Topic: updated no bounty for pointing out logic mistakes on this thread. - page 2. (Read 3858 times)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

HBN: F4RMPWNfT4UHKuY58NDrnm6W6SnddLWRCb

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

I hope this at least helps in some way.

Again feel free to send BTC to : 144Cu4na3iLHstJgdMPYWCBnrSs55iPqBe

I think you mean to explain his conviction. To be concise I will say: Overwhelming circumstancial evidence and lack of a corroborated alibi.

Now to be more wordy:

I have read hundreds of criminal trial transcripts and use to help inmates to file appeals. I haven't read the trial transcript in this case, so my opinion is very provisional and I reserve the right to change it after reading the transcript and police reports (especially concerning the alibis of the roommates).

The girl was obviously assaulted by a sexually frustrated male that was unable to complete the act, then murdered her to cover his identity.

I can see that the prosecution worked very hard to make sure that the jury would be heavily swayed by emotion. Not a good sign by itself.

I would question the DNA evidence under his fingernails. Some labs have been known to fabricate evidence if they feel the person was guilty. Finding DNA there, just seems very convenient. But then he is a foreigner and was probably ignorant about cleaning his hands of DNA.

I hope the alibis of the roommates was heavily corroborated. The police report would be important for that.

That being said, I strongly suspect that he is guilty. Girl's body found at his place, roommates with an alibi. The only alternative would be if he was gone and somebody else decided to bring her to his place. I find this idea of a stranger using his room to commit the crime to be preposterous. Regardless, in that unusual case he would have an alibi.

Which is why the transcript is so important. I want to hear his alibi. Does it make sense? Is it corroborated?

I tend to be very skeptical of evidence (about 20% of the trial transcripts I read, I would have voted "not guilty"), but I have a gut feeling that I would have found him guilty if I was on this jury.

F4S2M8MFaQF9KwnxqeiuankJJH3VKv3obp

I hope your friend finds justice. Unfortunately most of the time in the US you innocent until proven indigent.

i thought you were talking about these hobo nickels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobo_nickel

No jury should ever convict on circumstantial evidence and should be beyond all reasonable doubt of guilt.

if I was on the jury I couldn't send a man to prison for life without certain evidence. too circumstantial and not substantial enough. but that's just me

You ignorantly assume quite a lot. I'm not American and I never said being nice to children makes you a paedo. You used this as if it's a case for his innocence. And grooming is used to gain trust whether to abuse or abuse and kill. You haven't pointed out any likely evidence of his innocence at all, just that you think he is unlikely to have done it based on no solid evidencel. You seem to be doing the exact opposite of what you're complaining about. It's a good job you're not the psychologist in trials. And were the time cards the only evidence? It's a little bit different if their boss and fellow employees all confirm their alibi and there's CCTV evidence or whatever to corroborate that. Where did they all work exactly?

Yes, I've read some but I can't say whether he or anyone else did it because I haven't got access to all the available evidence. And what evidence do you require? Aside from video evidence of the actual killing you probably couldn't ever say 100% what happened.  You could have three peope say they saw you murder somebody and the police find your clothes covered in blood with fingerprints all over the weapon, but that can all be easily fabricated. You have to go with the available evidence. Do I think there's enough here to convict him? I don't know. Can you tell me what evidence points to his innocence though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming