Wasn't a work product, it was opinion. If you read my past posts you'll see I'm in a perpetually bad mood. The issue of how much time he had is probably the single most important part of the case for a person to look at first, so that is what I start with if somebody does not think he may be innocent.

Briefly,
a) The first time that was given for "last sighting" of the victim was 215pm. It was only later when there were various things, including that time, that excluded Mr Met as a suspect, that the time was moved back, with the help of aggressive police interviews and a gag order.
b) He had never taken the bus before, and almost certainly took an earlier bus, but if he took the last possible bus and made all connections in the least amount of time, the latest time he could have left the apartment was 239pm.
c) Whoever killed the child did a bit of running around. The bedding from downstairs was taken and disappeared. The killer or killers took another item from the bathroom that was not recovered. There was a large plastic bag near the body filled with blood, which although not clarified in the context of the crime, does indicate some effort at doing something that required some time to move things. The body was washed apparently, also requiring some time probably. Since the roommates did not specifically note a significant amount of blood in the apartment's center floor somebody must have spent a while cleaning it.
d) After Met left the apartment, for the next 30 hours or so, the only people in the apartment were the roommates and their friends.
e) During that 30 hour period there were three searches of the entire apartment complex, involving knocking on doors of several dozen apartments. In that 30 hour period, during three successive police searches, there were a few apartments where nobody answered for one or two of the searches.
f) There was only one apartment where there was no answer during each of the three successive searches. It was an apartment where the girl was known to go to eat and watch tv. There were four people in that apartment during most or all of the three searches. Esar Met was not one of the four.

If you want to ignore the time frame, that's fine. Whoever killed the child had a lot of blood on them. Please look at the references to blood in the video. Met is trying to confess but his facts are just absurd. Anyway when he got to his uncle's house he made no effort to shower or wash clothes.

-

Regarding the bounty anyway it's a small bounty probably for you but maybe one of the others is trying to work bounties in some country where half a ltc buys a year's worth of food and a new car... Regardless any of you three who posts an address by the next time I look at this I'll try to pay.

But why would he leave the body in his own shower then position the body to make it look as if a sexual assault had taken place? There are one or more others who might have motive to do that, he does not. The evidence shows that the trip was planned, but your last point is excellent, if he were the killer it could be both planned and fleeing.


1) What you and Wiki call the exchange principle is fine, you could go more basic and say Freud said that much finer. Or you could evolve the principle a bit and note that people will react to evidence that is not explicit. This last point is relevent because there seem to be plenty of indications that prosecutors and others do not believe he is guilty. Their reactions could be called echos or reflections of subtle evidence.

2) Your comment that a certain quote from Met defies a legal summary by the judges is poorly thought out. The evidence and his statement each have to be tested, or you are building on a bubble. That is especially important in this case.
Regarding the 3 Findlaw paragraphs you quote
a) Paragraph 1 ~ When Met was arrested the jacket had blood on it. All of the stains that could be identified possibly as 30 hour old blood were tested. All of the stains were his own blood. In other words they went over the jacket looking for blood stains, tested them, and they were all his blood. Much later, when there was no evidencve, they searched again and claim they found these stains. You do not need to be a physicist or know anything about fluid dynamics to see there is a problem with the evidence. They claim that in this crime scene, as the crime occured, a small amount of highly viscous blood dispersed into four smaller drops and alligned in a linear pattern on a highly porous denim surface. It's bullshit.
b) Paragraph 2 ~I have no idea how that is relevent or what your point is there. There was blood on the main floor. The roommates walked in, saw the blood, then did not answer the door for the next 30 hours?
c) Paragraph 3 ~ The guy had lived in the jungle up til about a month before the crime. Look at him on the video and you can see he has obvious skin issues and scratches himself crudely. It was not a sex crime first of all, and second the scratches are not mysterious. I've spent years living in jungle and can tell you a person scratches a lot.

3) As for "grown ass man and two little girls", believe it or not in most places in the world children of various ages play together, older kids sort of tolerating younger kids. In America there is this obsession with molesting children. In healthier societies people don't molest children, they try to be nice to them and somebody as young as Met would horse around with younger kids.

