Note that much of the evidence, including hair evidence sent to the fbi, seems to have disappeared.
The rest will be posted before too long.
Topic: 1/2 ltc bounty for researching (Read 947 times)
Here are some, I haven't found the full folder yet. There was male dna but it could not be identified as Esar Met's as of the time the first results were done. In other words he was kept in jail on dna results that did not indicate guilt and a 'confession' that did not indicate guilt until the trial. The confession has been exposed. The dna results that were used at trial, different than the dna results hidden from the public initially, are not available yet.
Note that much of the evidence, including hair evidence sent to the fbi, seems to have disappeared.
The rest will be posted before too long.
Note that much of the evidence, including hair evidence sent to the fbi, seems to have disappeared.
The rest will be posted before too long.
I'm mainly caught up on the dna evidence.
...
...
I expect to post the dna results that were included in the police report soon.
Also, as it turns out, your mistake about how much time he would have had to commit the crime may turn out to be useful in the long term.
...
Send it to a Crypto charity worth a damn. I appreciate your contribution
Send it to a Crypto charity worth a damn. I appreciate your contribution
The Water Project https://thewaterproject.org/ got your bounty
14xEPWuHC3ybPMfv8iTZZ29UCLTUSoJ8HL
~1/6 ltc
https://blockchain.info/tx/d6823e648510349dce945144b67e72b9a9f5dd3fd8a545241dc0af534ad44515
LgHtfqv8n4Fu5Fh2JFEXpqRDUZdt2CJFo8
LTC address:
LTC address:
0.183 ltc
block 1261796
Thanks - this was a fun read and a great thought experiment!
My litecoin address is LQdbv3AnpzcoyUEbgWcmULLjjXWASCs2MW
My litecoin address is LQdbv3AnpzcoyUEbgWcmULLjjXWASCs2MW
0.183 ltc
block 1261796
After transaction fees should total 1/6ltc x 3 = 1/2 ltc total
hehe, im a company man, im just used to all the research I produce being a 'work product". also, it was a fun dive, and it made a difference. no complaints here.
this was a good choice, I wasnt even aware of them
thank you sir, i appreciate you contribution. good man
bounty received! thanks op
...
Send it to a Crypto charity worth a damn. I appreciate your contribution
Send it to a Crypto charity worth a damn. I appreciate your contribution
The Water Project https://thewaterproject.org/ got your bounty
14xEPWuHC3ybPMfv8iTZZ29UCLTUSoJ8HL
~1/6 ltc
https://blockchain.info/tx/d6823e648510349dce945144b67e72b9a9f5dd3fd8a545241dc0af534ad44515
LgHtfqv8n4Fu5Fh2JFEXpqRDUZdt2CJFo8
LTC address:
LTC address:
0.183 ltc
block 1261796
Thanks - this was a fun read and a great thought experiment!
My litecoin address is LQdbv3AnpzcoyUEbgWcmULLjjXWASCs2MW
My litecoin address is LQdbv3AnpzcoyUEbgWcmULLjjXWASCs2MW
0.183 ltc
block 1261796
After transaction fees should total 1/6ltc x 3 = 1/2 ltc total
Thanks - this was a fun read and a great thought experiment!
My litecoin address is LQdbv3AnpzcoyUEbgWcmULLjjXWASCs2MW
My litecoin address is LQdbv3AnpzcoyUEbgWcmULLjjXWASCs2MW
LgHtfqv8n4Fu5Fh2JFEXpqRDUZdt2CJFo8
LTC address:
LTC address:
Quote
Anyway I'll split the bounty among Jaffri Ben and Greenbits or any among you three who post a ltc address.
No need. You were dissatisfied with my work product, as evidenced by your reply. I walk with integrity; I cannot take your money as I have provided you no value.
Send it to a Crypto charity worth a damn. I appreciate your contribution
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.
Quote
Anyway I'll split the bounty among Jaffri Ben and Greenbits or any among you three who post a ltc address.
No need. You were dissatisfied with my work product, as evidenced by your reply. I walk with integrity; I cannot take your money as I have provided you no value.
Send it to a Crypto charity worth a damn. I appreciate your contribution
She was found dead in Met's basement bathroom. While I would expect him to clean up, this still makes it more likely that he was involved.
And how about DNA evidence found under the slain child's fingernails, blood on Met's jacket? That's theoretically possible if she died by mistake, but it seems that he was involved in her death.
Looks like he was fleeing the scene.
But the problem with your question is that it's not binary. The trip may have been planned AND he was also fleeing the scene.
And how about DNA evidence found under the slain child's fingernails, blood on Met's jacket? That's theoretically possible if she died by mistake, but it seems that he was involved in her death.
Looks like he was fleeing the scene.
But the problem with your question is that it's not binary. The trip may have been planned AND he was also fleeing the scene.
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.
I'm mainly caught up on the dna evidence.
