Koh Tao murder trial rescheduled

[loonodingle]

loonodingle -

Well it is actually like a game of Cluedo. The majority of people on here want to know who the real killer/s was. And attempts to find the truth involve finding out about the weapons used and the location of the crime. Unlike Cleudo though, the motive for the crime is at the top of the list.

Don't know what to believe about DNA in this case anymore, Asian or otherwise.

If your Medium contacts you again could you ask them if the woman was running and caught on CCTV? That would be most helpful, seen as the RTP have not released the images they have of a woman running on the night of the murders. Strange that.

LOL.....

Who says she was running???

Are you a Medium as well..

I think it would be fair to say it was Asian DNA.. No Falang detained and jailed. So its Asian

They did say blonde hair....well I see the B2 did not have blonde hair yet they retrieved it from Hannah's hand. No doubt as she fought back.

Also the RTP Fed us what they want. We are the Mushrooms and you know what they grow with don't you.

As for the Cluedo game well I think its: Nomsod, On the Beach, with a Hoe............... I would like to add his Gang of thugs as well.

Police are also trying to trace a mystery western woman seen on CCTV running along the main street in the early hours on the night of the murders

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/thailand-beach-murders-hannah-witheridge-4297320

I think it would be fair to say it was Asian DNA.. No Falang detained and jailed. So its Asian

Well you could then say - no Thai detained or jailed so it's Burmese.

aye well done I didn't see that...

Bloody medium my backside hey!!!! what they meant was they read he daily mirror

It cant be Thai... the prime minister said so... No Thai could commit this crime..still they could hack you to death with a machete for a $1.60 taxi fare though.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/american-hacked-death-over-1-60-cab-fare-thai-police-v19346962

[loonodingle]

I don't know of any motive or if he was involved at all -- all I'm questioning is whether this would have been the first time he had ever been turned down and what did he do every other time some farang floozie turned him down?

that's a very skewed reasoning that isn't logical.

You try applying that to every murder.................it doesn't work does it..

Not all murders are committed by serial killers.

Its all about the trigger..... and I am not convinced it was Nomsod either I was giving Cats and Dogs my cluedo verdict. It could have been a whole host of people. However they where of Asian descent.

[boomerangutang]

Statement from the Metropolitan Police Included the following paragraph:

The UK Police officers who deployed to Thailand operated within the parameters specified in a section 26 Authority issued by the Home Office. They did NOT conduct ANY investigations into the murder of Hannah Witheridge and David Miller.

The Thai authorities permitted the UK Police to have observer status only in relation to LIMITED parts of the Royal Thai Police’s Investigation and the UK police officers did not provide ANY advice or assistance with that investigation.

They did NOT take possession of any physical evidence, forensic evidence, exhibits interviews or statements.

The Royal Thai Police provided and interpreter who verbally translated documents that formed LIMITED parts of the prosecution case.

I may not be the cleverest person in the world but something doesn't add upto to me!!!!!!!

Thanks for posting that, LD. In other words, the MET didn't do any investigating, no interviews, no gathering of evidence, no nothing, ...except ask local cops some questions. And the cops only revealed the few things they wanted to reveal.

Now add that to any clues the MET may have garnered from the bodies: DNA retrieval is unlikely, because of time lag. Plus bodies may have been embalmed before being shipped (sorry if that sounds crude). Because MET has not revealed anything thus far, re; t he crime, we (observers) are left to assume all they have to gauge the crime (from their own investigation) is: types of wounds/weapons, and possibly whether there were drugs in blood of victims. All else, is from RTP. Go figure. It's sad too for the victims' families, that they're getting just a small portion of pertinent data from their trusted Brit authorities.

[loonodingle]

Statement from the Metropolitan Police Included the following paragraph:

The UK Police officers who deployed to Thailand operated within the parameters specified in a section 26 Authority issued by the Home Office. They did NOT conduct ANY investigations into the murder of Hannah Witheridge and David Miller.

The Thai authorities permitted the UK Police to have observer status only in relation to LIMITED parts of the Royal Thai Polices Investigation and the UK police officers did not provide ANY advice or assistance with that investigation.

They did NOT take possession of any physical evidence, forensic evidence, exhibits interviews or statements.

