Bleacher Bum East

If the RTP have found that the DNA of the Burmese boys matching that found on Hannah why would the prosecution keep sending the case back?

Because, basically that's all they have. And that is not enough for a conviction. There could be a number of inconsistencies and missing information as well. I guess the BiBs report was not so perfect after all.

It does appear to be so. Yes.

Ive got a better idea.

Can we stop with all the BS and stick to FACTS.

FACTS are what we know,

As far as I am aware this forum has not made the move towards interviewing potential lawyers.

Get real.

The "fact" is that motive will be a key issue at trial and is a key issue in the prosecutor deciding to bring the case to trial.

Therefore, motive will be a key issue in whether Hannah and David's families receive justice and in whether the killers are removed from the chance of doing this again.

In addition, how these key issues are analyzed and argued have a huge impact on whether the investigation and trial (if there is one) are fair.

These things matter and will have real impact, and are highly worthy of discussion.

It falls under the umbrella of supposition and theory not discussion.

Discussion would be if there was any value in the discussion and as there is no one, AFAIK, on this forum who will participate or have input into the trial its just more

useless dialogue for the sake of it.

Speculation is useless.

I completely disagree with you . . . this is not speculation it is an analysis/debate of an important aspect of the case and making inferences based on facts that are known. This is exactly what the judge will hear and decide on, and what independent professional observers will make a judgment on in deciding whether the trial was fair and a just result was achieved.

But you're entitled to your opinion.

And we've both stated our position so can now let others make up their own minds about whether it's a worthwhile matter to consider and discuss.

I posted this earlier when someone said who else (other as depicted in the scenario above) might have motive with no need to sop for brevity:

So if I were a prosecuting attorney, here is (hypothetically) what I might say:

People have commented that a crime of this brutality could only have been perpetrated in extreme passion such as one who has suffered rejection, humiliation, and losing face by having his advances denied by the deceased UK female.

But here may be another source of extreme passion: 2 young men from another country have been working low-paying menial jobs on the island for 2 years. Every day they see scantily clad Western females and know that Western males are -- for the proper consideration which they certainly lack -- able to have sex with Thai females and maybe even the females from their own country whom they covet. One day they are out on the beach at 4AM and the hear the sounds of love making close by and figure this may be the chance that has been gnawing away at them for years. And the rest happened when things just got out of control.

And then the razz squad kicked in.

JL---If you were a prosecuting attorney putting this forward as a potential motive, it wouldn't be the razz squad that kicked in, it would be the defense attorney. Here is what he might say in response:

The two accused men had everything to lose and very little to gain. The jobs they had on the island were their best means of supporting themselves and more importantly their families. Committing a crime like this would potentially throw everything they had away for a slim chance of having rape sex with no certainty of monetary gain (which in their personal circumstance would have been a much more believable motive).

There was a high probability that they would not be successful in their crime, given that they were two small men attacking a very large man and a woman of equal size to them. Even if it was a sneak attack from behind, David was not killed with the hoe. So that means they would have to have gotten very close with a small weapon and knocked him out instantly without him seeing anything coming, and then be able to subdue Hannah without her screaming and being heard or running away.

There was a high probability they would get caught and had no way to protect themselves. This was not a remote location, many people knew they often came to that place to sing and drink, and since they'd already been there for hours that night, it was likely that they would automatically be the first suspects, which they were. And they had nobody to protect them if the got caught.

There was no evidence that either of these men had ever shown any violent tendency or aggression towards woman. An attack like this as a one time act of extreme aggression by two men with no such history is unlikely. (Assuming there was no such history).

The extremely violent results of the attack shows a level of depravity that does not match the "horny sexually unfulfilled migrant worker" profile.

If this were the motive, the accused men would not have chosen a woman accompanied by a very large young man. As the "prosecutor" said, thousands of beautiful, scantily clad women came through the island each year. Many could be found wandering the beaches or even more remote locations on their own, or without a large man with them. So it makes no sense for these two to satisfy their repressed sexual needs by attacking a large man when many more vulnerable women could easily be found.

These arguments would not entirely eliminate the prosecutor's theory of motive, but the defense would argue that they would cast such a huge amount of doubt on the prosecutor's theoretical motive to render it highly improbable. Certainly not even close to a clear motive beyond a reasonable doubt.

