Everyone here has the right to post on here as they see fit subject to the powers that be. But sometimes I wish some poster would take his personal moral code which supersedes the laws of any country including, obviously, this one, and dwell in the realm of the upper stratosphere to which most of us are not party.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/773084-dna-results-from-ko-tao-village-heads-son-dont-match-traces-on-slain-british-tourists/page-92#entry8739063

So, I've been outed. I'm not one you'd describe as a straight-and-narrow, establishmentarianist, believing-all-that-Thai-authorities-dish-out person. Very observant, Watson.

Right -- you're a total (SHUT your mouth).

Who is the man that would risk his neck
For his brother man?

BOOM!

Can you dig it?

Who's the cat that won't cop out
When there's danger all about?
BOOM!
Right On!

They say this cat BOOM! is a bad mother
SHUT YOUR MOUTH!
I'm talkin' 'bout BOOM!.
THEN WE CAN DIG IT!

He's a complicated man
But no one understands him but his woman

Back on topic: Both quotes below are from the opening article. . . .

A Koh Samui court made the ruling, finding that Thailand’s Central Institute of Forensic Science should be granted permission to retest the DNA samples that allegedly links the suspects to the murders of David Miller and Hannah Witheridge.

Is Thailand's CIFS independent from Thai officialdom? ...to what degree? In other words, will Thai officials be able to micro-manage what samples CIFS can and cannot look at? More to the point, how viable are the DNA samples being provided for re-testing, and who attained/labelled them originally?

The institute will also re-examine the physical evidence, which includes a shirt that one of the suspects wore.

That's encouraging. Also, how about the hoe and other clothing at the crime scene?

The DNA evidence has been criticized by human rights groups. Reportedly, many people had trampled all over the crime scene before police had a chance to seal it off. There’s great concern that the two suspects could face an unfair trial as a result. The forensic science instituted is questioning why local police did not use qualified experts to collect the DNA evidence.

Good points.

Back on topic with more posts from Baron von Munchhausen

To JL: ....now I'm Shaft? Wow cool, do I get the foxy chicks also?

Everyone here has the right to post on here as they see fit subject to the powers that be. But sometimes I wish some poster would take his personal moral code which supersedes the laws of any country including, obviously, this one, and dwell in the realm of the upper stratosphere to which most of us are not party.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/773084-dna-results-from-ko-tao-village-heads-son-dont-match-traces-on-slain-british-tourists/page-92#entry8739063

And yet he got the facts wrong about Saudi Arabia... A "moral code" based on fallacies.

To JL: ....now I'm Shaft? Wow cool, do I get the foxy chicks also?

I dunno -- i was going to say what you had been outed as but decided to SHUT MY MOUTH

But I like the 'No one underestimates him but his woman' but in your case she probably doesn't either.

Everyone here has the right to post on here as they see fit subject to the powers that be. But sometimes I wish some poster would take his personal moral code which supersedes the laws of any country including, obviously, this one, and dwell in the realm of the upper stratosphere to which most of us are not party.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/773084-dna-results-from-ko-tao-village-heads-son-dont-match-traces-on-slain-british-tourists/page-92#entry8739063

And yet he got the facts wrong about Saudi Arabia... A "moral code" based on fallacies.

To JL: ....now I'm Shaft? Wow cool, do I get the foxy chicks also?

I dunno -- i was going to say what you had been outed as but decided to SHUT MY MOUTH

But I like the 'No one underestimates him but his woman' but in your case she probably doesn't either.

Jeez, are both you guys completely out of ideas, or what? I don't even know where you're trying to go with your tangents. Do you? Here's a suggestion: try to get apprised of what the topic is about, and address the topic.

Pornthip won't mince words? Didn't she support the use of the GT200 bomb detector?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/28439/thailands-chief-forensic-scientist-a-gt200-defender/

Haven't people defending her said she only did so on orders?

Note --- your quoted articles use anonymous sources regarding the role of the UK police,

Mmmm so we're down to making criticisms of articles in the BBC and a host of other news agencies that reported on that case because what.............in your view they are using anonymous sources No comment

Yes apparently she did support the use of the GT200, how many times have you mentioned that before? Obviously respected under the Thai leadership to now be head of forensics, so where does that leave us?

That leaves us with a person who will lie for either the right amount of money, or

the right amount of pressure. At this point her word has no validity in the slightest.

Regarding her appointment to be head of forensics, that should be easily recognized

as a payoff for her support of the complete piece of crap GT 2000. And if she actually

believed it was a great device, then she is brain dead and deserves no position in

the government......

Pornthip won't mince words? Didn't she support the use of the GT200 bomb detector?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/28439/thailands-chief-forensic-scientist-a-gt200-defender/

Haven't people defending her said she only did so on orders?