The Royal Thai Police provided and interpreter who verbally translated documents that formed LIMITED parts of the prosecution case.

I may not be the cleverest person in the world but something doesn't add upto to me!!!!!!!

Thanks for posting that, LD. In other words, the MET didn't do any investigating, no interviews, no gathering of evidence, no nothing, ...except ask local cops some questions. And the cops only revealed the few things they wanted to reveal.

Now add that to any clues the MET may have garnered from the bodies: DNA retrieval is unlikely, because of time lag. Plus bodies may have been embalmed before being shipped (sorry if that sounds crude). Because MET has not revealed anything thus far, re; t he crime, we (observers) are left to assume all they have to gauge the crime (from their own investigation) is: types of wounds/weapons, and possibly whether there were drugs in blood of victims. All else, is from RTP. Go figure. It's sad too for the victims' families, that they're getting just a small portion of pertinent data from their trusted Brit authorities.

Well i guess and it's only a guess. What they thought they was going todo didn't work out as they had a top forensic officer as part of the team.

No doubt the goal post moved around some point.

As for anything sourced here DNA etc well that's different as it's not the policeman who does it but a forensic pathologist who would have been under the impression that the officers who went would be back with things. They wouldn't just throw their hands in the air here and not do a thorough autopsy.

[boomerangutang]

I don't know of any motive or if he was involved at all -- all I'm questioning is whether this would have been the first time he had ever been turned down and what did he do every other time some farang floozie turned him down?

Since you're exploring that thorny/horny topic, I'll venture a reply. First off, investigating suspects from that angle is very important in this type of investigation. Similar to gauging the scenario at the two beach bars, that night, and prior nights (for precedence). It's no surprise why Thai investigators HAVE DONE NOTHING IN THAT REGARD. If they did, they would likely find the following:

>>> Some of the Thai men who frequent those beach bars are handsome, tanned, outgoing and are quite successful at seducing pretty, young, most-often drunk, and often blond farang chicks. When a man is rebuffed (particularly if he's drunk and lustful), he can react in various ways. He can walk away in a huff, or he can get more persistant, or get angry. In some scenarios, he can fly in to a murderous rage. The rage scenario is what very likely happened that fateful night.

>>> There are reports of fights at those bars. There are also reports of rape and attempted rape. Alcohol + passion + late night + (possible) date-rape drug + young partiers, (very often) = fights and/or rapes. If I was heading the investigation, I would assign someone (with staff) to find out all he/she could about the scenario and precedence at those bars, with specifics pertaining to individuals who have been associated with fights, serious threats, and date-rapes/rapes/attempted rapes. Exactly what the RTP IS NOT DOING.

[AleG]

Seems we are all getting a little confused. We were told they were a pair of trousers. From there you have changed them to a pair of pants and now a pair of shorts.

What is the need to change the trousers into shorts ?

You can carry on with the good policing. Just got to hope no one catches you out changing the name of things to fit the story.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/thailand-top-bangkok-cop-flies-koh-tao-investigate-david-miller-hannah-witheridge-murders-1466049

Yes, they were trousers, not shorts, doesn't change a thing:

Miller and Ware were sharing a room, the police investigated the room, found a pair of trousers with what they thought may be blood stains; since it would had been improvable for Miller to go back to his room to change blood stained clothing after being murdered the police assumed the trousers may be Ware's. Now here is where things diverge between the people speculating here and actual police work, with that assumption they actually tested the trousers, no blood; furthermore, they determined they were Miller's trousers so they moved on; on the other hand the people that cling to speculation regardless of facts and developments are still stuck wondering about the bloody trousers.

Are you quoting from what the police said? Or did you actually witness the investigation? I don't think you were there to witness the investigation. So everything you based your argument are from hearsay from the police statement. And nothing has been checked or validated by any one. Or have you checked it?

Simple answer please, can you confirm and validate the report by the police? If not, then using the statement to prove your point is pointless and speculation as well. For all we know, it was fabricated. Unless you can provide solid proof that it is true.

The RTP, at this point has a very low credibility.

The claim that the police planted bloody trousers in Chris Ware's luggage to try to frame him comes from armchair "detectives" with a chip on their shoulders and is supported by nothing but their own imagination, so yes, I'll take a police statement against that any day of the week.

Besides that, you still don't understand how the concept of burden of proof works.

[AleG]

The laboratories where the tests were carried out are not told the origin of the samples. They are given a numbered sample and told which tests to carry out. They make a report accordingly, and this is associated by the investigator with the victim. As others have repeatedly pointed out, you need to trust the investigator, and some of us do not.

that cover-up scenario would count on the UK authorities to go along with it.

I am really struggling with how the UK authorities would be able to say anything about the DNA results (unless, perhaps, the UK Home Office pathologist was able to independently extract samples after the bodies were returned to the UK). We know the Met guys were not able to review the results while here.

As a comment:

1. It is extremely unlikely that DNA was recoverable from the victim's body in the UK, since much more than a week had elapsed since the assault, meaning that intact DNA was probably not present (apologies for reposting below which I've posted before).

Quote (my emphasis) from Introduction to Forensic DNA Evidence for Criminal Justice Professionals (2013) Jane M. Taupin CRC Press:

" Sperm is destroyed quickly in the relatively hostile environment of a

vagina. Many protocols recommend the taking of vaginal samples only if

the postcoital interval is less than 72 hours or three days (Mayntz-

Press et al., 2008). The literature notes that spermatozoa, although few in number,

can sometimes persist in a vaginal canal longer than three days, but

the survival rates are longer in the cervix. It has occasionally been found

that spermatozoa survive more than a week in a deceased victim.

2. The markers used in DNA profiling do differ between different countries, but only two major sets are in use, and all tests are done nowadays with commercial kits manufactured by only a few companies. This makes results between labs and countries easy to standardise. To profile samples in the same way as the Thai lab did, all that would need to be done is to identify the particular kit used, a trivially easy task given access to the report , which must list the markers.

In any case comparing the victim and suspect DNA samples would not need to be done with the same markers as used in the Thai labs. What is being tested is the probability that the DNA from the victim is not from the suspects, and this is of the order of billions or trillions to one with any marker set with more than 10-15 markers. You must compare victim and suspect samples at the same time however on the same run, otherwise the results are not verifiable, so both victim and suspect DNA would be necessary for independent testing.

3. It is impossible to just " clandestinely take the B2 typing, re-label them 'DNA taken from Hannah' " or take the DNA from Hannah and "re-label it as from the Burmese" and the reason is simple. Each Burmese sample is from one individual and so has only two values for each marker. The DNA from the victim is a mixture of two DNAs, and will thus have four values for each marker. This is impossible to get with samples taken from one individual, and indisputably identifies a sample as being from an individual or not. Furthermore using a mixture of the cheek swabs from the Burmese and labelling it as from Hannah (unlikely as it requires technical knowledge beyond the sample collectors), would be unlikely to work, as DNA from sperm is prepared (usually) by a method which eliminates or vastly reduces non-sperm (that is, cheek swab) DNA in the sample.

However the final report is merely a typed account of the findings, giving numerical values for each of the markers. So a knowledgeable but dishonest scientist could attempt to type up a plausible report based on an analysis of the two Burmese DNAs, saying that each individual matched many of the markers found in the DNA from Hannah (even if they did not).

Any forensic DNA scientist could see this was a fabrication instantly if they ask to see the original data from the testing lab, and this is why you must hope the defense team are taking steps to recruit an expert forensic DNA witness with this capability.

It's funny how boomerangutang "likes" your post when point 3 and your conclusion completely destroy his theories about changing the results of the DNA analysis.

[AleG]

Denied access to CCTV is a big worry for me. Please would someone explain why someone would not allow access to their CCTV in such a high profile case which could cause future ramifications for your own business?

AleG?

First you'll have to show that any relevant CCTV footage has been withheld.

[thailandchilli]

Then just tell what methodology was used to analyze the DNA from the crime scene, simple as that.

"I am going to claim that they could have been, and probably could still be, given that very few people actually have access to those results and could testify that they were different from those in the original report."

Claims are a dime a dozen, proving that the laboratories were the analysis were carried out were complicit in a cover up since the very beginning of the investigation is something else altogether, specially since that cover-up scenario would count on the UK authorities to go along with it.

If the defense is going to just contest the results with that sort of unsupported claims they may just as well give up already.

