rockingrobin

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

That's right. There really wasn't anything in there. 

There was an argument at a bar. 

They advised the Thai to take a dna sample of a suspect. 

There was information about the phone, but it doesn't say what that information is. 

There's nothing in it really. 

Assume you are correct about advising the thais to take a dna sample from a suspect.

This request is made some 2 weeks after the B2 arrest and dna being profiled. 

38 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Page 3 section 2 doesn't say anything about dna. 

The only thing it says about dna is they advised the Thai to take dna from the suspect on october 17. 

The suspect is Wei Phyo. 

Perhaps the brits do have dna. 

The need to take dna from a potential suspect

Is this the NCA requesting the thai authorities to take dna, or the thais requesting the UK to take dna

At the moment I cant see a reason why the NCA would be in possesion of any information about the B2 dna to pass on to the thai authorities

31 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Please. 

link to MPS case back in 2015

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/zaw-lin-and-wai-phyo-v-commissioner-of-police-for-the-metropolis/

The dna evidence gets more chaotic

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017_08_29_PRIV-High-Court-Order-NCA-unlawful-action.pdf

page 3 section 2

Did the RTP mislead the Thai court when 

Cherdpong also conceded that officers never investigated rumors of an altercation between Witheridge and a young Thai man in the AC Bar

25 minutes ago, Arkady said:

 

From the British court document it seems that British police actually handed over evidence from David Miller's phone about arguments he and Hannah had with individuals on Koh Tao and harassment Hannah had suffered in a beach bar there.  If I understand it correctly, Thai police and prosecutors apparently chose to ignore this evidence that might have pointed to suspects other than the 2B and just used the evidence to do with the phone's location. 

 

Unfortunately it is unlikely to taken as a face saving way of letting the 2B off.  It is far more likely to be completely ignored by the Thai Supreme Court, as irrelevant.  With the best will in the world there is nothing the Supreme Court can do to take it into consideration, unless the defence has including this as evidence in its final appeal which has already been submitted. 

Item D is interesting, request to take dna sample from suspect , Oct 17 , this is after the B2 arrest.

If we are to believe the final thai court judgement , all the dna samples have been accounted for

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

The wonderful news is, we all now know the UK did do an investigation. 

The UK did have evidence to the crime. 

The evidence showed the b2 guilty. 

Thanks for the confirmation UK police. 

I just want to thank those brave officers that risked their jobs and good reputation in the name of justice for hannah Witheridge, who was shameless murdered by those 2 rotters. 

Well the MPS disagrees with you, under oath they have testified they did not carry out any investigation , take possesion of any evidence, but were there merely as observers

If you wish I will locate the relevant UK  High Court judgement

4 hours ago, greenchair said:

Well you see this is the problem. 

The defense pressured for the UK independent investigation. then wanted the UK to withhold any evidence that would unequivocally show guilt, because of the death penalty. Whilst at the same time reveal evidence that would show another person was there and anything that differed from the Thai police. 

They pressured the coroner to reveal dna findings, but after andy went to meet the coroner backpeddled on that too. 

 

This is incorrect

Lawyers acting for the defence went to the UK high court to request that the MPS made its findings available to the defense

If you wish I can locate the relevant judgement

The UK coroner would not have been in a position to reveal dna findings

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

A treaty as an agreement for mutual defence - no sovereignty issue.

So you will be advocating the abolishment of the 1952 visiting forces act that allow US forces personnal to present certificate of immunity to British courts

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1983/dec/19/visiting-forces-act-1952

30 minutes ago, greenchair said:

vWA 18 was only found in the rectum. Which by the way was mixed.  Full match was found in the vagina by the 2nd defendant.

If I was to concede to 18 , it would only be on the first defendant. 

There is slight evidence of a 3rd person, being the hair, vWA 18, the unknown dna on the hoe, some unexplained wounds on david. The condom. 

Muang Muang was on the log. He disappeared for a couple of hours and came back with wine , all around the time hannah was last seen. ( show me a poor man that drinks beer, then changes to more expensive wine, I'll eat my hat ) wine is generally  bought by a male to "loosen" a prospective lady up. After coming back with wine, he disappeared again for an hour or 2.  Then he suddenly turns up and is hanging around at the beach between 2 and 4 am. He shared cigarettes with his dna that were near the victim. But that dna was not found on victim. 

He says he woke Wei Phyo up. 

Wei Phyo says they met on way back to room. 

As the judge said, there was nothing to connect Muang Muang to the victim . It's highly possible he is the third person. It's even possible he held the hoe. 

That's another case. 

Wei Phyo was on the log , he shared the cigarette that matched dna on the victim. His full match dna was in the vagina. He had first victim phone. He lied and lied. He was at the scene between 2 and 4 am. 

 

Zaw Lin did the least of the 3. 

He sat on the log drinking, he went for a swim. He went back to the room and went to sleep. 

His dna was on the butt. 

But as you say, his dna in the bottom was mixed and had vWA 18. His case is totally different from above two. 

You cannot lump all of their cases together. In my opinion the court failed in that area. 

Throw in dna profiling is difficult to obtain after 3 days , sexual assualt cases

The low volume of seman sample available, it was all used up , the victims dna will be in greater number that the male perpertraitors and thus the female dna will swamp the testing process.

The mixed sample will complicate the process

The discrepencies in the results

The amendments and alterations to correct mistakes in the recording of results

40 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

So lets get this straight - according to British Law (and presumably therefore NOT EU law!), it is unlawful to pass information to other countries where there might be a danger that the perpetrators in question could receive the death penalty.

 

1. Does this apply to all crimes, including terrorism?

 

2. The UK is prepared to withhold vital evidence and allow the perpetrator of a murderous act to go free and do it again rather than provide information just in case the death penalty is applied!

 

By the way, I also have severe doubts that the two Burmese men convicted are in fact guilty of the crimes mentioned - here we are just talking about the principle of the matter.

 

It would make a more credible law if evidence were withheld in cases where the jurisdiction could not be trusted to provide a fair trial.

Not just in case of death penalty

In a UK court , the MPS stated that in the case of them holding information that could exonorate a person being convicted in an oversees territory, in order to protect their working relationship with the foreign authorities they would not disclose such information to the defense

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

They do not involve sovereignty.

How do they not concede sovereignty, From NATO.  If another NATO country is attacked , all other member countries are obliged to defend.

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The Declaration of Right, and the Bill of Rights, clearly state that - no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

 

So it can clearly be seen that every EU treaty imposed upon us by Parliament, is unconstitutional. 

The power remains with the UK parliament, it can revoke any such external powers

16 minutes ago, greenchair said:

So you are saying it's acceptable to focus only on location 18 and disregard 10 match location which is of UK standard. 

It's not how I see it, but you are entitled to that opinion. 

No , what I am saying the UK standard would require vWA to match

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, they have to approve it but a referendum was still required.

I don't think anyone was listening to Powell in the early 70's after the "Rivers" speech.

If I was to follow your logic , the UK membership of the likes of , NATO, WTO, WHO, BIS are all unlawfull because no referendum took place prior to the UK joining

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain's constitution - sovereign power ultimately lies with the electorate. Before the 1970 general election, even Heath declared that it would be wrong to join the EEC without `the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people'. Of course he reneged on that too!

Sovereignty does not sit with the people, 

The coronation Oath Act 1688 , following the great revolution clearly puts sovereignty with parliament

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain's constitution - sovereign power ultimately lies with the electorate. Before the 1970 general election, even Heath declared that it would be wrong to join the EEC without `the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people'. Of course he reneged on that too!

Parliament didnt.

The people did that when the Bill of Rights was passed and consigned the Magna Carter to history

21 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I'm not understanding you. 

You agree they matched on 16 right? 

You agree doctor Worawee said only 10 are used to compare identity. 

You agree the court sees that as choosing the 10 used to compare identity out of the 16. As do I. 

 

I don't understand how that misrepresents the testimony that only 10 locations can be used. 

Im really not following what you are trying to say. 

I will concentrate on 1 dna discrepency, the vWA 18, I have picked this example because this location is a necessity to prove identity in both the fbi (who use 13 locations) and the UK (who use 10 locations). If the location vWA does not match then the FBI and UK would exclude and determine the sample from the suspect was not the donor.

The prosecution provided a dna profile into evidence with a marker of 18 at location vWA ,  one location of 13, in case of the USA, or 10 in the case of the UK , which is required to match to prove identity.

