updated no bounty for pointing out logic mistakes on this thread.

[blumangroup]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this at least helps in some way.

Again feel free to send BTC to : 144Cu4na3iLHstJgdMPYWCBnrSs55iPqBe

[Ron~Popeil]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this at least helps in some way.

Again feel free to send BTC to : 144Cu4na3iLHstJgdMPYWCBnrSs55iPqBe

Thanks for a well thought out answer. Actually I have almost no bitcoin, less than 0.25. Hobonickels breed in the wallet, so  I will try to use some of their spawn for useful projects. There is a free paper wallet generator called inuit I think that makes cold storage wallets for all coins, also other similar products I'm pretty sure. Also you could get an account at any exchange that trades hobo and I'll send a hundred there, cryptsy trades them, not sure which others then you could switch them to btc.

Again, the issue I have with this case is the actual evidence. The reality. Not the words used by the prosecution.

I understand that the prosecutor said that dna proves Mr Met attacked and killed the victim. But does the evidence really show that? Does a small bit of blood on the back of his jacket show that he killed the person how? With his back to her? Could you explain it to me?

And microscopic skin cells under her nails, do they really prove that he killed her? You probably have the skin cells of your children in greater amounts under your nails, and your children likewise your skin under their nails in microscopic amounts.

If Mr Met were simply conversant in English and able to afford a real lawyer these issues easily would be much more than reasonable doubt.

How does an uneducated hillbilly refugee pull off a murder that leaves no real evidence? Or should we just ignore the truth about the eviidence because the prosecutor makes a lot of money and has dozens of suits, while Mr Met had only one outfit?

As for your trust in juries of peers, that trust is sometimes misplaced. I mentioned the central park jogger case that was headlines when i was younger and lived north of the city. A cut and dried case, four people confess. Google it. There are other cases, thousands of them.

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

[blumangroup]

HBN: F4RMPWNfT4UHKuY58NDrnm6W6SnddLWRCb

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

I understand that the prosecutor said that dna proves Mr Met attacked and killed the victim. But does the evidence really show that? Does a small bit of blood on the back of his jacket show that he killed the person how? With his back to her? Could you explain it to me?

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

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

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

And microscopic skin cells under her nails, do they really prove that he killed her? You probably have the skin cells of your children in greater amounts under your nails, and your children likewise your skin under their nails in microscopic amounts.

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

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

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

If Mr Met were simply conversant in English and able to afford a real lawyer these issues easily would be much more than reasonable doubt.

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

As for your trust in juries of peers, that trust is sometimes misplaced. I mentioned the central park jogger case that was headlines when i was younger and lived north of the city. A cut and dried case, four people confess. Google it. There are other cases, thousands of them.

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

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

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

[bryant.coleman]

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

[Ron~Popeil]

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

[blumangroup]

blumangroup, I gave you hbn

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

As to your comment, I appreciate very much that you spent a lot of time and went into some depth exploring the issue, but I disagree with you, respectfully, on almost every point you make. I won't push it though. Plrase go to google and search the following phrase: How Many Innocent People In Prison.

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

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

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

[murraypaul]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[murraypaul]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Please at least read the previous posts in this thread- Sorry if I am being rude.

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

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

[hilariousandco]

How does an uneducated hillbilly refugee pull off a murder that leaves no real evidence? Or should we just ignore the truth about the eviidence because the prosecutor makes a lot of money and has dozens of suits, while Mr Met had only one outfit?

I understand it was convincing to the jury. So I know their opinion.

When you look at the evidence do you analyze it with your own mind, your own thinking? Or do you think it is good enough to just say "well other people decided something so I'll just agree with them and not have to think"? I don't mean to be rude. Again, experts, the best experts, estimate that 3% to 5% of the people sent to prison in America did not commit the crime they were sent to prison for.

This young man, a penniless hillbilly Burmrse refugee who doesn't even speak English, does not seem guilty to me, based on the evidence. I asked other people to please analyze the evidence objectively. Not to tell me what the police or jury think. Again, sorry to be rude.

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

Anyway, I'll pay a hundred hobonickels to each of the 5 people who have posted so far if you post with a hobonickels address. If you don't want to download the wallet you can use a cryptsy hobo address or generate a paper address I think.

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

[murraypaul]

How does an uneducated hillbilly refugee pull off a murder that leaves no real evidence?

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

Or should we just ignore the truth about the eviidence because the prosecutor makes a lot of money and has dozens of suits, while Mr Met had only one outfit?

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

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

[blumangroup]

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

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

[murraypaul]

Did someone from that apartment kill the child? Highly likely. Was it Mr Met? I doubt it. Has evidence been presented to make Mr Met even the most likely suspect amongst the four who lived there?

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

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

[murraypaul]

Actually it is not even an issue of reasonable doubt. There is not a single piece of evidence against Mr Met that is substantial, and there are numerous pieces of evidence that point away from him.

If you like, point to the single strongest piece of evidence and I will try to look at it again objectively.

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

[murraypaul]

Would you mind pointing out the single strongest piece of evidence?

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

[Harley997]

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Harley997]

Do you think he should have accepted a plea even if he is innocent of the crime, just to serve less time?

From http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29885357

Met addressed the court prior to being sentenced, and denied having anything to do with the little girl's death.

"I didn't kill this girl," Met repeated several times. "At the time the girl was dead in the apartment, I wasn't there. ... This is a girl I used to play with. I loved her and she loved me.

"I didn't kill that girl. I don't know who killed that girl," he said.

That's the last bounty on this thread unless someone can show solid evidence of his guilt that makes me drop the issue. I will still pay the people on this thread who have already posted, if they want a small amount of hbn, vokain, murraypaul, etc, each was helpful even if proof of guilt was not found.