Why would it count on the "UK authorities to go along with it."

Give me some facts on that statement

Because they would have to count on the UK pathologist to not do DNA analysis or if they did to keep mum about their results if they don't match the Thai ones.

So you are now stating in your arguments that the UK Authorities would be part of a cover up,

Despite the UK Authorities stating publicly that they want independent tests done, why would they do that if they already had the original semen sample from the B2?

Despite the fact that all likelihood is that Hannah's body had been embalmed and so the B2's semen would not be able to be retrieved

Despite the fact that extracting semen DNA from a body a week old is almost impossible

Carry on with your fantasies to avoid transparency in the evidence, it leads any reasonable person to assume you are unwilling to know the truth.

[Kiwisailor]

New article just out in Australia http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mafia-island-from-paradise-to-bloodshed/story-fnizu4n5-1227181210830

[AleG]

Why would it count on the "UK authorities to go along with it."

Give me some facts on that statement

Because they would have to count on the UK pathologist to not do DNA analysis or if they did to keep mum about their results if they don't match the Thai ones.

So you are now stating in your arguments that the UK Authorities would be part of a cover up,

Despite the UK Authorities stating publicly that they want independent tests done, why would they do that if they already had the original semen sample from the B2?

Despite the fact that all likelihood is that Hannah's body had been embalmed and so the B2's semen would not be able to be retrieved

Despite the fact that extracting semen DNA from a body a week old is almost impossible

Carry on with your fantasies to avoid transparency in the evidence, it leads any reasonable person to assume you are unwilling to know the truth.

No, I'm stating that the people peddling a conspiracy to hide the truth would have to count on the UK to be a part of it, as boomerangutang has been doing.

Either you can't follow an argument or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said, which one is it?

[thailandchilli]

Why would it count on the "UK authorities to go along with it."

Give me some facts on that statement

Because they would have to count on the UK pathologist to not do DNA analysis or if they did to keep mum about their results if they don't match the Thai ones.

So you are now stating in your arguments that the UK Authorities would be part of a cover up,

Despite the UK Authorities stating publicly that they want independent tests done, why would they do that if they already had the original semen sample from the B2?

Despite the fact that all likelihood is that Hannah's body had been embalmed and so the B2's semen would not be able to be retrieved

Despite the fact that extracting semen DNA from a body a week old is almost impossible

Carry on with your fantasies to avoid transparency in the evidence, it leads any reasonable person to assume you are unwilling to know the truth.

No, I'm stating that the people peddling a conspiracy to hide the truth would have to count on the UK to be a part of it, as boomerangutang has been doing.

Either you can't follow an argument or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said, which one is it?

No your not, your countering claims made by others with your own unfounded claims, plain for everybody to see except you

Edited January 11, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

No, I'm stating that the people peddling a conspiracy to hide the truth would have to count on the UK to be a part of it, as boomerangutang has been doing.

Either you can't follow an argument or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said, which one is it?

No your not, your countering claims made by others with your own unfounded claims, plain for everybody to see except you

What unfounded claim?

[berybert]

Denied access to CCTV is a big worry for me. Please would someone explain why someone would not allow access to their CCTV in such a high profile case which could cause future ramifications for your own business?

AleG?

First you'll have to show that any relevant CCTV footage has been withheld.

And how does one do that ?

Show it all I would suggest. Let us decide what is and isn't relevant. Surely know one could disagree with that.

[berybert]

I don't know of any motive or if he was involved at all -- all I'm questioning is whether this would have been the first time he had ever been turned down and what did he do every other time some farang floozie turned him down?

Some people are desperate for the attention this morning, I notice.

[AleG]

Denied access to CCTV is a big worry for me. Please would someone explain why someone would not allow access to their CCTV in such a high profile case which could cause future ramifications for your own business?

AleG?

First you'll have to show that any relevant CCTV footage has been withheld.

And how does one do that ?

Show it all I would suggest. Let us decide what is and isn't relevant. Surely know one could disagree with that.

"And how does one do that ?"

Precisely.

How does one use unknown footage as a basis for anything? You don't know if there is such footage; still you, and others, want to use that as "evidence" of a cover-up.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

[JLCrab]

I don't know of any motive or if he was involved at all -- all I'm questioning is whether this would have been the first time he had ever been turned down and what did he do every other time some farang floozie turned him down?

