rockingrobin

Just now, greenchair said:

NO. They matched but the semen dna had 2 extra locations. 

Pornthip explained why. Please read it again from the court. 

I made notes. It took 3 hours. 

You need to understand first pornthip gave testimony on behalf of the plaintiff. 

Then she gave testimony on behalf of the defendants. 

She was a neutral witness. 

How can it have 2 extra

where did these 2 extra come from ?, if the defendants are incapable of donating them

14 minutes ago, greenchair said:

No, the saliva had 16 markers that related to identity. 

The semen had 18. 

They matched to 16. 

You only need a match of 10 

page 42 and 43 of the judgement is clear

Although the DNA testing report in Document Jor. 12, page 5 at vWA DNA location indicated that the DNA from the rectum tissue had [location] Number 18, which is beyond the readings found in the DNA of the two defendants

while the location D2S1338 and vWA of DNA collected from the right nipple had two missing loci of DNA location Number 20 and 25 of the Second Defendant. A thorough consideration afcirmed that the DNA of the two defendants still matched the DNA of the offenders’ semen found in the rectum.

It is obvious to me that the dna did not match, vWA and D2S1338 are 2 of the 10 loci that need to match for positive id

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

No, the saliva had 16 markers that related to identity. 

The semen had 18. 

They matched to 16. 

You only need a match of 10 

let me try to understand

Are you saying the dna extracted from the saliva , does not need to match the dna extracted from the semen or defendant 

32 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Sorry but I don't recall this ever been brought up in Court. I know it was mentioned early on in the invstigation by the Police, but not in Court.

 

Somebody else also recently said;"The blonde hair was not raised by the defense or the prosecutor so the judge didn't comment." So to be honest I am not sure what is true. 

mentioned here

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior-police-officers-give-contradictory-evidence-at-hannah-witheridge-murder-trial-1-4215995

10 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I have to disagree, she opinioned on the parts of location that did not match and the missing dna. 

Specifically location 17, 18

And missing location 20, 25. 

16 locations matched in the area to identify a person. According to the other doctor, 10 locations are needed for a match. 

She explained very clearly why it was like that. 

I'm just not seeing what you are seeing. 

some basic principles

A persons DNA is only found in nucleatide cells, and is the same for evey cell. A persons dna does not change throughout their lifetime. There is no such thing as saliva, semen, sweat dna , these are only sources of nucleatide cells. The dna from blood, saliva, semen are identical

There is no test to determine where the dna originated ,(sweat, saliva, blood, semen), not to be confused with donor.

There is a serological test that can be carried out semen , because it only survives for a short period.

Therefore the extracted dna from the saliva should be identical to the defendant

49 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I'm not understanding what you say didn't match. 

It matched according to two of the defense own witnesses, both pornthip and the doctor. That was from the defense, not the prosecution. 

Pornthip did not say the dna matched, she opinioned on possibilities why it did not match

6 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Exactly! 

 

It also could have even been the Victims own hair, which was blonde at this time. Making the hair insignificant, and why it wasn't talked about much after that. 

In court it had already been established not to come from the victims

33 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I'm not understanding what you say didn't match. 

It matched according to two of the defense own witnesses, both pornthip and the doctor. That was from the defense, not the prosecution. 

A persons dna is their dna regardless of its source, whether that be saliva, semen , blood or buccal swabs, the result of testing will be the same.

The evidence presented showed that the testing of the saliva did not match the defendants, to overcome this deficiency the court decided to use a mix and match approach , taking a ,piece of the semen dna testing and placing into the saliva hypothesis to create the match.To justfy this approach it rationalized that either the sample was contaminated or depreciated.

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

The 'single' market - or the EEU?

 

I've no doubt that most Brits. would prefer to remain part of the common market (EEC) - but they're obviously not happy with the EU for differing reasons.

http://www.norgroveblog.co.uk/2017/08/there-is-no-real-mandate-to-leave.html

12 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The location 1 through 16 matched. 

The source of saliva and semen was not match. 

Don't you understand that. 

Saliva and semen is not the same. 

Example . 1 cow produces milk. 

Half is full cream. 

Half is no fat. 

Any test will show the milk is different. 

But the dna of full cream and no fat will be the same because it's 2 different things from the same cow. 

Is this case full cream had 2 extra markers 17,18 because it has cream, but the no fat has no cream so 17, 18 are missing. 