This kind of prosecutor/defense analysis could be made with respect to every piece of evidence the prosecutor may offer.

And the Thai prosecutor is likely performing this analysis himself to predict what will happen under the public spotlight if and when he takes the case to trial.

This is interesting.

Should we next try "means"?

Ive got a better idea.

Can we stop with all the BS and stick to FACTS.

FACTS are what we know,

As far as I am aware this forum has not made the move towards interviewing potential lawyers.

Get real.

The "fact" is that motive will be a key issue at trial and is a key issue in the prosecutor deciding to bring the case to trial.

Therefore, motive will be a key issue in whether Hannah and David's families receive justice and in whether the killers are removed from the chance of doing this again.

In addition, how these key issues are analyzed and argued have a huge impact on whether the investigation and trial (if there is one) are fair.

These things matter and will have real impact, and are highly worthy of discussion.

The biggest problem that Westerners have with understanding the situation, is to ever believe that there is any real interest in the law, or even justice. Like many other multi-billion dollar companies, employing thousands, where the only thing that matters is the bottom line and the people at the very top will do anything to protect their bottom line, no matter how dirty things get at the lowest levels.

Of course the really dirty jobs have to be outsourced, just like those operating using slave labour, so there can be no direct connection back to the major players, but they in turn are protected and that is why no matter how much pressure is ever applied from the West, nothing will ever really change.

Once you understand human nature, without any form of conscience, then you can understand why brutal murders will continue to go unsolved and why the slave trade is both alive and flourishing.

In my opinion, the lowest of the absolute low, are the people who try to defend this type of regime.

"Like many other multi-billion dollar companies, employing thousands, where the only thing that matters is the bottom line and the people at the very top will do anything to protect their bottom line, no matter how dirty things get at the lowest levels."

Let's assume this is true for the sake of discussion...

What happened on Koh Tao and its aftermath has had/will have a hugely negative impact, both tangible bottom line and intangible, on many people from the controlling families on Koh Tao all they up the social and economic ladder that will be way higher than it would have been if the situation had been handled properly from the beginning.

While some insiders may not care about this and will try just to protect the status quo, there will hopefully be some insiders that will realize it is in their own best interests, bottom line and otherwise, to change things so that this does not continue to happen.

Pressure for change needs to happen from the outside, but for real change to happen it must come from the inside. And this usually occurs when people on the inside realize it is in their own best interests to change (for an example see Burma over the last couple of years).

My hope for Thailand and the people I love here is that what happened in this case will be a catalyst for this to occur. Nobody powerful on the inside will admit this is happening, and it will require a long power struggle to change things over time, but hopefully this step backwards will result in some internal steps forward.

I know, I know, wishful thinking. But we've seen a lot of change in places where you never would have expected it.

The key is to get enough powerful people on the inside to realize that change really is in their own best interest.

You may want to check what they were sent to Thailand to do. Observe. Check into allegations of torture. Look at the case. They were never sent to determine guilt or innocence.

BBC - quotes UK govt as saying...

"A diplomatic source said: "There are two areas we are particularly concerned about. One is the verification of the DNA samples of the suspects, making sure there is further independent verification.

"And the second is the investigation into allegations of mistreatment of the suspects.

"What the PM secured was agreement from the Thai PM that we can send some British police investigators to Koh Tao to work with the Royal Thai Police on this.""

They want to check the VERIFICATION of DNA samples of the SUSPECTS.

What have we heard about this?

Please see the actual FCO statement

Here is one of 3

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/foreign_commonwealth_office_answer_our_10_questions_on_the_hannah_witheridge_case_1_3820462

JD you should stop saying there were 3 statements unless you can provide links to all 3.

I actually think this was the only statement relating to the UK team's mission to Thailand.

There was also an earlier press release clarifying the summons of the Thai diplomat in London, which I think can be found on the FCO website...but this didn't relate to the team sent to Thailand.

I believe you think there was a third because a news report referenced an FCO statement, but it was actually referencing the one you linked to above.

It doesn't really matter because the FCO issued responses you linked to above are sufficient, but you should be accurate and not say there were 3 statements when there were not.

If you can link to the other two statements, I'd be happy to stand corrected and would be interested in reading them.

@JTJ

Who do you think committed the murders?

He thinks the Burmese are the rapists and murderers. He's stated that several times. He will believe whatever the police brass send down the tubes.