I was a student of criminal justice for a few yeas, before I realized I didnt really give a fuck about enforcing the law, simply avoiding its reach.
But a particular theory stands out to me, besides the broken windows theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locard%27s_exchange_principle
so this:
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57939886&itype=CMSID
seems to defy this:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1755558.html
also, the association of a grown ass man with two little girls, without familial association, seems odd. I dont traffic with children. so we have means, motive, and opportunity. given the sexual violence and the degree of violence inflicted upon the corpse, it seems clear that the suspect had access to the body post mortem for a significant period of time. it was washed. Met would most likely have this opportunity, but the roommates could have as well. Until I get definitive proof he wasnt there at some point, I only have his word. which takes back seat to dna evidence that is so particularly damning.
that the other residents of the apartment exchanged no forensic evidence with the corpse, seems significant to me. of all the actors present, only one had signs of having interacted with the crime scene.
but, he said:
I do believe procedure was violated during the prosecution of this case. but, unless the evidence is false and was planted, I cannot ignore that particular elephant.
I apologize for assuming about you
disclaimer: i have no dog in this fight. actual apathy; it might seem callous but this simply isnt on my radar right now. but, i have attempted to give you a sincere explanation of my position on the matter. i do not idly conjecture; my rhetoric means something to me.
why was this man allowed to "play" alone with this girl? is there a cultural thing that might explain this particular situation? because this is non normative to me.
I was a student of criminal justice for a few yeas, before I realized I didnt really give a fuck about enforcing the law, simply avoiding its reach.
But a particular theory stands out to me, besides the broken windows theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locard%27s_exchange_principle
Quote
In Forensic science, Locard's exchange principle holds that the perpetrator of a crime will bring something into the crime scene and leave with something from it, and that both can be used as forensic evidence. Dr. Edmond Locard (13 December 1877 – 4 May 1966) was a pioneer in forensic science who became known as the Sherlock Holmes of France.[1] He formulated the basic principle of forensic science as: "Every contact leaves a trace". Paul L. Kirk[2] expressed the principle as follows:
"Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."
Fragmentary or trace evidence is any type of material left at (or taken from) a crime scene, or the result of contact between two surfaces, such as shoes and the floor covering or soil, or fibers from where someone sat on an upholstered chair.
When a crime is committed, fragmentary (or trace) evidence needs to be collected from the scene. A team of specialized police technicians go to the scene of the crime and seal it off. They both record video and take photographs of the crime scene, victim (if there is one) and items of evidence. If necessary, they undertake a firearms and ballistics examination. They check for shoe and tire mark impressions, examine any vehicles and check for fingerprints.
"Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."
Fragmentary or trace evidence is any type of material left at (or taken from) a crime scene, or the result of contact between two surfaces, such as shoes and the floor covering or soil, or fibers from where someone sat on an upholstered chair.
When a crime is committed, fragmentary (or trace) evidence needs to be collected from the scene. A team of specialized police technicians go to the scene of the crime and seal it off. They both record video and take photographs of the crime scene, victim (if there is one) and items of evidence. If necessary, they undertake a firearms and ballistics examination. They check for shoe and tire mark impressions, examine any vehicles and check for fingerprints.
so this:
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57939886&itype=CMSID
Quote
"I didn't kill that girl," said Met, 27, who in January was found guilty of sexually assaulting and beating the child to death. "This girl is a girl I used to play with. That girl loved me and I loved her. ... I'm telling the truth: I didn't kill the girl."
"I didn't touch the girl," insisted Met, whose words were translated by an interpreter. "At the time the girl was found dead in that apartment, I wasn't there."
"I didn't touch the girl," insisted Met, whose words were translated by an interpreter. "At the time the girl was found dead in that apartment, I wasn't there."
seems to defy this:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1755558.html
Quote
¶23 The State presented DNA evidence collected from the denim jacket Met was wearing when he was taken into custody. A forensic scientist, Chad Grundy, found that the two blood stains he tested “appeared to have originated from a single female source.” Grundy's testing also established that the blood on Met's jacket matched Victim's DNA.5 The State also collected and tested DNA evidence found under Victim's fingernails. The tests excluded Met's roommates as the DNA's source but could not exclude Met or the men in Victim's family.
¶24 Grundy testified that he had also tested several stains found in Met's apartment. He found human blood present in the two stains on the carpet of the basement's main floor, in the stain on the wall in the basement's main room, in the stains in the basement's bathroom, and in two stains in the stairwell leading to the basement. Grundy also found that a stain in the living room on the apartment's main floor, around the corner from the staircase leading to the basement, tested positive as human blood. DNA obtained from four of these stains matched Victim's. Additionally, Victim could not be excluded as the DNA contributor to the main-floor blood stain.
