5 hobonickels instabounty / easy money

[no-ice-please]

Previously I had been looking for proof that Esar Met was guilty of one of the worst crimes in recent Utah history. 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638161.0

Now I just want to be part of the crowd that sees his guilt and understands it's obviousness.

I am a strict law and order person. I think people need to be locked up if they might be guilty of a crime. He probably got what he deserved. He will spend the rest of his life in prison, getting ass fucked by Charles Manson every night until he looks at some skinhead the wrong way and gets shanked, then goes to eternal damnation.

It is important for Americans to support police and other authorities who take proactive approahes to crime. Look at Albuqerque, where police have taken the initiative to solve the problems of homelessness and mental illness in their own special way. If the pork in more cities would take bold steps like that crime would be a thing of the past.

This bounty is for simply stating which of the many, many pieces of evidence against Esar Met you personally think is most strong. I'll list some of the possible choices but you are free to find another piece of evidence I overlooked.

1) DNA. The prosecutor says dna proves Met attacked, tortured, raped and killed the victim. The dna evidence is some small drops of blood on the back of Mr Met's jacket belonging to the victim, and microscopic traces of skin cells from Mr Met under the child's fingernails.

2) The confession. Mr Met Confessed to the crime, apparently once he first was granted the basic right every refugee in America is granted, of speaking to an interpreter. Once he confessed all of the other suspects were released from custody and justice marched triumphantly along.

3) The location of the body. The body of the victim was found in an area of the apartment used mainly by Mr Met. Although there may have been evidence the child was killed elsewhere, the actual body was discovered there.

4) The time of death. Although the child died of a long list of acts of extreme violence, including strangulation, and since time of death can be fixed quite precisely when the victim is found within a day or so, we can say the child was at least dying when Mr Met is known to have left the apartment. The actual death probably did not occur until after at least one of his roommates returned, but the victim may have died some time after being strangled to death, which would put Mr Met squarely at the crime scene in the exact time frame when the victim was dying.

5) Psychological evidence. Analytical psychology, the understanding of things like the shadow archetype, help us understand that sometimes there is not enough actual real evidence to convict dusky colored hillbilly types, even when we know they are guilty, so we just have to go with the flow and trust the experts.

You can select any of these pieces of proof or you can look for a new one, but please at least have some familiarity with the case, read a few of the news articles and include a hobonickels address. The first 19 posters will be paid.


           

[Mikez]

Not sure if there is a certain 'place' to post this thread, as this is a bounty thread, paid in an altcoin, in the Politics&Society forum on Bitcointalk.
EDIT: Also, I see you have a pretty similar thread, also posted here, offering a bounty in this altcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638161.0

[Harley997]

HBN: ExDpAS2NuMw9MNWPAyEqtZ4Y6gnXBhX6cx

I would say that confession would likely be the strongest against him.

Although a confession can be received in violation of a persons 5th amendment rights (right to not be forced to testify against yourself) a confession can still correlate evidence against himself.

A confession is not as much as confessing that a person committed a specific crime, but more about proving that the specific person committed the crime.

If there were details about the crime that he told police that were not made public nor would he have any way of knowing without being the perpetrator. I looked at a few news articles and could not find anything that mentions specifically what the confession says nor what specifically was discussed with police.

If he said "I killed the boy, put his body in this specific place, in this specific condition and did these specific acts" then the first statement is generally irrelevant. Even if the police cannot prove that he committed the crime they essentially know for sure the he did it if those facts were not public. This may be an explanation on why he was prosecuted with such flimsy evidence.

Even if the confession were to be excluded at trial the prosecution would still attempt to prosecute if there is enough evidence to get a conviction.

The only piece of evidence that is does not work against him in any way would be number 5. This is really nothing more then stereotyping a certain group of people and any conviction based on this would likely be overturned by higher courts.

[Ekaros]

Wait so they don't need a professional certified translator for this type of situation? Ah the land of the free and it's great justice system...