Show one link were I said that? And never have I indicated at all that police, here or anywhere else are not corrupt or that in less developed countries like Thailand they are often usually much more corrupt.

I have repeatedly said I believe they should stand trial based on the evidence and if they don't plead guilty then their defense team should challenge any evidence as well as present their own to defend them and that the courts should decide this case.

I also stated that I don't believe there is any evidence currently out there that would indicate the Headsman's family had anything to do with this let alone should stand trial.

JTJ . . . assuming for the sake of discussion that what you just said is correct, I have a couple of related questions for you:

Based on what information is publicly available, do you think it is reasonable to close the investigation having identified only two suspects?

In the interests of public safety (not to mention justice), do you think the investigation should remain open and active in an attempt to ensure that there were not more participants in the crime?

I'm not talking about targeting any particular person...just about continuing to search for more participants, whoever they might be.

In my opinion, the evidence available would indicate a high likelihood that more than two persons were involved in the crime, unless one or both of the victims was subdued by a drug, the presence of a weapon (not necessarily fired), etc. that would cause them not to resist or call out.

There is at least enough publicly available circumstantial evidence that there may have been/quite probably was at least three people involved to continue looking, even if that evidence isn't definitive. Of course I don't have all the information the police have, but I can't imagine what they could have that would definitively tell them only two persons were involved in the crime.

So if you were in charge, would you close the investigation when you only have two suspects in custody?

BBE

Can a foreigner work in Thailand w/o a work permit?

Was the visit arranged at literally the top level of diplomacy? Can consular staff work w/o a work permit?

Work a bit on those questions.

Not sure and I have some other things I have to do right now so can't research. . . but off the top of my head, this is what I think is the answer based on what I've read:

The consulate can designate persons who are to be considered its consular officers who will be working on its behalf and be given diplomatic immunity, and therefore I would assume are also directly subject to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

These persons I do not believe are subject to a country's work permit regulations . . . they are part of the consular privileges enjoyed by each visiting state (Hence it's a big thing to ask a member of a consular staff to leave a country).

So I think the UK Embassy could have designated the investigative team as working on their behalf. I can't imagine they would not do that and leave the investigators without diplomatic immunity (unless there was a separate agreement on this).

This is a semi-educated guess ... the honest answer is I'm not sure.

It does not seem at all wrong to me, that if any country wants to benefit from a certain threshold amount of tourist dollars, which thailand would certainly qualify, the country should be open to international investigators performing tests like these. If you want the tourist money, you have to sign on the dotted line and agree to this. Seems reasonable. The world has got to put a stop to ridiculous stuff like this.

There is an agreement to which both the UK and Thailand are signatories.

See article 55 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

PS I apologize to everyone for the long-winded posts. These issues interest me, I care about how they will impact people that I love and their country, and I enjoy fleshing them out ... hopefully the thoughts will be interesting and useful to a few other people (with long attention spans ) as well.

Something is bothering me about the initial DNA thing.

Has there been a report/confirmation that categorically says the Burmese DNA matches the DNA profile from the semen found from Hannah? I'm talking direct here: Burmese DNA - Semen DNA.

Everything I've read suggests their DNA matches that found on a cigarette and then separately that DNA found on the cigarette matches that from the semen found from Hannah: Burmese DNA - Cigarette DNA - Semen DNA.

Surely if they are satisfied that the Burmese DNA matched the semen, they'd drop the bloody cigarette bit? Why the reluctance to do that?

If I've missed a report, please share the link.

Forget the cigg butt already. It has no bearing on guilt of anyone. Same for the unused condom.

The police claimed, right after arresting the Burmese, that their DNA matched the DNA found in the victim. Some on this thread has mentioned a 3rd person's semen found on victim's chest. That's a report I must have missed. The important DNA profiles now are the 2 or 3 found with the female victim. One main reason why there's so much debate online is: it's not clear whether that DNA profile is reliable. It's the police's word, and thus far (and in prior crime cases) Thai police have been shown to lie and/or nail scapegoats. Their credibility is in the mud.

Most of us (other than JTJ and JD) are hoping the Brit experts will clear things up. However, that could be a tall order because the Thai PM has explicitly hamstrung them by insisting they be no more than 'observers.'

I think the Brits will take the gentlemanly/diplomatic way out, and not say anything which will enrage their hosts. Afterwards, when they get to Beefeater Land, one will write a very interesting book about his all-expenses-paid trip to Thailand. I'd like to co-author it (I've had a dozen books published).

You say the cigarette butt and condom don't matter?

If I was a defense attorney I would seriously beg to disagree.

Regarding the cigarette butt ... there have been two or three different reports of the DNA found on the butt.

I think the most recent is that it had the DNA of one of the accused and his friend the witness ... but it was not found at the log, but somewhere closer to the crime scene. The witness left around 1 pm, so that means it took the accused guy two plus hours to finish the cigarette and drop it close to the scene if it is really evidence of his presence there. There are possible explanations, but none convincing.

And here's an oldie but a goodie . . .

"Traces of the 23-year-old woman's DNA and that of one other person were found on a cigarette butt around 50 yards from where her body was found."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/thailand-beach-murders-dna-found-hannah-witheridge-traced-two-men-thought-be-killers-1466412

Initial reports said that Hannah's DNA was also found on the cigarette butt. And if that report is true, then that blows the whole theory of the two Arakaneses guys saw them walk past, then snuck up on them and attacked them from behind almost completely out of the water.

Why does the condom with Hannah's DNA on it matter? . . . I'm out of breath so we'll save that for next time . . . but of course it matters to anyone investigating and trying the case, it didn't just materialize with her DNA on it out of thin air, and how it got there could be very material to the case. I don't know how it had only her DNA on it (when it was removed it went inside out, so her DNA was protected, but the man's DNA on the inside was washed away by saltwater with the tide? Guessing big time, I have no clue) ... but I pretty much guarantee a professional investigator would have a likely explanation.

The bottom line is that everything at the crime scene matters, both to the prosecution and the defense ... because ever little thing either incrementally helps the prosecution or the defense, and could potentially implicate a yet unknown person.

And speaking of oldies but goodies from the same IB Times, here's another one that matters:

"A garden hoe, thought to be the murder weapon, was found with Witheridge's blood on it nearby. Investigators are searching for a separate blunt metal object used to kill Miller."

Doctors from Chulalongkorn Hospital, Siriraj Hospital, Ramathibodi Hospital and Police General Hospital collected the DNA samples from Warot.

It doesn't get much better than that in Thailand.

I have a juicy conspiracy theory related to why so many different hospitals took samples . . . but it's based on pure conjecture, has a low likelihood of panning out, and wouldn't even potentially help anyone advance the investigation, so I'll just keep it too myself and see how everything plays out . . . although it's tempting to post it and watch you guys all go into an apoplectic frenzy at once

Would that be considered trolling? I'm new to this game . . .

PS Trust me it's a good theory and would be fun to debate over a beer or three, but not here.

^{If I was an Itinerant worker, working illegally on Koh Tao and had just raped and killed a girl in a frenzied brutal attack with a garden hoe and killed her boyfriend. I would stay on the island as if nothing had happened even wearing the same shirt the next day, no need to change after all (no nasty blood stains or anything).}

Public boats off the island watched.

Multiple identical work shirts owned

so did the police find a blood stained shirt from the accused..? I do not think so. The shirt looks identical, but as you say it could be another from the bar. I cannot imagine how there would no stains on any of his clothing. How many shirts has he got..? is there one missing. How many days after the murder was he arrested..? plenty of time to get off regardless of being "watched" plenty of others got off OK. It just seems odd that they would just hang around after such a henious crime. There were no witnesses at all, no CCTV of them at the correct time, so it must all be hinging on DNA, which would prove rape. It would not satisfy Sherlock.

"so it must all be hinging.."

Means Motive Opportunity DNA confessions CCTV, second confession to HRC... And who knows what else??

That will certainly be the prosecution's argument if the case goes to trial.

Opportunity may be a safe bet---however if it can be shown that the two accused men left the beach before 3 a.m. then that would no longer be true. There may be/should be evidence somewhere of exactly what time they went home.

Means and Motive, the CCTV shots, and the confessions a good defense attorney would have a field day with, so the prosecutor would have his job cut out for him in those areas.

The wild cards are the DNA and the "who knows what else??"