¶25 Met had various injuries on his body that were consistent with scratching or the “scraping or ․ clawing of a fingernail.” One particular abrasion on the inside of Met's thigh consisted of three streaks, twelve millimeters in length, with each streak parallel to the other. Many of these injuries were sustained in areas such as Met's thigh, hip, and right calf that would ordinarily have been covered by Met's underwear or pants. A nurse testified that many of the injuries, because of their location and severity, were likely made when Met was not wearing either underwear or pants, although the nurse conceded that it was possible to sustain similar abrasions when clothed.
¶24 Grundy testified that he had also tested several stains found in Met's apartment. He found human blood present in the two stains on the carpet of the basement's main floor, in the stain on the wall in the basement's main room, in the stains in the basement's bathroom, and in two stains in the stairwell leading to the basement. Grundy also found that a stain in the living room on the apartment's main floor, around the corner from the staircase leading to the basement, tested positive as human blood. DNA obtained from four of these stains matched Victim's. Additionally, Victim could not be excluded as the DNA contributor to the main-floor blood stain.
¶25 Met had various injuries on his body that were consistent with scratching or the “scraping or ․ clawing of a fingernail.” One particular abrasion on the inside of Met's thigh consisted of three streaks, twelve millimeters in length, with each streak parallel to the other. Many of these injuries were sustained in areas such as Met's thigh, hip, and right calf that would ordinarily have been covered by Met's underwear or pants. A nurse testified that many of the injuries, because of their location and severity, were likely made when Met was not wearing either underwear or pants, although the nurse conceded that it was possible to sustain similar abrasions when clothed.
also, the association of a grown ass man with two little girls, without familial association, seems odd. I dont traffic with children. so we have means, motive, and opportunity. given the sexual violence and the degree of violence inflicted upon the corpse, it seems clear that the suspect had access to the body post mortem for a significant period of time. it was washed. Met would most likely have this opportunity, but the roommates could have as well. Until I get definitive proof he wasnt there at some point, I only have his word. which takes back seat to dna evidence that is so particularly damning.
that the other residents of the apartment exchanged no forensic evidence with the corpse, seems significant to me. of all the actors present, only one had signs of having interacted with the crime scene.
but, he said:
Quote
"I didn't kill that girl," said Met, 27, who in January was found guilty of sexually assaulting and beating the child to death. "This girl is a girl I used to play with. That girl loved me and I loved her. ... I'm telling the truth: I didn't kill the girl."
"I didn't touch the girl," insisted Met, whose words were translated by an interpreter. "At the time the girl was found dead in that apartment, I wasn't there."
"I didn't touch the girl," insisted Met, whose words were translated by an interpreter. "At the time the girl was found dead in that apartment, I wasn't there."
I do believe procedure was violated during the prosecution of this case. but, unless the evidence is false and was planted, I cannot ignore that particular elephant.
I apologize for assuming about you
disclaimer: i have no dog in this fight. actual apathy; it might seem callous but this simply isnt on my radar right now. but, i have attempted to give you a sincere explanation of my position on the matter. i do not idly conjecture; my rhetoric means something to me.
why was this man allowed to "play" alone with this girl? is there a cultural thing that might explain this particular situation? because this is non normative to me.
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 mainly caught up on the dna evidence.
I was a student of criminal justice for a few yeas, before I realized I didnt really give a fuck about enforcing the law, simply avoiding its reach.
But a particular theory stands out to me, besides the broken windows theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locard%27s_exchange_principle
so this:
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57939886&itype=CMSID
seems to defy this:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1755558.html
also, the association of a grown ass man with two little girls, without familial association, seems odd. I dont traffic with children. so we have means, motive, and opportunity. given the sexual violence and the degree of violence inflicted upon the corpse, it seems clear that the suspect had access to the body post mortem for a significant period of time. it was washed. Met would most likely have this opportunity, but the roommates could have as well. Until I get definitive proof he wasnt there at some point, I only have his word. which takes back seat to dna evidence that is so particularly damning.
that the other residents of the apartment exchanged no forensic evidence with the corpse, seems significant to me. of all the actors present, only one had signs of having interacted with the crime scene.
but, he said:
I do believe procedure was violated during the prosecution of this case. but, unless the evidence is false and was planted, I cannot ignore that particular elephant.
I apologize for assuming about you
disclaimer: i have no dog in this fight. actual apathy; it might seem callous but this simply isnt on my radar right now. but, i have attempted to give you a sincere explanation of my position on the matter. i do not idly conjecture; my rhetoric means something to me.
why was this man allowed to "play" alone with this girl? is there a cultural thing that might explain this particular situation? because this is non normative to me.
I was a student of criminal justice for a few yeas, before I realized I didnt really give a fuck about enforcing the law, simply avoiding its reach.
But a particular theory stands out to me, besides the broken windows theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locard%27s_exchange_principle
Quote
In Forensic science, Locard's exchange principle holds that the perpetrator of a crime will bring something into the crime scene and leave with something from it, and that both can be used as forensic evidence. Dr. Edmond Locard (13 December 1877 – 4 May 1966) was a pioneer in forensic science who became known as the Sherlock Holmes of France.[1] He formulated the basic principle of forensic science as: "Every contact leaves a trace". Paul L. Kirk[2] expressed the principle as follows:
"Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."