[Ron~Popeil]

The evidence is circumstantial for sure but so are most court cases in the US. Combined with the confession though it looks pretty damning. We don't exactly expect our police to use discretion when questioning suspects and dirty tricks are considered good police work. Presented alongside the confession and without proper context the DNA evidence is the most damning. Beyond the shadow of a doubt is a moving target in US court rooms.

F4S2M8MFaQF9KwnxqeiuankJJH3VKv3obp

 

[Harley997]

HBN: ExDpAS2NuMw9MNWPAyEqtZ4Y6gnXBhX6cx

I would say that confession would likely be the strongest against him.

Although a confession can be received in violation of a persons 5th amendment rights (right to not be forced to testify against yourself) a confession can still correlate evidence against himself.

A confession is not as much as confessing that a person committed a specific crime, but more about proving that the specific person committed the crime.

If there were details about the crime that he told police that were not made public nor would he have any way of knowing without being the perpetrator. I looked at a few news articles and could not find anything that mentions specifically what the confession says nor what specifically was discussed with police.

If he said "I killed the boy, put his body in this specific place, in this specific condition and did these specific acts" then the first statement is generally irrelevant. Even if the police cannot prove that he committed the crime they essentially know for sure the he did it if those facts were not public. This may be an explanation on why he was prosecuted with such flimsy evidence.

Even if the confession were to be excluded at trial the prosecution would still attempt to prosecute if there is enough evidence to get a conviction.

The only piece of evidence that is does not work against him in any way would be number 5. This is really nothing more then stereotyping a certain group of people and any conviction based on this would likely be overturned by higher courts.

There is an article about the conversation he had that apparently involved the confession.
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865592268/Passerby-was-mistakenly-used-as-translator-in-Esar-Met-murder-case.html?pg=all

All of the people in the apartment were in custody. The person who interviewed the accused was a passerby who spoke his dialect, but did not translate accurately both the questions from the police and the answers from the person who would later be accused as a result of the conversation.

The interview was recorded and sent for translated transcripts. Sutera said the transcripts showed "the translation was not correct — the information I thought I was getting from the defendant was not the same as it was relayed to me and the information I was saying to the defendant was not accurately relayed to him in any way."

It looks like the person who translated was a Burmese refugee also, who was trying to ingratiate himself with the police by getting a confession.

After the person got the confession the other people from the apartment were released from custody and from then on any evidence that appeared was adapted to convicting Mr. Met.

False confessions are easy enough to get in America from Americans, many people every year are found to have given false confessions under pressure. How much easier to get one from an uneducated poor refugee from a country with authoritarian police who is speaking to someone who seems to be speaking for a policeman who is asking questions in English, but is actually just winging it, trying to get a confession.

So I'm going to reject the confession as convincing or even true.

Anyway, your hbn from this and the other post have been sent.

quote from article:

Aungo said he never translated or explained any threats to Met.

"I didn't teach him that the police would beat him up or maim him, I didn't teach him that," he said. "What I told him was the truth shall be told. If you don't speak the truth, it will take a long time."

It sounds like his 5th amendment rights were violated (as it looks like he was not properly informed of his right to remain silent aka his miranda rights).

What the article does not mention is what Mr Met actually said to the interpreter.

Attorneys have already stipulated that the interview will not be used as evidence at trial, but state prosecutors want to have it in case Met takes the stand and it is needed for impeachment purposes.

It looks like that the prosecution had agreed to not use the evidence at trial and agreed that his 5th amendment rights were violated.

So the prosecutor did not use the confession as evidence (and I assume it did not use any evidence gained by the interview/confession), but they may have used the confession as justification to pursue charges.

If Mr Met was properly informed of his miranda rights then he would likely have not confessed. With that being said my question to you is, if you had a confession that was obtained illegally (but not under the threat of violence, but rather in violation of a person's constitutional rights) would you wish to pursue charges against the person who confessed? You may still have a rather flimsy case and may or may not win, however you do have a high degree of confidence that this person really did commit the crime, you just cannot use some evidence to say that he did.

PS I received the coins and they are really cool!

