GUILTY UT - Hser Nar Moo, 7, Salt Lake City, 31 March 2008

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by NewMommy09, Apr 1, 2008.

  1. Abcdefgh

    Abcdefgh Member

    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    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.

    8) 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...
  2. Abcdefgh

    Abcdefgh Member

    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    An interesting article to read if anybody is interested in studying false confessions.

    The purpose of a confession is to generally balance the mind of a person who did what is being confessed to, but too often interrogators use it to vicariously balance their own suppressed motives, a confession by proxy that has the added benefit of furthering their career, until it is exposed...

    The purpose of an interrogation is to get information, not to get a confession. A skilled interrogator can elicit facts that eventually will lead to contradictions if they are not accurate. When an interrogator starts with "you must confess" it only means the interrogator does not have the ability to deal with facts. They are not able to use facts to arrive at the truth.

    In the Hser Ner Moo case the facts of the case do not point to Esar Met being guilty.

    There is a confession... but an examination of the confession suggests he is innocent.

    There is dna evidence... but an examination of the dna evidence suggests he is innocent.

    The body was found in his living area, but an examination of the circumstances suggests he is innocent.


    There have been more and more news articles about police agencies refusing to admit their own mistakes, and forcing a trial by media. Some police agencies, as in Montreal, are quick to address issues and so come out not looking too bad...
  3. Abcdefgh

    Abcdefgh Member

    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    A summary of the 5 'confession' videos that both the defense and prosecution agreed to keep secret. The public was told that "he had confessed", but the actual tapes were hidden from the public.

    A summary of the 'confession' translations.

    Tape 1

    The fbi agent asks if Samar / Esar Met knows why he is being interviewed. The translator says in Burmese "Have you seen snow?". Samar says "Yes". The fbi agent tries to get him to say it again, but the next time the translator translates as "Do you know why you are here?" and Samar says "No".

    Samar is told they have evidence and that he killed her. He is obviously perplexed.

    He is told "He’ll tell you all the things that need to be said and you will have to tell them the truth. A confession.", "And after that, you have to be quiet. You need to stay quiet.", "You understand?"

    Samar is obviously a little confused already. He begins to tell them the facts, what he knows. He gives the name of a friend that can verify that he bought sealant to fix a tire. The fbi agent becomes aggressive and from this point on starts insisting that there has to be a confession.

    He is asked about the girl and gives clear answers that are consistent with the facts that are known.

    He tries to recount the last time he saw her and seems to be speaking honestly. The fbi agent becomes aggressive again, using a threatening tone and posture, insisting he must confess.

    He says when he was at his uncle's house his friend called and said they were looking for the girl and asking if he knew where she was.

    Translator: So, you knew it from the beginning that the girl was missing, right?
    Samar: Of course I did because Yenoot called me as soon as they knew she was missing and then, I thought ‘This girl doesn’t usually go around much. She must be in the neighborhood. Yenoot is just trying to mess with me.’ So, I was relaxed and stayed at my uncle’s home for the night until the morning.


    Translator: Was it an accident? Do you think it was an accident that she died in your bathroom?
    Samar: That’s what I have been thinking. The fact that she died in my bathroom makes other people think that I killed her. But actually, I didn’t know anything. When Yenoot called that morning and asked my uncle’s home address, I gave him the address. Then, I called him again and asked why he wanted the address, if something was wrong.

    The fbi agent and detective say that they know he is lying. He is told there is evidence that proves he killed the child.

    Tape 2

    Between each of the tapes the fbi agent leaves the room and returns with new questions apparently from a more senior fbi person who is helping arrange the confession.