I would spend more energy answering but I get to your comment "it seems clear that the suspect had access to the body post mortem for a significant period of time" which shows you didn't even briefly look over the evidence.

The latest Met could have left the apartment would have given him almost no time to have commited the murder unless you push the time back. A more likely time for him to have left the apartment, i.e., the previous bus, since he had never taken that bus before and was following instructions on which bus to take, makes it impossible for him to be the killer.

-

Anyway I'll split the bounty among Jaffri Ben and Greenbits or any among you three who post a ltc address.

I'm going to suspend the offer only because I don't want to keep having to check messages. If somebody is interested, or if somebody actually does some research and solves things one way or the other I will pay some bounty but I don't want to keep these coins locked up in something that appears not to have any takers. If somebody does express interest and shows some evidence of research they can post and I may reactivate the bounty.

I don't think any of you has reasearched the case to any serious degree, but I won't push it.

Greenbits, I don't have any connection neither to lawyers nor to anybody else in this case. It strikes me as odd that people can look at the evidence and see him as guilty, and I'm trying to figure out where the disconnect is. If you will tell me the single piece of evidence that you consider most damning I'll address it.

Here is a copy paste from another thread



edit to add
Greenbits, the whole point of researching the case is not to find some crooked loophole, it is to find out if he is the killer. A person who looks at the evidence in a glancing way, without examining any of it will tend to accept on faith i.e., trust those who presented the evidence that it indicates guilt.

The question I'm asking is not "Does somebody say this evidence indicates guilt"? rather the question is "Does the evidence actually indicate guilt?".

If somebody says that an orange is a potato chip, that is fine. If a lot of people start believing it though it seems like it should be an indicator of a problem. So you point to the orange and say "Is that really a potato chip?" and nobody questions that the orange is a potato chip. Normally I would say "fine, the orange is a potato chip". In this case though the mass hallucination or whatever seems to be costing an innocent person their freedom.

Is it possible that he is guilty? Anything is possible.

Is there any evidence that he is guilty? I've researched the case a bit and have not seen any yet. The only issue that stands out is his comment about the shoes, but even that, the only possible indicator of guilt that I have seen, has a possible explanation and would be problematic as evidence against him.

Is there at least as much evidence pointing elsewhere? There is.

Since you were gentleman enough to say you think he is probably guilty, please state the one piece of evidence that seems strongest.

~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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not much volume there https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/hitbtc/

Compare

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/bittrex/

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/poloniex/

Poloniex seems a possibility. Aeon is the highest class of the cryptonote coins, it never went through a scumbag phase like Monero, or a protracted 'no dev but lets cover that fact with noise' phase like boolberry.

Asia is going berzerk with coins at the moment. Aeon is a solid coin, if it gets some Asian exposure soon it could be a very strong coin. Smooth has always been a gentleman online, aeon supporters have always been civilized. The other major cryptonote coins cannot say that, and factors like that might be important eventually.

There's always been a lot of university type computers on the list. I guess mathkids at university fix up the school's computers to mine Gapcoin for them at night probably.



 

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.

Gap works fine and always has a lot of people on the network. The original dev has a lot of gap that he/she bought, and so has not abandoned the project to the wind, but there hasn't been much activity. You are welcome to help develop the coin.

An explorer is at https://chainz.cryptoid.info/gap/ Its hosting expires soon and can be extended by donating any amount to 1M1sWXQ97kVx1Lk6SCVZvuTjt68od2MrVQ its $9.9 per month and seems to get extended bit by bit by generous people. When the coin goes up enough it will probably get extended a lot more.

As far as math coins, gap is better in some ways than riecoin and primecoin. Why it was removed from Poloniex I don't know.

Since there is a block explorer, no bounty for that, but if you want to do something useful, have some idea, mention it and somebody might offer a bounty bto you to do it. Gapcoin has avoided hype and pumpiness and sleazinesss so nobody is going to bounty a signature campaign or anything like that, but if you have a good idea say it. 

Looks ripe to get back on Poloniex.

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..)

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...

                                 



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