The defendants dna at location vWA does not have 18, therefore they could not have donated 18 to the crime scene sample

To overcome this the court took the witness statement that 10 locations can only be used to prove identity , to meaning only 10 locations , regardless of their location is necessary.

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not irrational - you need to read back through the string to get the context entirely.

Any of this does not prevent future parliaments revoking the 1972 act, quite the opposite really.

So if parliament can revoke, how is not soveriegn.

The Conservative government at the time was elected on a manifesto of joining the EEC

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Parliament passed the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the HoC but constitutional convention requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The constitution is unwritten but it is codified in the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. Parliament is required to consult the electorate directly, where constitutional change will affect their political sovereignty.

The Magna Carter for constitutional purposes an historical orniment, a piece of history displaying the change of supremacy from the King to parliament.

Magna Carter was an agreement between the King , who ruled at that time, and the Barons , which limited the kings ability to do whatever they liked.

The Bill of Rights placed firmly that Parliament was supreme

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Parliament passed the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the HoC but constitutional convention requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The constitution is unwritten but it is codified in the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. Parliament is required to consult the electorate directly, where constitutional change will affect their political sovereignty.

The argument is irrational

How did parliament passing the EEC act , prevent future parliaments revoking the act

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

The defendants matched at 16 locations.

Pornthip...The areola matched 2nd defendant but 20 and 25 of the defendant was missing due to deterioration. 

Pornthip....both defendants matched in the virgina and anal, but there was an extra number 18 that could be sperm abnormality or contamination. 

As you say. ..

Worawee MD says only 10 DNA can be used to compare identity. 

Judge more or less says, they matched on the 10 therefore, there are no abnormalities in the DNA. 

(In other words the abnormality from 20, 25 and 18 were irrelevant as they were not found in the 10 locations used to compare identity   ).

So yes, I agree with you, according to the defense doctor there are 10 location to compare identity. 

They matched in all 10. 

The court judgement does not say this

The dna does not match from semen in rectum, or dna on nipple, vWA beyond the scope of the defendants, and 2 missing dna components from the B2

The court chooses to apply a best 10 out of 16 aproach , misrepresenting the testimony that only 10 locations can be used. 

45 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Oops sorry, my mistake. 

16 locations matched to the b2. 

However there were 2 extra location from contamination or sperm mutation. 

But the b2 refused to give the dna result of the sperm sample so it could not be checked for mutation. 

The 2 extra could actually have come from someone else. 

But that does not discount the 16 that match. It just means someone else put their dna. It could be mau mau or the person with blonde hair. 

They only need 10 locations to make a match but they had 16. 

So 17 18 are irrelevant. 

I have just read the judgement again , 

"Mr Worawee, M.D. – witness for the two defendants - testicied that only ten DNA locations can adequately be used to compare a person’s identity'

He doesnt say only 10 locations are needed, but rather that there are only 10 locations

30 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Oops sorry, my mistake. 

16 locations matched to the b2. 

However there were 2 extra location from contamination or sperm mutation. 

But the b2 refused to give the dna result of the sperm sample so it could not be checked for mutation. 

The 2 extra could actually have come from someone else. 

But that does not discount the 16 that match. It just means someone else put their dna. It could be mau mau or the person with blonde hair. 

They only need 10 locations to make a match but they had 16. 

So 17 18 are irrelevant. 

Some of the numbers you are quoting as locations are actually allele numbers, otherwise we would have to assume that the B2 had up to 25 locations tested.

Therefore when you say 17,18 irrelevant these are not locations but numbers assigned to alleles

20 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Oops sorry, my mistake. 

16 locations matched to the b2. 

However there were 2 extra location from contamination or sperm mutation. 

But the b2 refused to give the dna result of the sperm sample so it could not be checked for mutation. 

The 2 extra could actually have come from someone else. 

But that does not discount the 16 that match. It just means someone else put their dna. It could be mau mau or the person with blonde hair. 

They only need 10 locations to make a match but they had 16. 

So 17 18 are irrelevant. 

Forensic DNA profiling is not a pick , the only need 10 is taken out of context. 

You only need to test 10, but all 10 need to match, in case of the USA the FBI requires all 13 to match,