    He insists that he did not take her to the basement and that she has never been to the basement. They insist he is lying and the fbi agent becomes increasingly aggressive and menacing in demanding a confession.

    fbi agent: When did you take her down the basement?
    fbi agent: We know it was you. Your footprint is next to her body. Don’t lie to me.
    Samar: I didn’t take her down the basement.
    fbi agent: Your footprint. It was right next to her dead body. We know you had her down the basement. Go ahead.
    Translator: You take this girl downstairs in the basement. Just listen to him.
    Translator: Her blood is found on your bed.
    Translator: And on the wall.
    Translator: Now, what he wants to know is if it was an accident or if you planned it. Was it an accident or did you plan it?

    At this point the Salt Lake detectives launches a bizarre sequence of rapid fire questions that would be funny under other circumstances. He is trying to get the translator to give Samar a choice between confessing to an accidental death or confessing to a murder.
    Salt Lake detective: If it wasn’t an accident, you must have planned to do this.
    Salt Lake detective: So, was it an accident or did you plan this?
    Salt Lake detective: So, which is it? Was it an accident or did you plan this?
    Salt Lake detective: Do you want people thinking that you planned this out?

    This goes on and on. He is told he has to 'tell the truth' and it has to be 'a confession', but so far he believes that simply confessing is enough. He does not yet know that they want specific details.

    Samar: Okay. Then, I’m gonna tell the truth. But I’m afraid of them.

    The fbi agent has been physically threatening in posture and gestures. Unlike the fbi agent, Samar has actually lived in a place where posturing has to be backed up, so he takes the menacing seriously.

    Then comes Samar's first attempt at confessing.
    Samar: ... People say that children are the most important ones in this country. She fell down the stairs while I was playing with her. And there was blood running out of mouth. She said she was gonna tell her dad about that and I told her “Why would you do that?” Then, I grabbed her and she slipped out of my hand and bumped into the wall.
    Samar: You can say it was an accident. They can assume it as an accident if they want. I didn’t do that to her intentionally. Actually, I killed her because she said she could make things up and put me into trouble.

    As far as he is concerned, his confession is fine.

    However the fbi agent now begins trying to move the confession towards at least resembling some element of the crime scene. He starts with the obvious sexual element of the crime. Somebody had made the body appear as if it had been sexually abused, though evidence seems to indicate something slightly different may have happened. At this point, hours after the body is found, nobody has enough information to figure it out yet.

    The fbi agent is trying and trying to get some kind of sexual element into the confession but Samar obviously finds that notion offensive and politely tries to provide an adequate confession that he thinks is realistic.

    Samar: She cried after falling down and I soothed her. It was an accident so I told her to stop crying but she said she would tell her dad and I said “Don’t talk to your dad. We always play together, right? We ride the bike together and now you fell down the stairs while we’re playing. What happened to you?” She said her mouth bled and she ran out of my arms saying she would tell her dad. So, I grabbed her arm but I grabbed so hard that she hit the wall when she got out of my hand and fell down. When she got down, she was shaking and then, she died.

    Samar: She was shaking and I was looking at her. I was thinking what was happening to her. I thought she became unconscious. Or was it ...
    Translator: Was she still shaking?
    Samar: Shaking. After she fell down the stairs, she was shaking when I looked at her. She was shaking and I was looking. I thought may be she became unconscious. And then, there was blood running down from her mouth and nose and she was motionless.
    Samar: I was so scared when she became so still that I didn’t even drag her to the bathroom. I left her near the entrance. But then, I realized that it was near the staircase and people would be able to see her. So, I pulled her aside and I ran away.
    Translator: it’s just a piece. Not the complete truth. They need more. Tell them the truth.

    The fbi agent now starts trying to fix the confession, he claims, for the benefit of the victim's family.
    fbi agent: To bring peace to her family. This is very painful. To bring peace to her family. Peace to her family.
    fbi agent: To bring peace to her family. We need to know the whole truth.

    Samar understands the immediate physical threat from the much larger fbi agent. The fbi agent has gone out of his way to make clear that he was physically much stronger than Samar, and that there was no choice except to confess. Samar did know the girl though and refuses to add any sexual element.
    Samar: Yes. It’s true that the girl died after what happened with me but I didn’t rape her. I’m telling the truth. I can swear.

    fbi agent: After she was dead? After she was dead?
    fbi agent: What did you do?
    Samar: Nothing. I dragged her from her hair and moved her. Then I left home until you came and arrested me this morning.

    Samar is trying to stay ahead of the interrogators.
    Translator: Where did you go?
    Samar: I was scared to death and I didn’t know where to run. So, I just went to my uncle’s place.

    Now perhaps the biggest absurdity of the confession.
    fbi agent: What did you do with your clothes that were all bloody? What did he do with his bloody clothes? He must have had blood on it as he’s dragging her around and she’s bleeding and shaking?
    Translator: Like I said, she’s bleeding, right? So, there must be blood on your shirt. What did you do with that shirt?)
    Samar: Yes, there’s some blood on my shirt. I washed it off with soap at my uncle’s home.
    If a person researches only one element of the confession, it should be the fbi agent trying to get him to describe bloody clothes. This segment is far beyong absurdity.

    At this point his description of the last moments are
    Samar: She was shaking and when she stopped shaking, I was so scared. I was thinking what if her father or one of her relatives had seen her? I ran away as I was afraid that they would hit me.

    Tape 3

    fbi agent: Because your story.. your story does not match with the evidence.

    Salt Lake detective: Plus, based on the evidence, we already know what happened.
    fbi agent: Yes.
    Salt Lake detective: Based on the evidence, we already know what happened.
    fbi agent: And we want you to tell us..
    Translator: Like I said, they’ve already know what happened down there. They just want to hear it from you. They’re asking you because they want to see if you’re telling the truth, or if your answer is complete or not. They’ll keep asking you as long as they don’t get the complete story from you. Do you understand? They know.

    Samar: What happened to her was that she fell off the stairs so I tried to soothe her but she wouldn’t stop and tried to run away. So, I grabbed her with force but she slipped out of my hand and her head bang into the wall, then she fell down the stairs. She was shaking when she got down. When she became motionless, I got panicked. So, I dragged her, left her and ran away.
    fbi agent: You beat that girl. You didn’t try to quiet her down. You beat her. You punched her head into the wall. He slammed her head into the wall. Yeah.
    Samar: Her body was.. When I dragged her, her body was shaking then, it stopped moving and I realized that she was dead. So, I dragged her from her hair and put her body at the bottom of the bed downstairs.
    fbi agent:
    fbi agent: They’re going to be able to tell exactly what happened to that girl and who did it. And they’re gonna be able to show it’s you.
    fbi agent: They’re going to be able to show everything that you did to her, whether you hit her, kicked her, hit her with the rod.
    fbi agent: They’re going to be able to find your semen.

    Now starts a very interesting exchange about the shoes. It is translated differently by the two translators. This seems to be the one example of a crime scene detail that matches the facts.

    The Rohingya translator translates as follows
    Translator - When the child was dead , what did she do at lower floor? You got up stair,

    Samar - I got up stair and , I saw that shoes when I was about to leave. I picked them and got down to lower floor. And I threw it into the bath room. People would know anyway, throwing shoes was nothing to be happened anything else. Let them knew no matter what happen and then shoes were thrown into bathroom .

    The professional translator translates as follows
    Translator: You go upstairs.
    Samar: I came upstairs and I saw her shoes. So, I picked them up and ran down the stairs then I thought people would know about it anyway. So, I just threw them into the bathroom and left.

    The appearance is that Samar is saying in an offhand way "This validates my confession. By the fact that I told you that the shoes were thrown in the toilet, you can make the confession work because that proves I know the details of the crime.

    How is it that he knows absolutely nothing about any element of the crime, he outright makes up details like the bloodstain on his shirt that are ludicrous, but he is positive about throwing the shoes in the toilet and even asks them to use that as the proof that his confession is valid?

    A very strange thing, unless you start going over the very few crime scene photographs that do not include gore. One of those photographs shows the shoes in the toilet. Samar was probably one of the first people to be shown that photograph.


    The fbi agent now tries to tidy up the confession, but at no point does it become a useable confession.

    Translator: Did you kill her?
    fbi agent: Yes?
    Translator: Did you? Did you kill her?
    Samar: Now, I have to say that I killed her. What else can I say?
    Translator: I told you. You’ve already told them that you killed her. He’s asking why you can’t tell them about this.
    Samar: Now I have to say I did even thought I didn’t.
    fbi agent: Was someone else helping him?
    Samar: Okay. Don’t suspect anyone else. Please don’t. I’ll say that I put her in the shower even though I didn’t. Okay? I dragged her in the shower.

    Tape 4

    This tape consists of the fbi agent trying to salvage the confession. He understands by now that the unedited confession will never be useful, but he is trying to at least flesh out the story so that some details can be used if the prosecution goes forward.

    Tape 5

    Again, trying to get Samar to provide details that are closer to matching the actual crime. He is putting in a collossal effort to make a confession but there is never any significant overlap between his confession and the crime, aside from the shoes in the toilet.

    The fbi agent asks again and again about 'young girls', the last comment bbeing
    fbi agent: I asked about young girls.
    Translator: What about with young girls? Have you done it with a young girl?
    Samar: No, I haven’t. How would I? They are young and I am old…they wouldn’t agree to be in a relationship with me. Although I am looking for a partner who is the same age with me, there is no one like that. All I could find is older women.

    Finally he asks what punishment he can expect
    Samar: It’s just because I want to know if I am going to get a death sentence for this crime or just going to be in a jail. If I am just going to be in jail then I still have a chance to see my mother again and I still have a chance to take care of her. If I am getting a death sentence, then, I was just going to ask them to let me meet with my mother since I will not have another chance to take care of her.

    The fbi agent, well aware that he has sculpted an utterly false confession, then tells his victim

    fbi agent: That’s impossible. She didn’t see her mother before she died.
    fbi agent: You could have stopped to any point time and you gotten help then she’d be alive today.
    fbi agent: She never got a chance to see about anybody. The last person she’s ended up to is being with you
  4. Abcdefgh

    Abcdefgh Member

    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Important to recognize that in Burma there are two 'rape statistics' that people notice.


    This is the kind of thing that seems to be involved in the murder of Hser Ner Moo, though a combination of "rape accusation" and child murder, in one crime.

    2) The kinds of rapes that are in the news today in Burma. Soldiers using rape to intimidate groups of mainly Muslim villagers. The soldiers drive the men away, or kill them, then rape the women. the purpose being to get that population to be more cooperative with the government. Myanmar had agreed to stop using that tactic but obviously it continues and is in the news.


    The two 'types of rape, i.e., rapes by soldiers against 'group a' and accusations that people from 'group a' commited rapes might be sort of cyclical.

    Today there is a heavy news cycle about rapes against Muslim women by government soldiers. The media coverage leads supporters of those soldiers, e.g. majority ethnic groups, to feel that they have been maligned. So occasionally individuals will 'solve' the image issue by fabricating a story in which a Muslim commits some horrendous rape. So once the current situation settles maybe again a new cycle of people accusing the Muslims of crimes in order to try to balance public perception.

    In this case, Esar Met, Samar, is Muslim and his roommates were hostile towards him for that reason.

    The evidence seems to be that one among them killed the child then may have gotten one or more of the others to assist in further acts. The intention being to portray Samar as a threatening person.

    When the crime initially occured few people were aware of any possible motive aside from the killer simply being violent against a child. By the time evidence was gathered and police and prosecutors knew he was not guilty the case had gone too far.

    They had told the public he confessed, which would make it awkward to suddenly say "On further review he is innocent", since they would have to explain the confession.

    At this point there vis abundant evidence that Esar Met or "Samar", did not commit the crime. The police know it. The prosecutors know it. The 'defense' lawyers know it.

    And yet he has no realistic chance of getting a fair hearing, simply because he has no money and the people who would be embarassed by a retrial do.

    Does the jury system work?

    It does not.
  5. Abcdefgh

    Abcdefgh Member

    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Some of the relevant dna results. These were kept from the public for the simple reason that they did not indicate guilt. The same reason the so called 'confession' was kept secret. Later results that supposedly show some connection between the victim and the accused are suspect at best, and at worst appear to have been falsified. See previous posts regarding jacket.

    Note that much of the evidence, including hair evidence sent to the fbi, seems to have disappeared.





    The rest will be posted eventually.

    edit to add

    The hair evidence sent to the fbi disappeared. Probably because they got caught falsifying too much hair evidence already and this case just wasn't important enough to falsify more.
  6. Abcdefgh

    Abcdefgh Member

    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Below are some questions regarding the Hser Ner Moo murder that have still not been answered.

    ~Esar Met was convicted of the murder and sentenced to life.

    1) Why were discrepancies in the roommates stories not investigated?
    There were some serious problems in the stories that the four roommates, and the fifth anonymous person, provided to police, however those discrepancies were never investigated, and in fact the police kept them secret.

    2) Why was no effort made, even by the defense counsel, to verify Esar Met's story of buying glue to fix his uncle's bicycle?
    Esar Met provided the name of the person who bought the glue with him. Why did the police not investigate whether that might be true? And why did the defense not pressure the police to do that?

    3) Why did none of the roommates answer the door when police were looking for the child?
    There were over thirty apartments in the complex. In the first search three apartments seemed to be vacant but in the next two searches all of the apartments were searched, except the apartment where the body was. The roommates were in that apartment. Esar Met was visiting his aunt and uncle, as his roommates knew, and he was not there. Why didn't the roommates answer the door?

    4) Why were ethnic issues never raised at the trial?
    Burma has a history of ethnic tension spurred by false accusations of rape, including an incident about the same time as the murder in Utah. This certainly would have provided a motive for the roommates to have staged the crime, but it was never raised.

    5) Why did the defense lawyers hide the confession?
    There are so many problems with the confession, any psychology student with some knowledge of false confessions could have discredited it. The prosecution certainly had motive to keep it hidden, but in fact it was the defense that made the move to keep it suppressed. Why?

    6) What happened to the hair that the child was clutching when she died?
    The child had a handful of the killer's hair in her hand, as detailed in the initial reports but later suppressed. What happened to this hair? Why did the defense never point out that Esar Met was not missing a tuft of hair?

    7) Why did the judge issue a gag order when the media started asking difficult questions?
    Numerous people in the case were forbidden from speaking to the media, after certain discrepancies in the prosecutor's case arose. Should the media have forced the judge to explain why a gag order was being misused to suppress information that challenged the prosecution?

    8) Why did the police lie about his supposed fleeing, and about other things?
    Numerous 'facts' provided by the police turned out to be fiction, and there was never any accountability nor even any explanation. One example was Esar Met's supposed 'fleeing'. He had his aunt give the address where he was and said he would be there when the police came. He waited there for them to arrive. When the police arrived, instead of knocking on the door, they pretended they had cornered somebody running from them and knocked the door down. They then told the media that he had tried to flee, which was not true. There were many other examples of untruths the police gave the media to try and portray him as guilty.

    9) Why did they hold him for 6 years, trying to build a case, before they took him to trial?

    10) Why does the dna provided to jurors at the trial not match the dna results returned from the lab and added as an attachment to the police report?
    The dna results presented at trial bare no resemblance to the dna results the police received.

    11) Why did the appeal of his case not address any substantive issues?
    An appeal was filed on his behalf, but instead of addressing any of dozens of issues casting doubt on his guilt, the purpose of the appeal seems to have been to cement his guilt by giving the appearance that his case had been reviewed honestly. Why were none of the issues above addressed?

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice