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"?
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.