Some people are desperate for the attention this morning, I notice.

Yea -- it's kinda like a Burns & Allen routine when George says " So how's your Uncle Mortimer in Milwaukee, Gracie?" and Gracie rambles on for the next 5 minutes while George just stands there smoking his cigar. Doesn't take much to set some of you people off on a ramble, either.

[berybert]

Denied access to CCTV is a big worry for me. Please would someone explain why someone would not allow access to their CCTV in such a high profile case which could cause future ramifications for your own business?

AleG?

First you'll have to show that any relevant CCTV footage has been withheld.

And how does one do that ?

Show it all I would suggest. Let us decide what is and isn't relevant. Surely know one could disagree with that.

"And how does one do that ?"

Precisely.

How does one use unknown footage as a basis for anything? You don't know if there is such footage; still you, and others, want to use that as "evidence" of a cover-up.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Unused footage cant be used as evidence. Do you not think that might be the reason it is unused ?

CCTV Camera run 24/7. There are loads of cameras as we have already seen clips from them.

The owner of the bar wont allow police to look at his footage cause its private property. But all that is OK in your world.

[AleG]

And how does one do that ?

Show it all I would suggest. Let us decide what is and isn't relevant. Surely know one could disagree with that.

"And how does one do that ?"

Precisely.

How does one use unknown footage as a basis for anything? You don't know if there is such footage; still you, and others, want to use that as "evidence" of a cover-up.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Unused footage cant be used as evidence. Do you not think that might be the reason it is unused ?

CCTV Camera run 24/7. There are loads of cameras as we have already seen clips from them.

The owner of the bar wont allow police to look at his footage cause its private property. But all that is OK in your world.

"Unused footage cant be used as evidence. Do you not think that might be the reason it is unused ?"

I think I will have to let you run around your circular logic on your own.

[AleG]

it probably is okay in their world they live in. To much time in Thailand or vested interest in not seeing the true killers verified a day proved guilty.

I don't make any money out of this; so your accusation is not just baseless, it also demonstrates that your are more interested in reinforcing your own beliefs than in the truth, you need to create fictional narratives for self validation.

[boomerangutang]

3. It is impossible to just " clandestinely take the B2 typing, re-label them 'DNA taken from Hannah' " or take the DNA from Hannah and "re-label it as from the Burmese" and the reason is simple. Each Burmese sample is from one individual and so has only two values for each marker. The DNA from the victim is a mixture of two DNAs, and will thus have four values for each marker. This is impossible to get with samples taken from one individual, and indisputably identifies a sample as being from an individual or not. Furthermore using a mixture of the cheek swabs from the Burmese and labelling it as from Hannah (unlikely as it requires technical knowledge beyond the sample collectors), would be unlikely to work, as DNA from sperm is prepared (usually) by a method which eliminates or vastly reduces non-sperm (that is, cheek swab) DNA in the sample.

However the final report is merely a typed account of the findings, giving numerical values for each of the markers. So a knowledgeable but dishonest scientist could attempt to type up a plausible report based on an analysis of the two Burmese DNAs, saying that each individual matched many of the markers found in the DNA from Hannah (even if they did not).

Any forensic DNA scientist could see this was a fabrication instantly if they ask to see the original data from the testing lab, and this is why you must hope the defense team are taking steps to recruit an expert forensic DNA witness with this capability.

It's funny how boomerangutang "likes" your post when point 3 and your conclusion completely destroy his theories about changing the results of the DNA analysis.

Thanks for reminding me, AleG. I had intended to comment on that precise item, but got so snowed-in trying to straighten out other misconceptions, that it eluded me. Ok, now I got it, let me take a stab at it (pardon the language). Changing the labeling on the DNA typing taken from Hanna's body, would be as easy as changing the label of a computer file. One person could do it, clandestinely. Until we get DNA typing from Brit experts, my assumption holds. If the Brits' findings corroborate the official Thai findings, then I'll admit I'm wrong, and the Burmese had sex with Hannah.

I'm stating that the people peddling a conspiracy to hide the truth would have to count on the UK to be a part of it, as boomerangutang has been doing.

