Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[loonodingle]

Defense no longer want DNA tested, (another news source)

http://news.sky.com/story/1539622/mother-sobs-over-backpacker-murder-re-enactment

I would not want the testing done under the conditions imposed either. Totally pointless if you don't trust the authorities which clearly no one associated or familiar with the case does.

Very wise move by the defence although quite why they didn't see it coming I don't know.

The prosecution would never allow independant transparent testing as that may demonstrate that it was a fit up.

actually I would have given a cautious trust to Porntip Rojanasunan, like I said above if she still appears in court then she will have something shocking to say about this case, if the prosecution call her as a witness then all bets are off

Smedly you are missing the point here.

Pornthip will still test the B2 DNA. I think its done already. She will still testify for the defence.

They dont need the Hoe Dna etc as they already have results that kick the prosecution case into the ditch. Remember there was DNA printed profiles for the hoe already in the files m8. It obviously conflicts with what they have so job done.

IMHO... ?

[loonodingle]

Defense no longer want DNA tested, (another news source)

http://news.sky.com/story/1539622/mother-sobs-over-backpacker-murder-re-enactment

The defense always wanted transparent, independent DNA testing. In the end, it appears they could not achieve this, and having the RTP control another round of testing did not seem a good idea.

this completely confuses me

the defense have requested to independently retest the dna but are now saying that there is no point - either

- prosecution/police are interfering (will be testimony for defense)

- or they have been told that the dna evidence from the victims is tainted spoiled or inaccurate (will be testimony for defense)

- or that the tests came back as a match

the great thing about forensics is that they can tell exactly where a sample came from

if we do not now hear testimony from the national forensics lab in Bangkok to say that tests were not possible or that the samples were untestable or that they couldn't perform their duties without interference - then this case takes a swing towards guilty

I suspect we will hear more about this if a certain forensic person is still called as a witness - if so her testimony will be a shocker, if she isn't called by the defense then that raises some serious questions for me

Its split into 2.

DNA from the B2 is STILL being tested. Results passed straight to defence.

its the Hoe etc they dont need it now. The profiles have been submitted already in case files. They dont need to argue it.

The DNA evidence being discussed is the rape kit DNA taken from inside the victim's body, and which was said to match the suspects. If real DNA evidence exists that cannot be contested or discredited, showing that the two Burmese left DNA inside the victim's body then the two will be, and probably should be, found guilty.

It is this evidence which has to be shown to be wrong for the case to be thrown out. Furthermore it is usual in western courts for prosecution to argue that if retesting of DNA samples is offered to the defence and not taken up, then the defence cannot justifiably contest what the prosecution say that the DNA evidence shows. One of the main reasons for believing that the defence were convinced of the innocence of their clients was their insistence on having the rape kit samples retested, and now this has gone. This is a reversal that is very hard to understand: there is almost no good reason not to retest unless you are afraid the result won't help your case.

As others have pointed out, expecting that evidence apparently gathered by personnel in the UK weeks after the bodies left Thai custody (if this really exists) will be admissible or accepted in the Thai court is probably unwise. No country's courts would be likely to accept that after remains have been completely forensically examined, released to the families and have been out of the legal jurisdiction of the country for weeks, that new evidence apparently gathered by workers in another country would be admissable, since no verification at all that the bodies weren't contaminated or tampered with is possible.

So the idea that evidence gathered like this will somehow trump the Thai forensic evidence is very unrealistic indeed.

Your missing this as well. I am sure youve all been on the Leo and skim read the facts.

Thai forensics institute has tested the 2 suspects from DNA taken in court. I bet it left that night on the last flight and has been processed.

So they will rely on this and the police submissions as they conflict with each other..

IMHO.

[smedly]

Defense no longer want DNA tested, (another news source)

http://news.sky.com/story/1539622/mother-sobs-over-backpacker-murder-re-enactment

I would not want the testing done under the conditions imposed either. Totally pointless if you don't trust the authorities which clearly no one associated or familiar with the case does.