Fragmentary or trace evidence is any type of material left at (or taken from) a crime scene, or the result of contact between two surfaces, such as shoes and the floor covering or soil, or fibers from where someone sat on an upholstered chair.
When a crime is committed, fragmentary (or trace) evidence needs to be collected from the scene. A team of specialized police technicians go to the scene of the crime and seal it off. They both record video and take photographs of the crime scene, victim (if there is one) and items of evidence. If necessary, they undertake a firearms and ballistics examination. They check for shoe and tire mark impressions, examine any vehicles and check for fingerprints.
"Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."
Fragmentary or trace evidence is any type of material left at (or taken from) a crime scene, or the result of contact between two surfaces, such as shoes and the floor covering or soil, or fibers from where someone sat on an upholstered chair.
When a crime is committed, fragmentary (or trace) evidence needs to be collected from the scene. A team of specialized police technicians go to the scene of the crime and seal it off. They both record video and take photographs of the crime scene, victim (if there is one) and items of evidence. If necessary, they undertake a firearms and ballistics examination. They check for shoe and tire mark impressions, examine any vehicles and check for fingerprints.
so this:
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57939886&itype=CMSID
Quote
"I didn't kill that girl," said Met, 27, who in January was found guilty of sexually assaulting and beating the child to death. "This girl is a girl I used to play with. That girl loved me and I loved her. ... I'm telling the truth: I didn't kill the girl."
"I didn't touch the girl," insisted Met, whose words were translated by an interpreter. "At the time the girl was found dead in that apartment, I wasn't there."
"I didn't touch the girl," insisted Met, whose words were translated by an interpreter. "At the time the girl was found dead in that apartment, I wasn't there."
seems to defy this:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1755558.html
Quote
¶23 The State presented DNA evidence collected from the denim jacket Met was wearing when he was taken into custody. A forensic scientist, Chad Grundy, found that the two blood stains he tested “appeared to have originated from a single female source.” Grundy's testing also established that the blood on Met's jacket matched Victim's DNA.5 The State also collected and tested DNA evidence found under Victim's fingernails. The tests excluded Met's roommates as the DNA's source but could not exclude Met or the men in Victim's family.
¶24 Grundy testified that he had also tested several stains found in Met's apartment. He found human blood present in the two stains on the carpet of the basement's main floor, in the stain on the wall in the basement's main room, in the stains in the basement's bathroom, and in two stains in the stairwell leading to the basement. Grundy also found that a stain in the living room on the apartment's main floor, around the corner from the staircase leading to the basement, tested positive as human blood. DNA obtained from four of these stains matched Victim's. Additionally, Victim could not be excluded as the DNA contributor to the main-floor blood stain.
¶25 Met had various injuries on his body that were consistent with scratching or the “scraping or ․ clawing of a fingernail.” One particular abrasion on the inside of Met's thigh consisted of three streaks, twelve millimeters in length, with each streak parallel to the other. Many of these injuries were sustained in areas such as Met's thigh, hip, and right calf that would ordinarily have been covered by Met's underwear or pants. A nurse testified that many of the injuries, because of their location and severity, were likely made when Met was not wearing either underwear or pants, although the nurse conceded that it was possible to sustain similar abrasions when clothed.
¶24 Grundy testified that he had also tested several stains found in Met's apartment. He found human blood present in the two stains on the carpet of the basement's main floor, in the stain on the wall in the basement's main room, in the stains in the basement's bathroom, and in two stains in the stairwell leading to the basement. Grundy also found that a stain in the living room on the apartment's main floor, around the corner from the staircase leading to the basement, tested positive as human blood. DNA obtained from four of these stains matched Victim's. Additionally, Victim could not be excluded as the DNA contributor to the main-floor blood stain.
¶25 Met had various injuries on his body that were consistent with scratching or the “scraping or ․ clawing of a fingernail.” One particular abrasion on the inside of Met's thigh consisted of three streaks, twelve millimeters in length, with each streak parallel to the other. Many of these injuries were sustained in areas such as Met's thigh, hip, and right calf that would ordinarily have been covered by Met's underwear or pants. A nurse testified that many of the injuries, because of their location and severity, were likely made when Met was not wearing either underwear or pants, although the nurse conceded that it was possible to sustain similar abrasions when clothed.
also, the association of a grown ass man with two little girls, without familial association, seems odd. I dont traffic with children. so we have means, motive, and opportunity. given the sexual violence and the degree of violence inflicted upon the corpse, it seems clear that the suspect had access to the body post mortem for a significant period of time. it was washed. Met would most likely have this opportunity, but the roommates could have as well. Until I get definitive proof he wasnt there at some point, I only have his word. which takes back seat to dna evidence that is so particularly damning.
that the other residents of the apartment exchanged no forensic evidence with the corpse, seems significant to me. of all the actors present, only one had signs of having interacted with the crime scene.
but, he said:
Quote
"I didn't kill that girl," said Met, 27, who in January was found guilty of sexually assaulting and beating the child to death. "This girl is a girl I used to play with. That girl loved me and I loved her. ... I'm telling the truth: I didn't kill the girl."