Simple. 

But we are not comparing saliva with semen, we are comparing saliva, semen with the defendanrs

If the dna came from the defendants , it would fully match regardless of its source. You cannot take half the dna from the saliva and half from the semen and create a match by joining them together

15 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The contamination and depreciation was from the nipple area with missing location 20, 25 

A similar thing with the hoe. 

Nothing to do with the vaginal swab. 

page 42 of judgement

' Although the DNA testing report in Document Jor. 12, page 5 at vWA DNA location indicated that the DNA from the rectum tissue had [location] Number 18, which is beyond the readings found in the DNA of the two defendants '

Loci vWA is required to prove identity

3 minutes ago, greenchair said:

To me Robin it looks simple. 

B2 dna came from saliva at 16 location. 

Vaginal dna came from sperm 18 location. 

Sperm and saliva has a different compound. 

So the first 16 location in both matched. 

Dna on the nipple matched the 2nd defendant but two location were missing so the judge and porthip did not accept it. 

This did not effect the match of the semenal dna of offenders  (originally unknown ) and the saliva of the defendants.

 

What does bother me is did the defendants have different reports or was it all on 1 report. 

The first defendant really should have had a separate trial. 

Like mau mau and Sean, there was very little on him. 

But that's what his lawyers chose. 

No 

The dna did not match, you posted earlier from the court judgement where it is described in detail

15 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The blonde hair was not raised by the defense or the prosecutor so the judge didn't comment. 

 

Well I beg to differ, did not the prosecutor have 2 seperate visits to Bangkok but refused to state the contents of discussions in court

Apologies it was not the prosecutor

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior-police-officers-give-contradictory-evidence-at-hannah-witheridge-murder-trial-1-4215995

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 6. ...

Judge. ..the defendants were able to do a retest of their dna but failed to present their findings so they could not disprove the results of the plaintiff.

( I imagine that would have been a sperm test instead of a saliva test which would be slightly different in nature but still would get same dna result )

Conclusion of judge. ..

B2 were arrested 17 days after the first dna collection.

The doctor at the scene followed protocol and sent samples to be tested immediately after collection. Therefore it would be unlikely police or investigators would be able to bring semen from the b2 and place it in the virgina. 

 

And that is the story of the missing numbers, extra numbers, difference in source all confirmed by the defense own 2 witnesses. 

The samples was all used up, 

The court as already acknowledged that the sample is either contaminated or depreciated when it deals with the dna discrepencies , what is to be gained to testing against a used sample known to be deficient

3 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 5. .

Pornthip testimony for the plaintiff. 

Seminal fluid, sweat, and saliva all can be distinguished by dna, so that's why you can see a difference in the dna source because the dna from hannah was semen, but the dna from b2 is a saliva swab. 

So the dna report from hannah had 18 locations which is beyond the reading of b2 saliva which only had 16 location. 

In addition the defense complained there was missing dna location from the nipple of 20 and 25 from 2nd defendant. 

However, it was considered not to effect the case because there is a confirmed match in the semen. 

The offenders semen matched in 16 location, in the virgina and rectum. The 2 missing location from the nipple had nothing to do with the other area. 

So the dna from the nipple was not accepted. 

 

Pornthip for defense. ...

Excessive numbers  (17,18)

Could be from contamination or sperm mutation. The missing dna could be from dna deterioration. 

Doctor for defense said only 10 locations need  be used to identify a person therefore there are no abnormalities in the 10 location  (out of 16) so it is not possible to dismiss the fact the dna belonged to the two. (The defense own witness said that )

Do you honestly not see the flaws

In order to rationalize the dna discrepencies described , the court has to rely on contamination or depreciation. It does not consider that the points where there is a match could be from the same contamination that caused the original missmatch.

The court draws an incorrect conclusion from the only 10 is required, and assumes a pick and mx approach , 10 out of 16

Whilst the statement of 10 matching is correct, it should be remembered that the latest evidence suggests that all human beings share 99.9% of dna. Therefore he took 10 markers from this portion of the dna it would match wth the whole population.

The 10 matching markers have to originate from the highly discriminatory portion of the dna chromosomes. The US codis for identification includes marker vWA , one that the samples did not match

7 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 4. 

Police collected sample externally and internally so b2 confirm they did not go to the crime scene, therefore they could not accidently tamper with the crime scene. Therefore their dna should not have been there. 