Note --- your quoted articles use anonymous sources regarding the role of the UK police,

Mmmm so we're down to making criticisms of articles in the BBC and a host of other news agencies that reported on that case because what.............in your view they are using anonymous sources No comment

Yes apparently she did support the use of the GT200, how many times have you mentioned that before? Obviously respected under the Thai leadership to now be head of forensics, so where does that leave us?

That leaves us with a person who will lie for either the right amount of money, or

the right amount of pressure. At this point her word has no validity in the slightest.

Regarding her appointment to be head of forensics, that should be easily recognized

as a payoff for her support of the complete piece of crap GT 2000. And if she actually

believed it was a great device, then she is brain dead and deserves no position in

the government......

So in other words your saying the Thai officials make pay offs to somebody who lies for them. You could well be right. I wonder if thats the case in the B2 investigation, there appeared to be many promotions going on.

It is easy to switch labels on stuff you know...

No -- I have no ideas. I can't even remember the last time I had my DNA verified.

Pornthip won't mince words? Didn't she support the use of the GT200 bomb detector?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/28439/thailands-chief-forensic-scientist-a-gt200-defender/

Haven't people defending her said she only did so on orders?

Note --- your quoted articles use anonymous sources regarding the role of the UK police,

Mmmm so we're down to making criticisms of articles in the BBC and a host of other news agencies that reported on that case because what.............in your view they are using anonymous sources No comment

Yes apparently she did support the use of the GT200, how many times have you mentioned that before? Obviously respected under the Thai leadership to now be head of forensics, so where does that leave us?

That leaves us with a person who will lie for either the right amount of money, or

the right amount of pressure. At this point her word has no validity in the slightest.

Regarding her appointment to be head of forensics, that should be easily recognized

as a payoff for her support of the complete piece of crap GT 2000. And if she actually

believed it was a great device, then she is brain dead and deserves no position in

the government......

Shooting the messenger, are you? Security devices aren't her expertise. It would seem that the users (military and police) would be the ones to gauge whether a product was viable - before ordering dozens of the items - particularly if they're grossly overpriced. Nobody asked me, but I could have tested the devices for cheap, and in 2 days would have known they were useless, and thereby saved Thai taxpayers lots of money. But of course, Thai military and cops don't want any farang advising them - they can figure all things out for themselves - as they've figured out what happened in the double murder on KT.

Police don't like Ms Porntip because she's shown, in past crime investigations, that she doesn't kow-tow to police mandates. She may have made a mistake on the GT 2000 assessment. I can excuse one mistake, particularly if it's not her field of expertise. Can you?

As sung by Frank Sinatra (1966 'That's Life'):

I've been a puppet, a pauper, a pirate,
A poet, a pawn and a king
I've been up and down and over and out
And I know one thing:

Actually 3 things (maybe more):

An expert in murder investigation practice and techniques

​An expert in missing airplane search from intended course

An expert in analyzing functionality of airport security equipment

(Maybe more by those are the items wherein I could find links if required).

Pornthip won't mince words? Didn't she support the use of the GT200 bomb detector?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/28439/thailands-chief-forensic-scientist-a-gt200-defender/

Haven't people defending her said she only did so on orders?

Note --- your quoted articles use anonymous sources regarding the role of the UK police,

Mmmm so we're down to making criticisms of articles in the BBC and a host of other news agencies that reported on that case because what.............in your view they are using anonymous sources No comment

Yes apparently she did support the use of the GT200, how many times have you mentioned that before? Obviously respected under the Thai leadership to now be head of forensics, so where does that leave us?

That leaves us with a person who will lie for either the right amount of money, or

the right amount of pressure. At this point her word has no validity in the slightest.

Regarding her appointment to be head of forensics, that should be easily recognized

as a payoff for her support of the complete piece of crap GT 2000. And if she actually

believed it was a great device, then she is brain dead and deserves no position in

the government......

Shooting the messenger, are you? Security devices aren't her expertise. It would seem that the users (military and police) would be the ones to gauge whether a product was viable - before ordering dozens of the items - particularly if they're grossly overpriced. Nobody asked me, but I could have tested the devices for cheap, and in 2 days would have known they were useless, and thereby saved Thai taxpayers lots of money. But of course, Thai military and cops don't want any farang advising them - they can figure all things out for themselves - as they've figured out what happened in the double murder on KT.

Police don't like Ms Porntip because she's shown, in past crime investigations, that she doesn't kow-tow to police mandates. She may have made a mistake on the GT 2000 assessment. I can excuse one mistake, particularly if it's not her field of expertise. Can you?

For a reputable scientist, asked to verify something that is outside their field of expertise, the answer given is: "I can't offer any opinion on that because it is outside my field of expertise. Please ask an expert."

Not only did Pornthip offer an opinion on something she had no idea about (while pretending to be knowledgeable enough to give an opinion), she has continued to insist over and over again that her opinion was correct, and that these detectors do work. This is what renders her despicable.

This is in spite of the fact that the makers of these scam devices ( that started off as "golf ball detectors" on some dodgy website for £20 a decade ago) have been tried, found guilty and sentenced for fraud, during a court case where it was shown clearly enough to convince a jury of 12 non-scientists that the devices had no parts in them that could fulfill the functions claimed, and that these claims were scientifically impossible.

Nevertheless Pornthip does not say, "I was mistaken, sorry, not really my field." She continues to vainly and almost unbelievably stupidly, claim she was right all along.

So whatever your beliefs about her expertise in forensic areas, she has at very least shown herself to be an untrustworthy figure, who basically is unable to interpret and analyse facts correctly even to the standards of an untrained UK jury. The alternative, and this is my belief, is that the convicted criminal who sold these "detectors" to various corrupt third world countries, did so using bribes and kickbacks, of which she was one beneficiary.

To me this whole affair irreversibly compromises Pornthip's reputation and reliability. She has been re-appointed by the Army Chiefs who are now in charge, after being fired. She owes them her job in a web of patronage. She has proved corruptible in the past over the detector fraud.

"Ms. Pornthip replied when asked how she felt about the reinstatement. “I would also like to thank the NCPO for giving me this opportunity.” Ms. Pornthip’s return to the helm of the forensic science institute did not come as a surprise to many. Ms. Pornthip was a staunch supporter of the political faction that protested against the previous government and widely celebrated the military’s coup d’etat on 22 May." https://thaishortnews.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/prayuth-send-ally-global-scandal-fake-bomb-detector-defender-to-head-top-forensic-institute/

You just have to ask, will her conclusions reflect the objective truth, or the clearly expressed wishes of Army who keep her in power, and who have stated their satisfaction with the handling of the case and pre-rewarded the police? Maybe these are the same thing and there is no problem. If they are not the same thing they are being judged by someone who is proven to be unworthy.

[Read the story of the bomb detectors , and then see if you still admire Pornthip, who continues to recommend Thais risk their lives in the South by using them

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29459896

"The publicity and packaging cost more than the devices themselves. The fake "detectors" - sold with spurious but scientific-sounding claims - were little more than empty cases with an aerial which swings according to the user's unconscious hand movements, "the ideomotor effect". Yet the scam lasted for years. It made British fraudsters millions of pounds - in thousands of sales across several continents.

And lives were put at risk...The wand-like devices marketed by a Somerset-based businessman called James McCormick were used in Iraq, where detecting a bomb means the difference between life and death....

McCormick was jailed for 10 years last year and others followed - 47-year-old businessman Gary Bolton was convicted last August, Samuel Tree will now spend three and a half years in jail, while his wife received a suspended sentence. The Bedfordshire couple bought cheap plastic parts from China and assembled the devices in a shed in their back garden.

...it was tested by Home Office scientist, Tim Sheldon. He told the BBC that he issued the strongest possible warning about the device, in advice circulated to government departments. "The claims that were made for it were completely misleading," he says. "We warned that it would be potentially dangerous to use."

He thought that would be the end of the story.

But the fraudsters behind the bogus detectors repackaged and renamed them yet again, seeking out new markets overseas - where fewer questions would be asked and where bribes could oil the wheels of lucrative deals.]

Edit: to add Pornthip's political affiliations

Don't be so hard on the lady, this is Thailand, not a real country!

Pornthip won't mince words? Didn't she support the use of the GT200 bomb detector?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/28439/thailands-chief-forensic-scientist-a-gt200-defender/

Haven't people defending her said she only did so on orders?

Note --- your quoted articles use anonymous sources regarding the role of the UK police,

Mmmm so we're down to making criticisms of articles in the BBC and a host of other news agencies that reported on that case because what.............in your view they are using anonymous sources No comment

Yes apparently she did support the use of the GT200, how many times have you mentioned that before? Obviously respected under the Thai leadership to now be head of forensics, so where does that leave us?

That leaves us with a person who will lie for either the right amount of money, or

the right amount of pressure. At this point her word has no validity in the slightest.

Regarding her appointment to be head of forensics, that should be easily recognized

as a payoff for her support of the complete piece of crap GT 2000. And if she actually

believed it was a great device, then she is brain dead and deserves no position in

the government......

Shooting the messenger, are you? Security devices aren't her expertise. It would seem that the users (military and police) would be the ones to gauge whether a product was viable - before ordering dozens of the items - particularly if they're grossly overpriced. Nobody asked me, but I could have tested the devices for cheap, and in 2 days would have known they were useless, and thereby saved Thai taxpayers lots of money. But of course, Thai military and cops don't want any farang advising them - they can figure all things out for themselves - as they've figured out what happened in the double murder on KT.

Police don't like Ms Porntip because she's shown, in past crime investigations, that she doesn't kow-tow to police mandates. She may have made a mistake on the GT 2000 assessment. I can excuse one mistake, particularly if it's not her field of expertise. Can you?

For a reputable scientist, asked to verify something that is outside their field of expertise, the answer given is: "I can't offer any opinion on that because it is outside my field of expertise. Please ask an expert."

Not only did Pornthip offer an opinion on something she had no idea about (while pretending to be knowledgeable enough to give an opinion), she has continued to insist over and over again that her opinion was correct, and that these detectors do work. This is what renders her despicable.

This is in spite of the fact that the makers of these scam devices ( that started off as "golf ball detectors" on some dodgy website for £20 a decade ago) have been tried, found guilty and sentenced for fraud, during a court case where it was shown clearly enough to convince a jury of 12 non-scientists that the devices had no parts in them that could fulfill the functions claimed, and that these claims were scientifically impossible.

Nevertheless Pornthip does not say, "I was mistaken, sorry, not really my field." She continues to vainly and almost unbelievably stupidly, claim she was right all along.

So whatever your beliefs about her expertise in forensic areas, she has at very least shown herself to be an untrustworthy figure, who basically is unable to interpret and analyse facts correctly even to the standards of an untrained UK jury. The alternative, and this is my belief, is that the convicted criminal who sold these "detectors" to various corrupt third world countries, did so using bribes and kickbacks, of which she was one beneficiary.

To me this whole affair irreversibly compromises Pornthip's reputation and reliability. She has been re-appointed by the Army Chiefs who are now in charge, after being fired. She owes them her job in a web of patronage. She has proved corruptible in the past over the detector fraud.

"Ms. Pornthip replied when asked how she felt about the reinstatement. “I would also like to thank the NCPO for giving me this opportunity.” Ms. Pornthip’s return to the helm of the forensic science institute did not come as a surprise to many. Ms. Pornthip was a staunch supporter of the political faction that protested against the previous government and widely celebrated the military’s coup d’etat on 22 May." https://thaishortnews.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/prayuth-send-ally-global-scandal-fake-bomb-detector-defender-to-head-top-forensic-institute/

You just have to ask, will her conclusions reflect the objective truth, or the clearly expressed wishes of Army who keep her in power, and who have stated their satisfaction with the handling of the case and pre-rewarded the police? Maybe these are the same thing and there is no problem. If they are not the same thing they are being judged by someone who is proven to be unworthy.

[Read the story of the bomb detectors , and then see if you still admire Pornthip, who continues to recommend Thais risk their lives in the South by using them

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29459896

"The publicity and packaging cost more than the devices themselves. The fake "detectors" - sold with spurious but scientific-sounding claims - were little more than empty cases with an aerial which swings according to the user's unconscious hand movements, "the ideomotor effect". Yet the scam lasted for years. It made British fraudsters millions of pounds - in thousands of sales across several continents.

And lives were put at risk...The wand-like devices marketed by a Somerset-based businessman called James McCormick were used in Iraq, where detecting a bomb means the difference between life and death....

McCormick was jailed for 10 years last year and others followed - 47-year-old businessman Gary Bolton was convicted last August, Samuel Tree will now spend three and a half years in jail, while his wife received a suspended sentence. The Bedfordshire couple bought cheap plastic parts from China and assembled the devices in a shed in their back garden.

...it was tested by Home Office scientist, Tim Sheldon. He told the BBC that he issued the strongest possible warning about the device, in advice circulated to government departments. "The claims that were made for it were completely misleading," he says. "We warned that it would be potentially dangerous to use."

He thought that would be the end of the story.

But the fraudsters behind the bogus detectors repackaged and renamed them yet again, seeking out new markets overseas - where fewer questions would be asked and where bribes could oil the wheels of lucrative deals.]

Edit: to add Pornthip's political affiliations

With reference to your second paragraph, this is no different from what numerous TV posters do on a daily basis, ie claim expertise in subjects they know nothing about

Put it this way; if I was being wrongfully charged and banged up in LOS and my lawyer advised me, "Don't worry, we have Pornthip Rojanasunand testifying for your defence," ... I would be worried.

Heck, I would be uneasy even if I was being rightfully charged.

Thanks, in advance, for any info.

อัพเดตก่อนใคร ทุกคู่ ทุกการแข่งขัน livescore 7m