"I didn't touch the girl," insisted Met, whose words were translated by an interpreter. "At the time the girl was found dead in that apartment, I wasn't there."
"I didn't touch the girl," insisted Met, whose words were translated by an interpreter. "At the time the girl was found dead in that apartment, I wasn't there."
I do believe procedure was violated during the prosecution of this case. but, unless the evidence is false and was planted, I cannot ignore that particular elephant.
I apologize for assuming about you
disclaimer: i have no dog in this fight. actual apathy; it might seem callous but this simply isnt on my radar right now. but, i have attempted to give you a sincere explanation of my position on the matter. i do not idly conjecture; my rhetoric means something to me.
why was this man allowed to "play" alone with this girl? is there a cultural thing that might explain this particular situation? because this is non normative to me.
My point of view was also the same as he was not involved in it.. read my answer and try to concise. Its not like am saying it for bounty but i read several forums o ef google and found that he was innocent he was not there when the murder took place he was at his uncle's house i did mention that.. Well... No matter.. it was a good activity
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.
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
Quote
Here is a brief outline and timeline of the case to provide a quick overview for anybody interested.
If you have questions about any specific item, or if you think I have presented something inaccurately or incompletely, or anything else, say so.
This isn't meant to be an exhaustive review of the case, a person can sort through past posts and news articles if they want more info, or ask. I'm not Mr Personality and do not have a pleasant discussion style, but if a person is interested in defending the interests of the victim or victims in this case they should focus on facts and not be put off by personalities.
-
In chronological sequence/
1) The mother of the child goes to an afternoon dental appointment. The word 'afternoon' is important. It was an afternoon dental appointment, not a morning appointment.
2) The accused has never taken the bus to his uncle's house before. His uncle has given him instructions on which bus to take, but this is his first time making that trip. The trip was planned beforehand. This is supported by several pieces of evidence./
3) Met leaves the apartment no later than 2:37. In other words, if he knew the busses well and caught the last possible bus at each connection, he could have left as late as 237pm, but most likely left some time before that.
4) The mother returns from the dental appointment and the child is not at home. Eventually she contacts an aid worker and later they contact police to ask for help searching.
5) The initial report says the child was last seen around 215pm. Later this would be pushed back to perhaps 2pm or earlier by prosecutors.
6) The police initially were hesitant to take the case seriously, it is common for kids to wander and almost all missing children cases are resolved without needing a massive search. It is common practice in all areas to take a grain of salt when a person says their kid has not been home in a few hours and they need police to search. In this case, in retrospect, the search should have started sooner, but it didn't.
7) The child is known to frequent certain specific places. She has a few friends and also goes to apartment #472 where 5 young male Burmese live. The father went to each place she was known to go and asked for help and/or information around 7pm day 1. The roommates were home at that time and did answer the door and said they did not know where the child was.
Esar Met had given the phone number of his uncle to several people and one of them called him and asked if he knew where the child was. He told the person that he did not know, but he remarked that it was a small apartment complex and she was probably out playing.
9) Later the police organized several successive searches of the apartment complex. From the first search conducted by the police, to the last around 10pm day 2, there was only one apartment in the entire complex that did not seem to have anybody to answer the door. Three separate times the police knocked aggressively on the door of the apartment where the 4 roommates were, and each time the roommates did not answer. The police were aware that the child did visit this apartment, and they were aware that several young males lived there, but for unknown reasons they did not get a response at that apartment alone.
10) At roughly 10pm day 2, 4 fbi agents went to the apartment where the four roommates had been not answering the door. They knocked for a while and eventually got an answer and entered and found the body.
11) In the apartment were 5 people, the four roommates and one other person. All five were taken to the police station, briefly questioned, and set free. These five belong to the Karen ethnic group and are openly hostile towards Esar Met because he is from a different group. It is safe to say they may also have criticized the child for interacting with somebody from his ethnic group.
12) The body was found in the basement shower of the 3 story apartment. The basement was where Met lived, the four others lived in the top floor.
13) The body was still in rigor mortis 30 hours after Met had left, the body was still wet as well as if somebody tried to wash it, and it may have been 'posed' in such a way to suggest a sexual crime. There was a lot of blood everywhere including large blood stains on the downstairs floor, a large bloodstain on the downstairs wall, indicating the body had been thrown against the wall with force. There was a large plastic bag near the body with a lot of blood and assorted smaller amounts of blood in various other locations.