The clear crime scene contamination is one strike against the DNA evidence ... whether it is fatal may depend on where it is ultimately shown the DNA was collected from (e.g. outside or inside of Hannah's body, where it would be exposed to contamination, or inside where it may not be). The rest depends on chain of custody, etc. etc.

Bottom line is nobody knows how solid the DNA evidence is ... if it can be proven to be solid, that is certainly a huge chit in the prosecution's favor. But as discussed earlier, proving the presence of the two accused does not prove nobody else was involved in the crimes, or that they were the murderer's. But admittedly solid reliable DNA evidence would seriously hurt the defense.

You are right, nobody knows what other evidence the prosecutor has. If he has other direct or good circumstantial evidence that would certainly help the case . . . the fact that he has asked the police to go back and find more circumstantial evidence is one indication (not conclusive in the least) as to whether he thinks he already has enough.

The flip side of that is that the defense will be able to compile its own evidence casting doubt on whether the accused committed the rape and murder.

There is nothing clear cut on either side at this point, we just don't have enough information to know.

The person who is really looking at this exact same analysis right now is the prosecutor...he knows that if he goes forward he will be under the spotlight on all of these issues.

JTJ keeps asserting the police line that Burmese DNA matched that found within victim.

There's one big hole in that assertion. If there is a frame-up (which many think there is) then it's easy to skew the data. For starters, who actually has the hard data showing the profile of the DNA found in the victim? Answer: COPS and only cops.

All they have to say, starting the day after arresting the Burmese, is: "their DNA matches." Who is going to go to the police and demand to see original results? Possibly only the prosecutors, but they've already sent the police report back 2 or 3 times for revisions (read: make the frame-up look more convincing). Plus, the prosecutors are working hand in hand with officialdom.

Another easy way to skew the DNA data: Take the Burmese boys' data, make a copy of it (it's probably on paper cards), and rename it: "Semen taken from victim." Doing that would also safeguard Nomsod, and would explain why he and his shielders were so nonchalant about submitting his DNA today, some grinning in the background.

Original samples were tested in Singapore. This was before implication of the two Burmese. They should have the original record. Trust nothing from Thai police. Send all new samples to Singapore for comparison.

I seemed to recollect that the RTP said they would be sending the samples to Singapore, but instead sent them to BKK, who distributed them to hospitals in Chiang Mai. While I could be mistaken on which hospitals tested the samples, it wasn't Singapore.

I'm going to answer without going back and finding the links to verify, but this is my understanding based on police statements over time (I'm sure I'll be quickly corrected if I'm wrong):

The initial tests to identify the DNA found on Hannah's body must have been done in Thailand--probably the forensic hospital where the autopsy was performed (I'm guessing)--because they were quickly able to compare samples from the initial 12 suspects against that first test (and I believe this happened before Singapore was mentioned as an option).

Afterwards, the police said they wanted to use the DNA to identify race but were unable to do so with their own technology, so they were going to send a sample to Singapore. They did identify the DNA as belonging to an "Asian", so it may well be they sent a portion of the original DNA sample to a Singapore lab at that time in order to determine race, not to do matching analysis.

After that, the police said that they had a backlog of DNA matching tests to perform, so they sent a portion of the original DNA sample (or perhaps just the results of earlier tests?) to several places in Thailand, including Chiang Mai, to perform the matching analysis.

So it's possible the the original sample was divided up and sent to several different places, or at least that the test results from the original sample was sent to several different places.

Nobody in the public knows the facts, so anything we say about this is pure speculation ... I don't even think reasonable inferences from what is known are possible here.

But both the prosecution and the defense should want to verify that any and all tests that were performed met the proper standards for reliable accuracy. That means tracking and verifying that the chain of custody was maintained and the proper standards were adhered to in gathering, handling, testing, analyzing, and storing all samples and test results.

Again, this would be true in any criminal investigation and prosecution, anywhere in the world, not just Thailand.

What is odd is these conspiracy theorists rely on police statements to make their conspiracy case but then when later police statements prove their theory wrong, they say nothing police say can be trusted.

Bottom line is there are no facts they will not ignore and nothing unknown they will not use to fill in blanks to make up facts to support their conspiracy theories. Whatever it takes, even if it requires going back in time and using select month old police suspects and ignoring any updates. There is no shame, no embarrassment anymore it is sheer desperation to keep their conspiracy theories going despite there being no motivation, proof or reality in these theories.

