1)The simple fact that he would be innocent if she had any detectable food residue must be excluded, you say, because the medical examiner cannot provide any information based on evidence provided by police or others. That is doubtful. You sound like a police officer trying to confuse two different reasons for excluding evidence in order to justify being granted the right to use both, based on this and other of your comments.
Some evidence must be excluded. The confession, if it were accepted, would allow all police in the future to simply extract confessions of dubious merit without regard for the innocent. This has not worked well in other countries when it has been tried nor in the United States when some douche scum cop decides to play Columbo and solve crimes that way.
This is simply how witness testimony works. A witness cannot say that x police officer told me so and so. This would violate Mr Met's constitutional rights to confront his accuser. Mr Met would not be able to try to find holes in the police officer's story if it is being told by someone else.
The medical examiner would have no reason to know that juice in the girls system could be of any importance.
Again all the medical examiner's job is to determine how the victim died and the time of death, as measured in at a minimum a range of hours prior to when the body was found. Any detail above that is outside the scope of the medical examiner's job.
The medical examiner is a neutral witness. He did not say who he though killed the girl. He only said how she died and when she died. It just so happens that the facts that he presented show that Mr. Met is guilty.
2) One article specifically says that shortly before she died she was playing outside and would go inside from time to time to drink some juice.
Again not reliant. See above regarding the medical examiner's job
3) Why would it be likely a child that age in America would likely have food, or its residue, visible somewhere in her system? Honestly, I've answered that. It is common sense.
Again not reliant, see #1. It was actually not testified if the girl had food in her system or not. Just because it was not discussed at trial does not mean that she did not have food in her system. As per above it is not the medical exanimer's job to make that determination.
As you have previously said, Mr Met was likely poor, and refugees like the girl were likely poor, and it would be very well fees-able that that her family was not able to afford breakfast and that she would eat lunch at a time after she disappeared but regardless does not matter as it was not discussed at trial. If this was something of controversy then the defense attorney should have brought it up. If the defense attorney should have brought it up but didn't then Mr. Met should have appealed on the basis that he had incompetent council (attorney) but he did not.
4) Buses are unreliable in their timing in every country. In America they may be late but they will never leave early, that is true, but Met had been here 30 days and would not know that.
He would likely understand the bus schedule and when the bus arrives after a few bus trips. It would be very reasonable for him to know when the bus will arrive.
Although your argument is not acceptable, if you were to accept your argument that Mr. Met arrived at the bus station early by 15 minutes he would still have had plenty of time based on the latest time that the girl disappeared. She disappeared at 2 PM at the latest, and Mr Met could have left at 2:39 at the latest minus 15 minutes is 2:34.
5) Mr Met's alibi was never 'put into question'. It is dry fact that he could not have been at the apartment more than an hour after the child disappeared. If he claims to have left early that is being excluded.
This is correct as his alibi simply says that it is possible that he committed the crime. The medical examiner would have no way of knowing that the time in dispute would come down to 15 or 30 minutes. Regardless, science would not allow him to make a determination of time of death within 30 minutes. Your point only points to him being guilty.
6) You are basing her time of death on when Met left the apartment despite any other evidence. In other words you are not looking at the evidence, you are simply starting with the jury's opinion and building on that.
Your statement is not correct. The medical examiner gave a range of time as to when the girl died. The range of time included the time that Mr Met was at the apartment. As in every criminal trial the defense has the opportunity to hire it's own expert witness to dispute what the medical examiner testified to and did not do so (the defense did not have an expert testify as to when the girl died, so they either did not hire an expert or they did hire an expert and their expert came to the same conclusion).
7) Where the girl died and when she died are both in question. As mentioned several times already, a fresh blood stain was found in another part of the apartment but the dna expert never tested it because he thought it was betel nut juice spit. If that stain were shown to contain the victim's dna then mr Met would not have been convicted, even by that simple jury. Was it her dna? We simply do not know because it is one of the many examples of lazy police work in this case. Some people want the police to have all sorys of powers against innocent people but they don't want to force the police to do their actual jobs, specifically doing po.ice work properly.
You are saying there was a blood stain. Was there any evidence to say so? The only testimonial presented said that it
looked like what could have been blood but was near a beatlenut juice spit cup and was likely beatlenut juice.
I have not seen any articles that say anything about the defense disputing this fact. Unless the defense
attempted to get the DNA evidence excluded because of the beatlejuice there is absolutely no dispute in fact as to what it was. Even if they tried unsuccessfully to get the evidence thrown out the legal conclusion was that there was not issue with not testing this.
If you wish to put this in question then please see my previous post regarding how each piece of evidence may show a 40% chance that he was not guilty, but all the evidence him combined showed a 97%+ chance of being guilty
8 - Fine that you would not answer the door at that hour. This was 4 or so guys in an apartment that may have been unlocked, the neighbors would know there were people there, it would be noisy outside, a child had disappeared from another apartment within a certain distance from theirs, the child was known by the people to be friendly with one person there, and it was the only apartment in the entire apartment complex where no one answered the door. You can say the police who knocked on the door did not know this or that, but again it gets back to basic competence. If the cop did not know those things whoever was in charge on site needs to be put out of charge. We need to stop excusing such blatant incompeyence and laziness by cops as well as their other abuses of powe.
You say the door may have been unlocked. There was no testimony that said it was unlocked the day in question. Even if it was unlocked there was only a 1/5 chance that the killer would have picked an area that he controlled (4 roommates plus him is 5 people living in the apartment). My previous example gave a 40% chance of evidence showing he was not guilty this example shows a 20% chance which works against him. Not only that but he "Happened" to be spending the night away from his apartment the same day that a girl was found dead in an area of his apartment, this is really an additional piece of evidence that was not previously listed.
At 4 AM it is likely that people were not congregating outside. If they had answered they would likely spoken to the police and gone back to sleep. I did not ready any articles that said that every other neighbor had answered the door. A non-response to a door knock should not be unusual to the police, this could mean a number of things, that the tenants were not home (out of town), that the apartment was vacant, at work, or simply sleeping. On a similar note I would doubt that every single apartment was occupied at that time. Obviously the vacant apartments would not have received a response. Additionally it is not illegal to not answer your door when someone knocks.
) The dna stain that was never tested is not something I conjured up. From a news article:
I stand corrected on point 7, however it was ultimately determined that this was not sufficient to exclude at trial and not sufficient for a mistrial. If the judge had made an error of law in these ruling then it would have been overturned on appeal.
There was still no evidence to show whose blood it was upstairs. The articles do not say that it was the girls nor do they say it was not her's. As a result as per the rules of evidence you cannot assume that it was her blood and you cannot imply that it was anyone's.