Don't mis-represent what I say, AleG. I never said the Brits had to be part of the conspiracy. A conspiracy only needs to start with one or a few people. If Thai top brass wanted all the sheeple to believe something, they'd only have to state it as fact (example: "it had to a Burmese, couldn't have been a Thai") And all Thais in uniform - of lower ranks - are duty bound to ape what their superiors say. The Brit experts came to Ko Tao for a few hours, listened to the crap Thai authorities fed them, then went back to the victims' families in the UK and regurgitated it. By their own admission, the Brits didn't do any investigating, no interviews (other than Thai cops), no pursuance of leads. We, the general public, have got even less from the Brit Coroner's office.

Thus far, Brit officials have been a giant let-down.

[berybert]

And how does one do that ?

Show it all I would suggest. Let us decide what is and isn't relevant. Surely know one could disagree with that.

"And how does one do that ?"

Precisely.

How does one use unknown footage as a basis for anything? You don't know if there is such footage; still you, and others, want to use that as "evidence" of a cover-up.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Unused footage cant be used as evidence. Do you not think that might be the reason it is unused ?

CCTV Camera run 24/7. There are loads of cameras as we have already seen clips from them.

The owner of the bar wont allow police to look at his footage cause its private property. But all that is OK in your world.

"Unused footage cant be used as evidence. Do you not think that might be the reason it is unused ?"

I think I will have to let you run around your circular logic on your own.

Ah how cute. I do love how people who have no reply use a childish smiley face instead. Something you do rather a lot I notice.

[stephen terry]

CCTV Camera run 24/7. There are loads of cameras as we have already seen clips from them.

The owner of the bar wont allow police to look at his footage cause its private property.

Let's run this one again. Seems to me to be deliberately withholding possible evidence with the sanction of the RTP. It doesn't take much to reason that had the Burmese been involved, the CCTV would have been handed over, PDQ. A reasonable person would then conclude that perhaps the CCTV implicated people, other than the chosen scapegoats, who wouldn't, couldn't be, Thai.

Edited January 11, 2015 by stephen terry

[catsanddogs]

Denied access to CCTV is a big worry for me. Please would someone explain why someone would not allow access to their CCTV in such a high profile case which could cause future ramifications for your own business?

AleG?

First you'll have to show that any relevant CCTV footage has been withheld.

RTP have said that they have footage of woman running through the streets that they have not released that could be a witness to the crime or Hannah herself. Sounds very relevant.

[AleG]

CCTV Camera run 24/7. There are loads of cameras as we have already seen clips from them.

The owner of the bar wont allow police to look at his footage cause its private property.

Let's run this one again. Seems to me to be deliberately withholding possible evidence with the sanction of the RTP. It doesn't take much to reason that had the Burmese been involved, the CCTV would have been handed over, PDQ. A reasonable person would then conclude that perhaps the CCTV implicated people, other than the chosen scapegoats, who wouldn't, couldn't be, Thai.

Actually a reasonable person doesn't use his own ignorance as a basis for a conclusion, you only can consider one option completely ignoring the other: that the CCTV footage is immaterial to the crime. You don't know either way.

For example (and I am not actually making the allegation): I don't know whether you are working for the defense team and being paid for posting in ThaiVisa or not, but I'm just going to assume that as true and act accordingly because it is self reassuring and it would reinforce some of my preconceived notions. Would you take that as a reasonable attitude?

[AleG]

3. It is impossible to just " clandestinely take the B2 typing, re-label them 'DNA taken from Hannah' " or take the DNA from Hannah and "re-label it as from the Burmese" and the reason is simple. Each Burmese sample is from one individual and so has only two values for each marker. The DNA from the victim is a mixture of two DNAs, and will thus have four values for each marker. This is impossible to get with samples taken from one individual, and indisputably identifies a sample as being from an individual or not. Furthermore using a mixture of the cheek swabs from the Burmese and labelling it as from Hannah (unlikely as it requires technical knowledge beyond the sample collectors), would be unlikely to work, as DNA from sperm is prepared (usually) by a method which eliminates or vastly reduces non-sperm (that is, cheek swab) DNA in the sample.

However the final report is merely a typed account of the findings, giving numerical values for each of the markers. So a knowledgeable but dishonest scientist could attempt to type up a plausible report based on an analysis of the two Burmese DNAs, saying that each individual matched many of the markers found in the DNA from Hannah (even if they did not).