"What is odd is these conspiracy theorists rely on police statements to make their conspiracy case but then when later police statements prove their theory wrong, they say nothing police say can be trusted."

I agree that this is true of some posters (definitely not all), but the converse is also true JTJ:

You rely on police statements regarding DNA matching, etc. as your basis for saying the accused Burmese men are guilty and give no indication that you believe there is any possibility these statements could be later proved wrong or the evidence unreliable . . . but then when extremely strong and direct police statements about other suspects are reversed, you easily dismiss those statements simply as having been proven wrong by later information, so no big deal.

Both sides should be intellectually consistent if you want to have an honest debate.

The bottom line is that nobody on either side can point to a police statement as evidence of anything ... they are simply statements, and in order to prove something one way or another you need to see the underlying evidence and basis for these statements (I'm not saying police are obligated to provide this publicly). So all you can say is "assuming the police statement is accurate based on reliable evidence, then . . . "

This is true anywhere in the world with respect to any investigation...police everywhere make public statements for many reasons and with many motivations, which sometimes is to subliminally help them in the investigation, and sometimes is simply a mistake or poor decision. Statements by the police do, however, fairly open what they have said up to public discussion and questioning, so they should be very careful and precise about what they publicly announce.

Nobody in the public has any idea what information the police have access to, what information they have or have not reviewed, or what that information revealed. And the police are not required to make all of that available to the public. But they should be required to make it available to the defense. And the public and media do have a right to point out things that should have been reviewed in the course of a proper investigation.

BTW, to me it appears likely, if police statements at the time were accurate, that the two accused Burmese men and their friend the "witness" were at first considered prime suspects and detained, interrogated, DNA tested, and released within 3 days of the murder ... see news reports, including police statements, around September 18th regarding the 3 Burmese migrant workers who were seen drinking near the crime scene on the night of the murder. These reports don't identify the suspects by name, but there has been no information about anybody else drinking near the crime scene that night ... so I don't know who else it could have been.

So I don't know this for a fact---that would require evidence I don't have access to---but if the police statements at that time were accurate, then it appears that the two men currently in jail were quite possibly cleared at one point as well. (BTW this is separate from the photos of one of the accused standing in line for a DNA test ... ).

It's very interesting to go back and read the news reports about the investigation from the days right after the murders.

Within 2 days of the murder, a group of suspects were identified and DNA tested, including 3 men who were seen drinking on the beach near the crime scene (identified in the reports as the primary suspects at the time).

These three men, who were not identified by name in the news reports, were interrogated twice, DNA tested and not matched, and released.

In addition, there was discussion of a second murder weapon other than the hoe, which was thought to be a metal object used to bludgeon the victims.

Google "Koh Tao murders, Still no arrests, no DNA matches, September 18" and read all the reports for that day and the couple of days beforehand.

I think that some reasonable inferences can be drawn from those reports. They would certainly beg a few questions at least.

A couple of things that I think people who are following the case should keep in mind regarding the DNA testing of any person:

First, for a fair trial to take place, a person accused of a crime should always be allowed to independently test (if possible) the DNA taken from a crime scene, and to cross-examine the gathering, transportation, testing, results and storage of DNA samples and tests to be introduced as evidence by the prosecution.

Second, a DNA match does not in and of itself prove the person committed the crime. It is very good evidence, but not sufficient to prove guilt. And it is definitely does not prove that other persons who did not leave traces of DNA were not involved in the crime as well.

Third, the absence of a DNA match does not prove a person did not commit or was somehow involved in a crime. It just means the prosecution needs to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt without the use of DNA evidence, which is what happens in the vast majority of criminal cases.

These points apply to anybody who is a suspect in any crime.

In this case, given all the information that is publicly available, I think it is reasonable to infer that there were "more than likely" more than two people involved in the crimes committed against Hannah and David.

"More than likely" is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is enough for investigators to base whether or not a case is closed or open on (if you think more than two people probably did it, it would make sense to keep looking even if you already have two suspects in hand). It can also be used by any suspects defense team to argue the possibility that somebody else committed the crime (if you can demonstrate that more than two people were probably involved, you can argue that it is possible the defendants were there but weren't the murderers, or argue this means they weren't involved at all).