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

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

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

[Harley997]

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

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

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

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

76-5-202.   Aggravated murder.
            (1) Criminal homicide constitutes aggravated murder if the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another under any of the following circumstances:

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

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29885357

Ultimately, a jury in January found him guilty of aggravated murder and kidnapping, first-degree felonies, in the death of the Myanmarese refugee girl.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57939886-78/met-moo-hser-ner.html.csp

"My greatest concern, whether it’s called justice or not, is that for these six years, as reflected in the pre-sentence report and as spoken here today in court, is Mr. Met has not expressed any responsibility, any remorse," Atherton said. "He’s not required to. ... But he has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

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

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

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

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57399926-78/met-hser-moo-ner.html.csp

Samples taken from under the fingernails of the slain girl, 7-year-old Hser Ner Moo, matched a genetic profile shared by Met.

***Later in the article***

The defense has suggested Met’s clothing was stained well before Hser Ner Moo disappeared, during a game of elephant ride, in which Met would carry the child and her friend atop his back.

Met’s lawyers have said the skin cells collected from under Hser Ner Moo’s fingernails were also a result of such play, wherein the girl may have accidentally scratched Met’s skin.

"Is it possible if someone were giving a child a ride on their back and the child’s nose began to bleed that you would end up with four spots of blood in a line like this?" West asked.

"I can’t say that it’s not, because it could be possible," Grundy said.

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

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

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

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

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57399926-78/met-hser-moo-ner.html.csp

Holli Barbera, a registered nurse, was called to examine Esar Met’s body for signs that a sexual assault may have taken place after Met was arrested on April 1, 2008.

She testified Wednesday that Met’s skin showed signs of redness and scratches. His right shoulder was bruised, marks lined his legs.

"These marks are much smaller than I would expect to see if it were an adult scratch," Barbera testified. "It could be [from a child]."

Defense attorneys asked whether he could have suffered these injuries from being handled roughly by the officers who arrested him.

Some, Barbera said, could have. The others, defense attorneys implied, may have been caused by Met himself.

I do not believe this has been discussed so far.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Harley997]

1) As for him accepting a plea to buy time so someone could look for evidence, there is no one. He arrived in the country 30 days before the crime, had an aunt and uncle, maybe other relatives, probably all refugees with limited resources. I made the post because it was an interesting topic and I have some spare time at the moment. Read the post on the other thread about how many innocent people get sent to prison. Most have better English skills and more resources than him.

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

2) By real evidence, I mean something that convinces me, not something that convinced a jury. Your argument reminds me of the famous logic proof from centuries ago where a fellow proved that god exists by saying something circular that could not be refuted. The simple fact of innocent people in prison cancels your standard of "guilty if found guilty under the law".

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

3) As for the dna, the crucial point is that it was microscopic skin cells. That does not seem to match having scratched him in self defense. It might match horsing around though, which witnesses saw, the person did play with local children. Your point about looking for dna from other people, the child's parents, siblings, etc is excellent. If the transcript, or any news article, shows that she had dna from the accused but not from her family or friends that would be worth the 200 hbn. If I find that info I will try to remember this post. There might still be a lingering suspicion but that might be a dealbreaker.   

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

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

from http://www.athleta.net/2012/04/04/intro-to-self-defense-for-women/ (6th paragraph)
 Fingernails make a great tool for scratching face and eyes and if it comes to it, skin cells under your nails can become key DNA evidence.

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

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

4) The testimony of the nurse, as to the qualities of Mr Met's injuries I dismiss based on my familiarity with the English language. That witness seems to be giving evidence that she herself questions. I understand that it is trial evidence but I would not accept that particular testimony without additional proof.

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

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

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

5) The timeline really is important. The prosecutor indicated the child may have been alive when Met left. Considering the injuries, strangulation, blunt force etc, it seems the reason he could not say mr Met left the child dead was because the time of death fell outside when Met was there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[murraypaul]

It seems certain to me that with a body found less than a day after death scientists must be able to pinpoint to within 15 minutes or less.

You are massively out on that.

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

"Whatever method is used to calculate the estimated time since death from body temperature, all
the variable factors must be taken into account to modify any basic formula, though this
adjustment is very arbitrary and can only be attempted in the light of previous experience. When
a "favoured" time of death is decided upon this should never be offered to the investigating
authorities as a single point in time. It must be used to construct a "bracket of probability",
giving an earliest and latest time between which the doctor feels that death must have occurred.
The width of this time bracket will depend upon the number and uncertainty of the variable
factors known to the doctor and is likely to be longer the more remote the death was from the
time of examination of the corpse. It is futile mentioning any time in units of less than an hour,
even when the death was quite recent. A medical witness who attempts to determine the time of
death from temperature estimation in minutes or fractions of hours is exposing himself to a
severe challenge to his expertise which may well amount to near ridicule, thus denegrating the
rest of his evidence". (Ref. 10 at p. 12.)

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

[redwhitenblue]

The child was very small, I believe 7 years, so well under 100 pounds. Heat would have dissipated very quickly and fluctuations in room temperature might have made that method usrlrss.

However the body is full of countless chemicals that are in a constant state of reaction, enzymes etc. With all the research that has been done there is little doubt that there is a quick test to take a sample and determine when the last reaction of a particular time happened.

I cannot believe temperature would be used for anything other than a ballpark. Again, it would be the height of incompetence or backwardness if even a college chemistry major could not take time of death down to 15 minutes in a body that is less than a day.

The two hour window you cite would not even be acceptable in a third world country 50 years ago.

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