Any forensic DNA scientist could see this was a fabrication instantly if they ask to see the original data from the testing lab, and this is why you must hope the defense team are taking steps to recruit an expert forensic DNA witness with this capability.

It's funny how boomerangutang "likes" your post when point 3 and your conclusion completely destroy his theories about changing the results of the DNA analysis.

Thanks for reminding me, AleG. I had intended to comment on that precise item, but got so snowed-in trying to straighten out other misconceptions, that it eluded me. Ok, now I got it, let me take a stab at it (pardon the language). Changing the labeling on the DNA typing taken from Hanna's body, would be as easy as changing the label of a computer file. One person could do it, clandestinely. Until we get DNA typing from Brit experts, my assumption holds. If the Brits' findings corroborate the official Thai findings, then I'll admit I'm wrong, and the Burmese had sex with Hannah.

I'm stating that the people peddling a conspiracy to hide the truth would have to count on the UK to be a part of it, as boomerangutang has been doing.

Don't mis-represent what I say, AleG. I never said the Brits had to be part of the conspiracy. A conspiracy only needs to start with one or a few people. If Thai top brass wanted all the sheeple to believe something, they'd only have to state it as fact (example: "it had to a Burmese, couldn't have been a Thai") And all Thais in uniform - of lower ranks - are duty bound to ape what their superiors say. The Brit experts came to Ko Tao for a few hours, listened to the crap Thai authorities fed them, then went back to the victims' families in the UK and regurgitated it. By their own admission, the Brits didn't do any investigating, no interviews (other than Thai cops), no pursuance of leads. We, the general public, have got even less from the Brit Coroner's office.

Thus far, Brit officials have been a giant let-down.

If the UK coroner says anything that would not match with your fictional narrative you'll find a reason to dismiss it in a New York minute.

Besides that, since when are you an expert on DNA analysis to know what can and can't be done?, you've been explained why your scenario wouldn't work.

I don't think you read up to the end of the post you "liked" before you pressed that button because the second half of the post is directly contradicting your uninformed opinion, now you are just trying to save face.

"Don't mis-represent what I say, AleG. I never said the Brits had to be part of the conspiracy."

"The Brits are unlikely complicit in the cover up, but if they know anything which can clear up the public's doubts, they're not letting anyone know other than the victims' families. The Brit Coroner Office's silence and evasiveness indicates they have have data which conflicts with Thai officials' data. If so, the Brits are opting to do nothing, rather than anger top Thai officials"

If you claim they are not releasing information to please the Thai government yes, you are making them part of a conspiracy to hide the truth.

That's from just a few pages ago, should I waste time looking for the times you implied the UK would rather let things be rather than jeopardize some vague business interest in Thailand?

[catsanddogs]

Regards the statements made from the victims families recently posted on this thread. These are inviting heightened speculation because they continue to insinuate that people don't have the information that they are privy to. Whilst I respect the privacy of both families, they must surely understand that it is because so much seems to be being withheld from the public, the public continue to speculate. And not one ounce of reassurance from the UK police that Koh Tao is a safe place for it's citizens to visit now or in the future. What a waste of tax payers money to send them there and they do nothing. It would be funny if it wasn't so utterly appalling.

[catsanddogs]

So according to Andy Hall the defence have run out of money. Could the trial have been scheduled in October maybe so this would be the case? Can the defence ask the judge to bring the trial forward?

[catsanddogs]

“We have to look into the behaviour of the other party too because this kind of incident should not happen to anybody and it has affected our image,” he told reporters on Tuesday, referring to the two tourists.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/british-tourists-bludgeoned-to-death-on-thailand-beach-suspicion-falls-back-on-brit/story-fnizu68q-1227059461113

What was the behaviour of the other party then? What aren't we privy to here? Someone knows what the 'behaviour of the other party' was so how come there has been nothing but silence?

[catsanddogs]

AC bar staff pic posted by another poster on TV in Sept.

Posted in 'Key witness says foreigner kills British tourists' post number 879. You can enlarge the image on the original thread. Big guy at the back with beard - that's not hoe man is it?

Edited January 11, 2015 by catsanddogs