14) The body had been extremely abused. Many organs were damaged, there was a hole in the heart and the eyes were bloodshot from strangulation. There is little doubt the child died either while the killer was present or very shortly after.
15) There seems to be an indication in the police report that the initial impression of a medical examiner was that an object had been used to give the appearance of a rape, and a person was sent to the crime scene specifically to look for such an object. The implication being that somebody wanted it to appear as if the child had been raped.
16) At roughly the same time as the crime occured there was some ethnic tension in Burma, where all the parties involved are from. In Burma there have been a number of cases of people trying to incite ethnic violence by creating a 'false rape', in other words a person from ethnic group a says that a person from ethnic group b commited a rape of a woman from ethnic group a. Again and again these types of accusations in Burma have sparked widespread violence, and more often than not later investigation shows the accusation to have been made only to incite ethnic violence, and not based on fact. It is a sort of unique aspect of ethnic disturbance in Burma that riots almost always start like that and in fact there was such a case about the time this incident occured in Salt Lake.
17) The four roommates received a friendly interrogation from police. Despite obvious red flags in their actions and videotaped testimony, they were quickly judged innocent and sent home. They indicated that there might be reason to suspect their roommate Mr Met.
18) Police were told where Met was and called the uncle's house and said they would come over to speak to him. He agreed and waited for police to arrive.
19) When police arrived, instead of knocking they broke down the door and knocked down Met and some of his family members. Police then told the media that he had tried to escape when they arrived, which was not true.
20) He was then brought to a police station and told that he had to confess. He responded by providing an account of his actions that was verifiable and consistent with facts, but the police declined to accept his story. His story seems to have been truthful and he was initially fully cooperative. His roommates stories do not seem quite as fact based and there are indications their stories should have been scrutinized.
21) While the search was under way on day two, numerous local people of influence, including Governor Huntsman, were involved in the case publicly. After the body was found there was a lot of criticism of the investigation, since two years previously, less than a mile away, almost the exact same crime had been commited. Police announced quickly that, as with the previous case, they had captured a suspect and gotten a confession. The case, they said, was closed.
22) As evidence from the crime scene was being examined it quickly became apparent that there were problems. An expert from almost any field could look at the case from their field of expertise and find something about the case that wasn't quite right. Nevertheless the prosecution tried to collect evidence and prepare a case.
-
Of course after several years of building a case the prosecution eventually was forced to go to trial. The stakes were huge. If Met were not proven guilty then there would be questions about when the child died. If the child was still alive several hours after Met left the apartment it would have implications that could be expected to damage numerous careers.
There does not appear to be any indication that Met commited this crime. There are indications that some of the evidence may have received an 'assist' to aid the prosecution, but even if you accept all of the evidence at face value, the evidence does not point to his being the killer.
There are indications that a number of people in Salt Lake are uncomfortable with the case and recognize that it may not have been proper. It's possible that the initial defense team may have deliberately not called any witnesses and not mounted any defense specifically because they calculated they would lose in the short term for political reasons, but wanted to leave something in Met's corner for future use...
-
... edit to add
Worth adding that there were two investigations of this crime. The police conducted an investigation whose purpose was to portray themselves as having acted well, without regard for the facts. A second investigation was informally evident. The police may not have been watching the apartment during the time that the roommates were not answering the door, but somebody was. Notice that just as the fbi arrived so did another person from that community. Also note that after the trial all of the roommates were evicted from the apartment...
If you have questions about any specific item, or if you think I have presented something inaccurately or incompletely, or anything else, say so.
This isn't meant to be an exhaustive review of the case, a person can sort through past posts and news articles if they want more info, or ask. I'm not Mr Personality and do not have a pleasant discussion style, but if a person is interested in defending the interests of the victim or victims in this case they should focus on facts and not be put off by personalities.
-
In chronological sequence/
1) The mother of the child goes to an afternoon dental appointment. The word 'afternoon' is important. It was an afternoon dental appointment, not a morning appointment.
2) The accused has never taken the bus to his uncle's house before. His uncle has given him instructions on which bus to take, but this is his first time making that trip. The trip was planned beforehand. This is supported by several pieces of evidence./
3) Met leaves the apartment no later than 2:37. In other words, if he knew the busses well and caught the last possible bus at each connection, he could have left as late as 237pm, but most likely left some time before that.
4) The mother returns from the dental appointment and the child is not at home. Eventually she contacts an aid worker and later they contact police to ask for help searching.
5) The initial report says the child was last seen around 215pm. Later this would be pushed back to perhaps 2pm or earlier by prosecutors.
6) The police initially were hesitant to take the case seriously, it is common for kids to wander and almost all missing children cases are resolved without needing a massive search. It is common practice in all areas to take a grain of salt when a person says their kid has not been home in a few hours and they need police to search. In this case, in retrospect, the search should have started sooner, but it didn't.