BTW the reliability of DNA tests is always an issue as well in any DNA test anywhere in the world. Any defense lawyer can challenge that reliability through arguments regarding contamination, chain of evidence, bias in analysis, etc. The prosecution always has to be able to defend those challenges, in any criminal case, to establish that his DNA evidence is reliable.

Note -

For people stating DNA doesn't prove murder. The correct statement is DNA by itself (alone) doesn't.

Means

Motive

Opportunity

Those alone are enough to get a conviction. Exculpatory evidence is often required to prevent conviction on a case built solely circumstantial evidence.

This is not accurate, and if somebody following the case believes this then they will be mislead.

In fact, "means, motive and opportunity" are not in and of themselves sufficient to establish guilt and should not be enough to get a conviction in a fair trial.

The prosecutor must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted on the opportunity with the required level of intent.

More detail for anybody interested:

So what does the prosecutor need to prove?

The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that each element of a particular crime are present beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every crime has it's own specific elements (for example, rape requires non-consensual sexual penetration), but all crimes have these general elements in common that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

I would love this to come to trial, a fair and open trial, one in a civilized court....hey and even better, lets televise it....let the world see Thai justice in action.

Lets call the British Police officers to give there views....ok?

Lets get the phone records on show

Lets see the DNA evidence, tell us which lab did the tests

Lets see the autopsy report, the toxicology reports.

Lets do it, fair and open

To the post one above: A good lawyer in a criminal matter can make a case either for the prosecution or the defendant. Arguing one side or another on here IMHO does not mean 'support' of anything -- just arguing the merits of either side of the case.

"A good lawyer in a criminal matter can make a case either for the prosecution or the defendant."

That is absolutely correct . . . And in fact, a good prosecutor needs to be able to make the case for the defense, and a good defense attorney needs to be able to make the case for the prosecution. If a lawyer cannot see and understand the strengths and weaknesses of both sides (and there are always strengths and weaknesses on both sides) then he is not a good lawyer and will not be able to do his job properly---whether that is representing the state as prosecutor or representing the accused as a defense attorney.

"Arguing one side or another on here IMHO does not mean 'support' of anything -- just arguing the merits of either side of the case."

In theory, that should be the case. But in reality, a vast majority of those posting on both sides of the TVC debate have put on blinders and (unlike a good lawyer or independent observer) can only see one side of the case. This, among other things, is why a vast majority of the posts (although not all) are worthless and maddeningly repetitive (seriously, to both sides, how many times a day do you need to say the exact same thing on TVC? Do you really think this helps your cause?).

A good lawyer also needs to be able to separate provable fact from inference, and be able to separate reasonable inference (reasonably derived from known facts and circumstances, and which help his or her argument) from wildly speculative guesses (not derived from known facts and circumstances, or unreasonably derived, and which actually hurt his or her argument).

All of us on TVC have very few known facts to base our arguments or inferences on . . . and I mean very few.

All that being said, at the investigation stage, it is OK for investigators for the state and for the defense to follow speculative assertions to see where they lead ... but good investigators have an experienced professional sense of which speculations are worth following up on, and which are a waste of time.

Finally, a good judge will be able to see the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, determine what is fact, what is reasonable inference that should be considered, and what is speculation that should not be considered. Then a good judge will weigh all of this and decide if the prosecution has met the burden of proof.

In my opinion, there a very few good armchair lawyers, judges, investigators, or even debaters on these TVC threads (on either side), which is why those posting are confined to a handful of people shouting in an echo chamber---and why very few "outsiders" are willing to throw themselves into the mud pit of these threads. Which is a shame, because it means a lot of people with interesting and valuable opinions never even consider joining a TVC debate.

The good news is that there are very good investigators, and I hope very good lawyers, working on the case. I believe they have many known facts and circumstance to work with that TVC posters do not have, and will be able to draw professional and experienced inferences from those facts and circumstances. I believe that this is what will ultimately lead to the truth being discovered and revealed in court, one way or the other, about what happened to Hannah and David.

Very few people weigh in on the side of being opposed to trial by social media.

The people that do call for exactly what you do. An actual trial with a vigorous defense for the accused, are subject to personal attacks.

The "everyone knows exactly who did it " crowd ignore the reality that their claim is untrue and amounts to a lynch mob mentality.

If people believe it is a stitch up they should want a trial at the defense' earliest convenience.