[hello_good_sir]

The real issue with this case is the fact that any of these people were in Utah in the first place.  They should have all been in Burma.  Then the Burmese legal system could handle it.  The good people of Utah shouldn't have all of this nonsense undermining their legal system, disrupting their tranquility, ruining their neighborhoods, and consuming their taxes.

[Harley997]

I think that you could agree that it would be fair to at least temporary detain him for questioning (along with his roommates) due to the fact that the body was found in/near his apartment.

an expert said strangulation contributed to actual death and strangling does not cause lingering death

It would be possible that strangulation could have contributed to his death but not caused his death. If for example the defendant was hitting the boy's head, causing brain damage and strangling him at the same time, the brain damage could have actually killed the boy but the lack of oxygen could have exaggerated the brain damage. The same is true if the boy's other organs were damaged and oxygen deprivation made the organs worse off.

Met knew when twenty guys with guns took him to the police station, and probably pounded the fuck out of him, that miranda rights were of no use

I would find it unlikely that he would have been beaten/assaulted by the police. There are cameras and recording devices in interrogation rooms and if this did happen then there would be evidence of this.

If you are saying that it happened only in this specific case, then why would the police do it in this case alone? Why would they assault him and not him roommates?

[hello_good_sir]

put a cork in it

Did I hurt your feelings by pointing out that you are completely missing the point?  None of the people involved in the situation are Utahns, and so it makes no sense for this situation to be discussed in the context Utah's legal system.

[hello_good_sir]

Some people have been in Utah for thousands of years, some for a few hundred, some for 30 days. You are which?

None of the above.  I've never set foot in Utah.

Do you want your children slaughtered without proper justice, or arrested without it?

People only feel sympathy/empathy for situations that they can relate to.  If someone suffers from an injustice we only feel it if we believe that we could suffer from that injustice.  My children will never be Burmese immigrants in Utah.  The world is a horrible and cruel place, and there is some sadness in that, but in order to function you have to narrow your focus.

Ok, but let's say that I am unable to see that distinction, and I hold the mistaken belief that my children and these Burmese immigrants have enough in common for me to feel more than a little empathy.

At that point I ask, why are you focused on this case?  Why focus on this one measly case where the man is probably guilty.  Shouldn't I instead focus on the widespread pain and suffering that occurs throughout the world?  Why focus on these Burmese when I can feel the pain of everyone in Burma?  What is it about these people that makes them so much more deserving of my concern?  Nothing.

[hello_good_sir]

You bring up good points about injustice in the US.  The system does not produce good results and so I won't defend it.  If this is the point that you are trying to make, then why use this case?  Why not use a case involving Americans?

Instead, in your previous thread, you were trying to suggest that this man was framed by his roommates so that they could get rid of him, supposedly because they are Christian (and thus evil in your mind?) and he is muslim.  That's a crazy theory.  When people want to get rid of an annoying roommate they can usually find a way to do so without murdering a girl and framing the annoying roommate.

Part of the reason that the "justice" system in the US is so messed up is because police, prosecutors, and juries have nothing in common anymore.  The result is a siege mentality.  Police talk about "just getting home safely" instead of serving the community.  This is because they aren't serving their community, they are operating in a foreign community.  Juries see a defendant on the stand and they don't think "that could be me" they think "I need to protect my community from this lowlife".  The idea behind a jury of one's peers is that you can get a fair trial.  When jurors and the accused aren't peers then the empathy disappears.

The US has a high prison population because it has the logistical ability to catch and store large numbers of people, along larges numbers of people prone to criminality.  Most countries either lack the capability to imprison a large percentage of their populace, or they lack the large number of criminals to imprison.

[hello_good_sir]

The reason some countries  are not so quick to fill prisons has nothing to do with capacity.

The reason that Iraq, Haiti, Swaziland, Jamaica, etc.. all have lower incarceration rates than the US is that they lack the logistical capability to catch and contain criminals to the same degree that the US can.

Other countries, such as Switzerland, Iceland, etc... have lower incarceration rates than the US because they have fewer criminals per capita than the US.

The US is the only country that combines first-world incarceration capability along with large populations inclined to criminality, and thus it is inevitable that it would have the highest incarceration rate.