7) The child is known to frequent certain specific places. She has a few friends and also goes to apartment #472 where 5 young male Burmese live. The father went to each place she was known to go and asked for help and/or information around 7pm day 1. The roommates were home at that time and did answer the door and said they did not know where the child was.
Esar Met had given the phone number of his uncle to several people and one of them called him and asked if he knew where the child was. He told the person that he did not know, but he remarked that it was a small apartment complex and she was probably out playing.9) Later the police organized several successive searches of the apartment complex. From the first search conducted by the police, to the last around 10pm day 2, there was only one apartment in the entire complex that did not seem to have anybody to answer the door. Three separate times the police knocked aggressively on the door of the apartment where the 4 roommates were, and each time the roommates did not answer. The police were aware that the child did visit this apartment, and they were aware that several young males lived there, but for unknown reasons they did not get a response at that apartment alone.
10) At roughly 10pm day 2, 4 fbi agents went to the apartment where the four roommates had been not answering the door. They knocked for a while and eventually got an answer and entered and found the body.
11) In the apartment were 5 people, the four roommates and one other person. All five were taken to the police station, briefly questioned, and set free. These five belong to the Karen ethnic group and are openly hostile towards Esar Met because he is from a different group. It is safe to say they may also have criticized the child for interacting with somebody from his ethnic group.
12) The body was found in the basement shower of the 3 story apartment. The basement was where Met lived, the four others lived in the top floor.
13) The body was still in rigor mortis 30 hours after Met had left, the body was still wet as well as if somebody tried to wash it, and it may have been 'posed' in such a way to suggest a sexual crime. There was a lot of blood everywhere including large blood stains on the downstairs floor, a large bloodstain on the downstairs wall, indicating the body had been thrown against the wall with force. There was a large plastic bag near the body with a lot of blood and assorted smaller amounts of blood in various other locations.
14) The body had been extremely abused. Many organs were damaged, there was a hole in the heart and the eyes were bloodshot from strangulation. There is little doubt the child died either while the killer was present or very shortly after.
15) There seems to be an indication in the police report that the initial impression of a medical examiner was that an object had been used to give the appearance of a rape, and a person was sent to the crime scene specifically to look for such an object. The implication being that somebody wanted it to appear as if the child had been raped.
16) At roughly the same time as the crime occured there was some ethnic tension in Burma, where all the parties involved are from. In Burma there have been a number of cases of people trying to incite ethnic violence by creating a 'false rape', in other words a person from ethnic group a says that a person from ethnic group b commited a rape of a woman from ethnic group a. Again and again these types of accusations in Burma have sparked widespread violence, and more often than not later investigation shows the accusation to have been made only to incite ethnic violence, and not based on fact. It is a sort of unique aspect of ethnic disturbance in Burma that riots almost always start like that and in fact there was such a case about the time this incident occured in Salt Lake.
17) The four roommates received a friendly interrogation from police. Despite obvious red flags in their actions and videotaped testimony, they were quickly judged innocent and sent home. They indicated that there might be reason to suspect their roommate Mr Met.
18) Police were told where Met was and called the uncle's house and said they would come over to speak to him. He agreed and waited for police to arrive.
19) When police arrived, instead of knocking they broke down the door and knocked down Met and some of his family members. Police then told the media that he had tried to escape when they arrived, which was not true.
20) He was then brought to a police station and told that he had to confess. He responded by providing an account of his actions that was verifiable and consistent with facts, but the police declined to accept his story. His story seems to have been truthful and he was initially fully cooperative. His roommates stories do not seem quite as fact based and there are indications their stories should have been scrutinized.
21) While the search was under way on day two, numerous local people of influence, including Governor Huntsman, were involved in the case publicly. After the body was found there was a lot of criticism of the investigation, since two years previously, less than a mile away, almost the exact same crime had been commited. Police announced quickly that, as with the previous case, they had captured a suspect and gotten a confession. The case, they said, was closed.
22) As evidence from the crime scene was being examined it quickly became apparent that there were problems. An expert from almost any field could look at the case from their field of expertise and find something about the case that wasn't quite right. Nevertheless the prosecution tried to collect evidence and prepare a case.
-
Of course after several years of building a case the prosecution eventually was forced to go to trial. The stakes were huge. If Met were not proven guilty then there would be questions about when the child died. If the child was still alive several hours after Met left the apartment it would have implications that could be expected to damage numerous careers.
There does not appear to be any indication that Met commited this crime. There are indications that some of the evidence may have received an 'assist' to aid the prosecution, but even if you accept all of the evidence at face value, the evidence does not point to his being the killer.
There are indications that a number of people in Salt Lake are uncomfortable with the case and recognize that it may not have been proper. It's possible that the initial defense team may have deliberately not called any witnesses and not mounted any defense specifically because they calculated they would lose in the short term for political reasons, but wanted to leave something in Met's corner for future use...
