other odd acts for some reason? Or did he kill the child deliberately, then get some pleasure from using an object to violate the body of the neighbor he had been friendly toward previously?

Which of these is most consistent with the confession he gave police?

*

Links
1st confession video https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=448_1416957293
2nd https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3fb_1417040566
3rd https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=31a_1417042441
4th https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e2_1417041683
5th https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=930_1417051873
Pages from police report showing that there were major problems with the interviews with the roommates https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa1_1417130478


~Summary~
At first the police were looking for a violent child rapist, since that is what the evidence seemed to indicate. Immediately after finding the body, they interviewed the 4 roommates and another person who were in the apartment with the body. Those 5 people led the police to believe that Esar Met had abducted raped and murdered the child. The police then tracked down Met and arrested him.

Immediately there was concern that some of the evidence was problematic. The strongest piece of evidence was his confession, but a detective eventually got the 'confession' translated and realized that the confession was not valid. The detective disavowed any responsibility for what turned out to be quite serious flaws in the confession, which still has not been translated publicly...

Despite claims of "dna evidence", there is no dna evidence that is consistent with Met being guilty, and which is consistent with the crime.
a) The victim had skin cells from a number of people, including Met, under her fingernails. There were only dead skin cells, and there was dna from enough people that the lab was given only samples from some classmates, family and the accused, all of which had some skincell dna present. Met was friendly with the neighbor child and used to horse around with her, giving her piggy back rides... something that offended the roommates since Met is a Rohingya and the roommates were hostile to Rohingyas.
b) Blood stains supposedly found on Met's jacket are not consistent with other evidence, not consistent with the crime, not consistent with how blood is deposited, etc. The blood stains are consistent with having been deliberately deposited. The technician found 6 stains on the jacket, four of which he said appeared to be related, four tiny stains of a liquid in a linear pattern. These 4 stains were the victims blood, he testified. A person should watch the part of the confession where the fbi agent asked Met about blood stains.
c) Dna from an unidentified male was found mixed with the victim's dna on one of the walls. The person whose dna that was has not been identified.
d) The same technician who 'found' the blood on the jacket also admitted at the trial that there had been red liquid on the carpet of the area where the roommates lived, an area Esar Met did not go since the roommates were not friendly with him. The technician did not test the liquid, he claimed, because there were betel nut spitting jars nearby and he thought it was betelnut juice. He did collect a sample though and it tested positive for blood, a fact he decided not to share with anybody... until years later... at the trial.

Added
Liveleak has removed the interviews with the roommates and other material that came from the police report. That material is available to anybody who wants to see an astonishing example of police incompetence. Just ask.

If you speak Burmese, the bounty is to write down the Burmese words spoken on the video at
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=448_1416957293
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNT7WMXVoZI
same video, part 1 of 5.

The bounty is to write down the exact Burmese words spoken, not to translate them. Even if you don't speak English well, type the conversation from the video on a Burmese character keypad, paste the entire conversation from the first video onto this thread in Burmese characters along with your btc address.

Once I have verified to the best of my ability that the transcription is >95% accurate to my satisfaction I'll pay the bounty.

This bounty is for the first video only and I will probably post a lower bounty for the next 4 videos.

Transcription should have time marks at least every 5 minutes and the names of the speakers.

e.g.
...
5 minutes
Translators says: jhguygfyukgjuhy
Met says JHGhyujggj,hhj
Translator says JGliulguiluh

Again, I am looking for the exact Burmese words that were spoken, not an English translation of them. I will bounty the translation later.