I agree with this as well . . . any trial must be fair and transparent or it is not meaningful.

In order to be fair, a trial must include what are generally considered the basic elements of a fair trial.

A vigorous defense---which is supplied through discovery with all of the evidence available (as well as the processes used to obtain and analyze the evidence), has the ability to challenge the evidence, and has the ability to introduce its own evidence---is one of the basic elements of a fair trial.

If a trial is not fair, then it does not determine guilt or innocence, it only determines conviction or no conviction. These are not the same thing.

It's also important to point out two other things:

First, there should not even be a trial unless the prosecution genuinely believes it has a reasonable likelihood of proving that the accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Currently, the prosecution has not yet officially made that determination. What they are waiting for none of us knows. I have my own hunch, but it would just be an educated guess.

Second, saying you want the truth to ultimately come out in court, like I did, does not mean in any particular trial. If the guys currently accused are guilty, I would want it to come out in their fair trial. If other persons are guilty, I would want it to come out in their fair trial. The key is to get the right people, whoever they are, and make sure that nobody who is innocent is convicted. There is too much at stake not to.

But personally, I don't think anybody on TVC has enough reliable information to say that any particular person is guilty at this point. I have my hunches as well just like everybody else, but there is no way I can say that I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody could.

That doesn't mean you can't criticize a lot that has happened, or infer things based on facts that are known, or share facts and information with other people interested in the case, or even guess as long as you admit that's what you're doing.

And it doesn't mean there isn't value in keeping the pressure on authorities to stay fair and honest and make sure they get the real killers--there is tremendous value in that also.

It just means you can't say definitively you know who did it . . . and probably at this stage, we can't even say who likely did it (regardless of what side of the debate you are on).

To the post one above: A good lawyer in a criminal matter can make a case either for the prosecution or the defendant. Arguing one side or another on here IMHO does not mean 'support' of anything -- just arguing the merits of either side of the case.

"A good lawyer in a criminal matter can make a case either for the prosecution or the defendant."

That is absolutely correct . . . And in fact, a good prosecutor needs to be able to make the case for the defense, and a good defense attorney needs to be able to make the case for the prosecution. If a lawyer cannot see and understand the strengths and weaknesses of both sides (and there are always strengths and weaknesses on both sides) then he is not a good lawyer and will not be able to do his job properly---whether that is representing the state as prosecutor or representing the accused as a defense attorney.

"Arguing one side or another on here IMHO does not mean 'support' of anything -- just arguing the merits of either side of the case."

In theory, that should be the case. But in reality, a vast majority of those posting on both sides of the TVC debate have put on blinders and (unlike a good lawyer or independent observer) can only see one side of the case. This, among other things, is why a vast majority of the posts (although not all) are worthless and maddeningly repetitive (seriously, to both sides, how many times a day do you need to say the exact same thing on TVC? Do you really think this helps your cause?).

A good lawyer also needs to be able to separate provable fact from inference, and be able to separate reasonable inference (reasonably derived from known facts and circumstances, and which help his or her argument) from wildly speculative guesses (not derived from known facts and circumstances, or unreasonably derived, and which actually hurt his or her argument).

All of us on TVC have very few known facts to base our arguments or inferences on . . . and I mean very few.

All that being said, at the investigation stage, it is OK for investigators for the state and for the defense to follow speculative assertions to see where they lead ... but good investigators have an experienced professional sense of which speculations are worth following up on, and which are a waste of time.

Finally, a good judge will be able to see the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, determine what is fact, what is reasonable inference that should be considered, and what is speculation that should not be considered. Then a good judge will weigh all of this and decide if the prosecution has met the burden of proof.

In my opinion, there a very few good armchair lawyers, judges, investigators, or even debaters on these TVC threads (on either side), which is why those posting are confined to a handful of people shouting in an echo chamber---and why very few "outsiders" are willing to throw themselves into the mud pit of these threads. Which is a shame, because it means a lot of people with interesting and valuable opinions never even consider joining a TVC debate.

The good news is that there are very good investigators, and I hope very good lawyers, working on the case. I believe they have many known facts and circumstance to work with that TVC posters do not have, and will be able to draw professional and experienced inferences from those facts and circumstances. I believe that this is what will ultimately lead to the truth being discovered and revealed in court, one way or the other, about what happened to Hannah and David.