The court in order to explain the dna not matching has to rely on either contanimation or depreciation. If the B2 did not tamper with the evidence then any contamination must have occurred after or during sample collection /testing. 

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 4. 

Police collected sample externally and internally so b2 confirm they did not go to the crime scene, therefore they could not accidently tamper with the crime scene. Therefore their dna should not have been there. 

This doesnt adress the dna not matching

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 3..

The defense complaints the report had corrections making it useless. 

Judge. .

The top of the page should have the name and number such as 

Rectum swab 1.3 vaginal swab 1.2

The bottom of the page should show the same as above. 

But at the page show 

Top  rectum swab 1.3

Bottom vaginal swab 1.2 

Top vaginal swab 1.2 

Bottom vaginal swab 1.2

So it was corrected. 

The corrections did not effect the result. 

This , if true implies the work , recording of results was carried out without due diligence. The court judgement said these alterations were carried out once the mistake had been discoverd, 

How was the mistake discovered, and what other mstakes have not been discovered

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Robin. ..part 2 

The defense complaint the police institution was not accredited. 

Judge...

However the defense own witness from the justice institution confirmed both institute are

accredited by the same ISO 17025.

Therefore the plaintiff institute is an acceptable source. 

 

We know at the time of testing the lab was not accredited, 

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

For rocky Robin part 1

With my limited skill in reading and dna understanding, I have read about the dna and think I understand. 

The dna result was obtained before their arrest. There were 16 match location which were all chromoson location to identify a person. 

The police institution  did not have a chain of custody report as would have been required by the ministry of justice.

Judge. .

It is a slight difference of format and routine that does not contribute to inaccurate or incorrect reports so the report is accepted. 

The chain of custody is an international standard , as if it was as the court implies just a different method of administration then it would not have lost other evidence 

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

If you can watch this for a couple of minutes and accept a majority vote (for a change), then the single market issue was made clear by all of the main campaigners before the vote.

A vote leave staffer acknowledges that vote leave did not advocate leaving the single market

26 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The judge addressed every issue from every side, so no, not one piece of evidence. 

But Wei Phyo and mau mau both clearly lied. 

I'm not so sure about the other 1. 

There was the dna. That's all that was suspicious of him. 

The judge did not adress every issue. They failed to account for the missing blond hair found clutched in the deceased hand

The judges conclusion from the dna is in my opinion  irrational. The court claims that there is a 100% match then goes on to describe how the dna does not match the defendants. In order to rationalize these discrepencies , they consider the possibility that the samples could be contaminated or have depreciated, given that the court concludes that the evidence was handled to international standards and in a promptly manner , it is difficult to understand how as the court determines that this a positive for the prosecution and detrimental to the defense

5 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

And that is exactly what was voted for. Cameron made it quite clear it would mean leaving the single market, etc, and all that entails. All this soft brexit stuff is just the subsequent blitzkrieg of Project Fear propaganda in order to put the sh1ts up the British public and scare them away from any kind of real brexit.

We were told that the remain campaign was project fear and to ignore their lies

4 hours ago, greenchair said:

On pg 59 it says there were some minor complaints by the defendants that he would not consider because they would not effect the ruling. 

It is similar to the time error that you have pointed out. Of course in any court case, slight mistakes are made about time and dates. 

The beginning already says time of death 2.15 to 5am and says the actions of the parties prior to that time all backed up by cctv footage. The mistake in time that you refer could have been lost in translation of early hours of the morning, or the beginning of the evening activities of drinking at the log. 

Anyway, it would not effect the verdict of the court so therefore it is irrelevant. 

it is not just the time discrepency,

We have an uknown number of criminals , the prosecution clearly state 2

The second deceased attacked untill severly injured and subsequently passed away , this suggests that the attackers left her alive and she died afterwards

It is as if this as been written by somebody that was not present at the trial

13 hours ago, greenchair said:

After reading the court transcript by mwrn, I can see clearly the judge did not listen to either the plaintiff or the defendants. 

Every issue that he agreed or disagreed with, was backed up by evidence. 

In one post I said the murder wasn't proven. 

But I do take that back. 

The only conclusion from the evidence. Guilty on all counts. 

 

This is a contradiction, if the judges did not listen to either the plaintiff or defendants , then what evidence did the court introduce, and who cross examined that evidence.