-
... edit to add
Worth adding that there were two investigations of this crime. The police conducted an investigation whose purpose was to portray themselves as having acted well, without regard for the facts. A second investigation was informally evident. The police may not have been watching the apartment during the time that the roommates were not answering the door, but somebody was. Notice that just as the fbi arrived so did another person from that community. Also note that after the trial all of the roommates were evicted from the apartment...
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.
I have observed this thread, and its parents, for some time. Your bounty means little to me; it is more the puzzle you have presented us. It seems an unwinnable game 
It is not a lack of interest per se; its just that our friend's unique position is quite hard to defend. I dont have to explain to you how biased/rigged our legal justice system is (I have gleaned from your posts you are connected quite closely law enforcement, or a law firm), this, while a miscarriage of procedure, is pretty common, will not stop, and cannot be amended in this particular case because of some of the facts of the case (his admittedly coerced confession, dna evidence although abnormal). If you work for the firm defending said suspect, which is what I suspect, you guys would do good to harp on the irregularities in the evidence. There was clear violation of procedure here; although the fruit that yielded may be damning to the suspect, we both know that fruit gleaned in violation of law is forbidden fruit Go with that.
And be careful. If I am correct about you, how easy would it be to figure this out as the opposition? I made a large leap assuming I understand your intentions, but if I am correct, you are communicating legal strategy on a public forum. Find the guys that want to help you, and go to PMs with this. Dont spoil your surprise, so to speak.
Good luck. I will honestly say I think he did it. Plainly. But, I am neither judge nor jury, and the law is the law. If evidence was collected illegally, which seems to be the case, then let the man free. And then fix the problem so it doesnt happen again. Like the little girl that advised her bf to kill himself. Should have never been charged, she didnt break a law. But, she was immoral/unethical. They should have made a stink, and then fixed the hole. Not give her 2.5 years to satisfy the public and a bloodthirsty prosecutor.
The rule of law is supreme, we are beasts with and without it. And those beasts can exist on both sides of the law.
It is not a lack of interest per se; its just that our friend's unique position is quite hard to defend. I dont have to explain to you how biased/rigged our legal justice system is (I have gleaned from your posts you are connected quite closely law enforcement, or a law firm), this, while a miscarriage of procedure, is pretty common, will not stop, and cannot be amended in this particular case because of some of the facts of the case (his admittedly coerced confession, dna evidence although abnormal). If you work for the firm defending said suspect, which is what I suspect, you guys would do good to harp on the irregularities in the evidence. There was clear violation of procedure here; although the fruit that yielded may be damning to the suspect, we both know that fruit gleaned in violation of law is forbidden fruit
Go with that. And be careful. If I am correct about you, how easy would it be to figure this out as the opposition? I made a large leap assuming I understand your intentions, but if I am correct, you are communicating legal strategy on a public forum. Find the guys that want to help you, and go to PMs with this. Dont spoil your surprise, so to speak.
Good luck. I will honestly say I think he did it. Plainly. But, I am neither judge nor jury, and the law is the law. If evidence was collected illegally, which seems to be the case, then let the man free. And then fix the problem so it doesnt happen again. Like the little girl that advised her bf to kill himself. Should have never been charged, she didnt break a law. But, she was immoral/unethical. They should have made a stink, and then fixed the hole. Not give her 2.5 years to satisfy the public and a bloodthirsty prosecutor.
The rule of law is supreme, we are beasts with and without it. And those beasts can exist on both sides of the law.
She was found dead in Met's basement bathroom. While I would expect him to clean up, this still makes it more likely that he was involved.
And how about DNA evidence found under the slain child's fingernails, blood on Met's jacket? That's theoretically possible if she died by mistake, but it seems that he was involved in her death.
Looks like he was fleeing the scene.
But the problem with your question is that it's not binary. The trip may have been planned AND he was also fleeing the scene.
And how about DNA evidence found under the slain child's fingernails, blood on Met's jacket? That's theoretically possible if she died by mistake, but it seems that he was involved in her death.
Looks like he was fleeing the scene.
But the problem with your question is that it's not binary. The trip may have been planned AND he was also fleeing the scene.
1) After researching on google an article she lived in South Salt Lake apartment complex, i beleive his visit was not planned actually he was not even there at his home on the day incident took place and girl's body was found severly beaten in his basement's bathroom shower. he was at his uncle's home as defense showed proofs.
At trial (and in appeal) Met challenged a number of issues, including the use of gruesome crime scene photographs and the original interview he gave to police. He also challenged the sentencing handed down by Judge Judith Atherton.
which shows there are many things unrevealed.
So it was not planned at all.
At trial (and in appeal) Met challenged a number of issues, including the use of gruesome crime scene photographs and the original interview he gave to police. He also challenged the sentencing handed down by Judge Judith Atherton.
which shows there are many things unrevealed.
So it was not planned at all.
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.
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.
Jump to: