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.