Very wise move by the defence although quite why they didn't see it coming I don't know.

The prosecution would never allow independant transparent testing as that may demonstrate that it was a fit up.

actually I would have given a cautious trust to Porntip Rojanasunan, like I said above if she still appears in court then she will have something shocking to say about this case, if the prosecution call her as a witness then all bets are off

Smedly you are missing the point here.

Pornthip will still test the B2 DNA. I think its done already. She will still testify for the defence.

They dont need the Hoe Dna etc as they already have results that kick the prosecution case into the ditch. Remember there was DNA printed profiles for the hoe already in the files m8. It obviously conflicts with what they have so job done.

IMHO... ?

yes both me and partington (very good post btw) jumped the gun a little and as stated up there somewhere I did correct my error but the post was blank (windows 10 is wonderful lol) I am now with the program before I go off the sleep

[silverado]

Defense no longer want DNA tested, (another news source)

http://news.sky.com/story/1539622/mother-sobs-over-backpacker-murder-re-enactment

I would not want the testing done under the conditions imposed either. Totally pointless if you don't trust the authorities which clearly no one associated or familiar with the case does.

Very wise move by the defence although quite why they didn't see it coming I don't know.

The prosecution would never allow independant transparent testing as that may demonstrate that it was a fit up.

actually I would have given a cautious trust to Porntip Rojanasunan, like I said above if she still appears in court then she will have something shocking to say about this case, if the prosecution call her as a witness then all bets are off

Smedly you are missing the point here.

Pornthip will still test the B2 DNA. I think its done already. She will still testify for the defence.

They dont need the Hoe Dna etc as they already have results that kick the prosecution case into the ditch. Remember there was DNA printed profiles for the hoe already in the files m8. It obviously conflicts with what they have so job done.

IMHO... ?

the lawyiers spoke about re-testing of the DNA found on the victims' bodies, why are you everytime speaking about the hoe ? there wasn't any dna on the hoe , was it ?

[partington]

The DNA evidence being discussed is the rape kit DNA taken from inside the victim's body, and which was said to match the suspects. If real DNA evidence exists that cannot be contested or discredited, showing that the two Burmese left DNA inside the victim's body then the two will be, and probably should be, found guilty.

It is this evidence which has to be shown to be wrong for the case to be thrown out. Furthermore it is usual in western courts for prosecution to argue that if retesting of DNA samples is offered to the defence and not taken up, then the defence cannot justifiably contest what the prosecution say that the DNA evidence shows. One of the main reasons for believing that the defence were convinced of the innocence of their clients was their insistence on having the rape kit samples retested, and now this has gone. This is a reversal that is very hard to understand: there is almost no good reason not to retest unless you are afraid the result won't help your case.

As others have pointed out, expecting that evidence apparently gathered by personnel in the UK weeks after the bodies left Thai custody (if this really exists) will be admissible or accepted in the Thai court is probably unwise. No country's courts would be likely to accept that after remains have been completely forensically examined, released to the families and have been out of the legal jurisdiction of the country for weeks, that new evidence apparently gathered by workers in another country would be admissable, since no verification at all that the bodies weren't contaminated or tampered with is possible.

So the idea that evidence gathered like this will somehow trump the Thai forensic evidence is very unrealistic indeed.

Your missing this as well. I am sure youve all been on the Leo and skim read the facts.

Thai forensics institute has tested the 2 suspects from DNA taken in court. I bet it left that night on the last flight and has been processed.

So they will rely on this and the police submissions as they conflict with each other..

IMHO.

Really I'm trying to understand what you mean and I don't. The DNA from the suspects doesn't have any relevance unless it is compared to something else.

The prosecution said in court that the suspects' DNA matches the DNA taken from the victim's body and therefore the suspects raped (and murdered) the victim.

This means they have a DNA profile from the rape kit, and a DNA profile from the suspects and they are saying that they are the same.

I haven't heard that the defence has said that the suspects' DNA profile is not the same as the DNA profile from the rape kit. Taking the suspects' DNA and retesting it just gives you another profile that you still must compare to the rape kit sample to be able to tell whether it's the same or different.

The results of the retest haven't come out yet as far as I know. Are you assuming now that the suspects' DNA has been retested, compared by the defence to the profile the police have in the rape kit and shown to be different? But if you are saying this how do you know-this hasn't been announced?

Maybe I am entirely missing the point but I don't get what you mean?

The hoe doesn't really come into this at all.

[loonodingle]

The DNA evidence being discussed is the rape kit DNA taken from inside the victim's body, and which was said to match the suspects. If real DNA evidence exists that cannot be contested or discredited, showing that the two Burmese left DNA inside the victim's body then the two will be, and probably should be, found guilty.

It is this evidence which has to be shown to be wrong for the case to be thrown out. Furthermore it is usual in western courts for prosecution to argue that if retesting of DNA samples is offered to the defence and not taken up, then the defence cannot justifiably contest what the prosecution say that the DNA evidence shows. One of the main reasons for believing that the defence were convinced of the innocence of their clients was their insistence on having the rape kit samples retested, and now this has gone. This is a reversal that is very hard to understand: there is almost no good reason not to retest unless you are afraid the result won't help your case.

As others have pointed out, expecting that evidence apparently gathered by personnel in the UK weeks after the bodies left Thai custody (if this really exists) will be admissible or accepted in the Thai court is probably unwise. No country's courts would be likely to accept that after remains have been completely forensically examined, released to the families and have been out of the legal jurisdiction of the country for weeks, that new evidence apparently gathered by workers in another country would be admissable, since no verification at all that the bodies weren't contaminated or tampered with is possible.

So the idea that evidence gathered like this will somehow trump the Thai forensic evidence is very unrealistic indeed.

Your missing this as well. I am sure youve all been on the Leo and skim read the facts.

Thai forensics institute has tested the 2 suspects from DNA taken in court. I bet it left that night on the last flight and has been processed.

So they will rely on this and the police submissions as they conflict with each other..

IMHO.

Really I'm trying to understand what you mean and I don't. The DNA from the suspects doesn't have any relevance unless it is compared to something else.

The prosecution said in court that the suspects' DNA matches the DNA taken from the victim's body and therefore the suspects raped (and murdered) the victim.

This means they have a DNA profile from the rape kit, and a DNA profile from the suspects and they are saying that they are the same.

I haven't heard that the defence has said that the suspects' DNA profile is not the same as the DNA profile from the rape kit. Taking the suspects' DNA and retesting it just gives you another profile that you still must compare to the rape kit sample to be able to tell whether it's the same or different.

The results of the retest haven't come out yet as far as I know. Are you assuming now that the suspects' DNA has been retested, compared by the defence to the profile the police have in the rape kit and shown to be different? But if you are saying this how do you know-this hasn't been announced?

Maybe I am entirely missing the point but I don't get what you mean?

The hoe doesn't really come into this at all.

I am saying I think it left that night on a flight to bangkok. The defence hijacked them at the end of the day and said ok you wouldn't object to retesting the B2 ??? They agreed and woulld u know they had the people in the court waiting to take it.

They have had 2 days to do it and had the results.

So they get a call and it says its not a match against the profile submitted by the prosecution.

They immediately dont want the other items tested do they. Why would they? They already have a different set of results so they say we dont need anymore testing.

Think about it. Something has happened today. They fought for the retest. Now they dont need it. However they got the B2 profiles taken in front of the judge. Bingo how can they refute that. Good chain of custody to Bangkok. Photo and filmed I bet.

IMHO...

[loonodingle]

Read up m8.... http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437661326

He said the institute is still processing the items that were sent for a retest earlier this month, which included the bloodied garden hoe police believe was used in the murder, and a shoe, sock, and bag found at the crime scene

Defense no longer want DNA tested, (another news source)

http://news.sky.com/story/1539622/mother-sobs-over-backpacker-murder-re-enactment

I would not want the testing done under the conditions imposed either. Totally pointless if you don't trust the authorities which clearly no one associated or familiar with the case does.

Very wise move by the defence although quite why they didn't see it coming I don't know.

The prosecution would never allow independant transparent testing as that may demonstrate that it was a fit up.

actually I would have given a cautious trust to Porntip Rojanasunan, like I said above if she still appears in court then she will have something shocking to say about this case, if the prosecution call her as a witness then all bets are off

Smedly you are missing the point here.

Pornthip will still test the B2 DNA. I think its done already. She will still testify for the defence.

They dont need the Hoe Dna etc as they already have results that kick the prosecution case into the ditch. Remember there was DNA printed profiles for the hoe already in the files m8. It obviously conflicts with what they have so job done.

IMHO... ?

the lawyiers spoke about re-testing of the DNA found on the victims' bodies, why are you everytime speaking about the hoe ? there wasn't any dna on the hoe , was it ?

read up m8...

[partington]

The DNA evidence being discussed is the rape kit DNA taken from inside the victim's body, and which was said to match the suspects. If real DNA evidence exists that cannot be contested or discredited, showing that the two Burmese left DNA inside the victim's body then the two will be, and probably should be, found guilty.

It is this evidence which has to be shown to be wrong for the case to be thrown out. Furthermore it is usual in western courts for prosecution to argue that if retesting of DNA samples is offered to the defence and not taken up, then the defence cannot justifiably contest what the prosecution say that the DNA evidence shows. One of the main reasons for believing that the defence were convinced of the innocence of their clients was their insistence on having the rape kit samples retested, and now this has gone. This is a reversal that is very hard to understand: there is almost no good reason not to retest unless you are afraid the result won't help your case.

As others have pointed out, expecting that evidence apparently gathered by personnel in the UK weeks after the bodies left Thai custody (if this really exists) will be admissible or accepted in the Thai court is probably unwise. No country's courts would be likely to accept that after remains have been completely forensically examined, released to the families and have been out of the legal jurisdiction of the country for weeks, that new evidence apparently gathered by workers in another country would be admissable, since no verification at all that the bodies weren't contaminated or tampered with is possible.

So the idea that evidence gathered like this will somehow trump the Thai forensic evidence is very unrealistic indeed.

Your missing this as well. I am sure youve all been on the Leo and skim read the facts.

Thai forensics institute has tested the 2 suspects from DNA taken in court. I bet it left that night on the last flight and has been processed.

So they will rely on this and the police submissions as they conflict with each other..

IMHO.

Really I'm trying to understand what you mean and I don't. The DNA from the suspects doesn't have any relevance unless it is compared to something else.

The prosecution said in court that the suspects' DNA matches the DNA taken from the victim's body and therefore the suspects raped (and murdered) the victim.

This means they have a DNA profile from the rape kit, and a DNA profile from the suspects and they are saying that they are the same.

I haven't heard that the defence has said that the suspects' DNA profile is not the same as the DNA profile from the rape kit. Taking the suspects' DNA and retesting it just gives you another profile that you still must compare to the rape kit sample to be able to tell whether it's the same or different.

The results of the retest haven't come out yet as far as I know. Are you assuming now that the suspects' DNA has been retested, compared by the defence to the profile the police have in the rape kit and shown to be different? But if you are saying this how do you know-this hasn't been announced?

Maybe I am entirely missing the point but I don't get what you mean?

The hoe doesn't really come into this at all.

I am saying I think it left that night on a flight to bangkok. The defence hijacked them at the end of the day and said ok you wouldn't object to retesting the B2 ??? They agreed and woulld u know they had the people in the court waiting to take it.

They have had 2 days to do it and had the results.

So they get a call and it says its not a match against the profile submitted by the prosecution.

They immediately dont want the other items tested do they. Why would they? They already have a different set of results so they say we dont need anymore testing.

Think about it. Something has happened today. They fought for the retest. Now they dont need it. However they got the B2 profiles taken in front of the judge. Bingo how can they refute that. Good chain of custody to Bangkok. Photo and filmed I bet.

IMHO...

I understand: you are supposing that the defence have already found the profiles do not in fact match as a result of the retest of the suspects DNA, which would mean that the evidence the police had was entirely invented.

I understand what you are saying: but you do not know that this has happened, and are pretty much inventing it. Maybe your guess is right but it's just a guess.

[smedly]

I think until this is all clarified there is no point in discussing it further - something has obviously happened regarding the dna retest, nobody at this point knows what

good old window 10 edge browser needs some work

[loonodingle]

The DNA evidence being discussed is the rape kit DNA taken from inside the victim's body, and which was said to match the suspects. If real DNA evidence exists that cannot be contested or discredited, showing that the two Burmese left DNA inside the victim's body then the two will be, and probably should be, found guilty.

It is this evidence which has to be shown to be wrong for the case to be thrown out. Furthermore it is usual in western courts for prosecution to argue that if retesting of DNA samples is offered to the defence and not taken up, then the defence cannot justifiably contest what the prosecution say that the DNA evidence shows. One of the main reasons for believing that the defence were convinced of the innocence of their clients was their insistence on having the rape kit samples retested, and now this has gone. This is a reversal that is very hard to understand: there is almost no good reason not to retest unless you are afraid the result won't help your case.

As others have pointed out, expecting that evidence apparently gathered by personnel in the UK weeks after the bodies left Thai custody (if this really exists) will be admissible or accepted in the Thai court is probably unwise. No country's courts would be likely to accept that after remains have been completely forensically examined, released to the families and have been out of the legal jurisdiction of the country for weeks, that new evidence apparently gathered by workers in another country would be admissable, since no verification at all that the bodies weren't contaminated or tampered with is possible.

So the idea that evidence gathered like this will somehow trump the Thai forensic evidence is very unrealistic indeed.

Your missing this as well. I am sure youve all been on the Leo and skim read the facts.

Thai forensics institute has tested the 2 suspects from DNA taken in court. I bet it left that night on the last flight and has been processed.

So they will rely on this and the police submissions as they conflict with each other..

IMHO.

Really I'm trying to understand what you mean and I don't. The DNA from the suspects doesn't have any relevance unless it is compared to something else.

The prosecution said in court that the suspects' DNA matches the DNA taken from the victim's body and therefore the suspects raped (and murdered) the victim.

This means they have a DNA profile from the rape kit, and a DNA profile from the suspects and they are saying that they are the same.

I haven't heard that the defence has said that the suspects' DNA profile is not the same as the DNA profile from the rape kit. Taking the suspects' DNA and retesting it just gives you another profile that you still must compare to the rape kit sample to be able to tell whether it's the same or different.

The results of the retest haven't come out yet as far as I know. Are you assuming now that the suspects' DNA has been retested, compared by the defence to the profile the police have in the rape kit and shown to be different? But if you are saying this how do you know-this hasn't been announced?

Maybe I am entirely missing the point but I don't get what you mean?

The hoe doesn't really come into this at all.

I am saying I think it left that night on a flight to bangkok. The defence hijacked them at the end of the day and said ok you wouldn't object to retesting the B2 ??? They agreed and woulld u know they had the people in the court waiting to take it.

They have had 2 days to do it and had the results.

So they get a call and it says its not a match against the profile submitted by the prosecution.

They immediately dont want the other items tested do they. Why would they? They already have a different set of results so they say we dont need anymore testing.

Think about it. Something has happened today. They fought for the retest. Now they dont need it. However they got the B2 profiles taken in front of the judge. Bingo how can they refute that. Good chain of custody to Bangkok. Photo and filmed I bet.

IMHO...

I understand: you are supposing that the defence have already found the profiles do not in fact match as a result of the retest of the suspects DNA, which would mean that the evidence the police had was entirely invented.

I understand what you are saying: but you do not know that this has happened, and are pretty much inventing it. Maybe your guess is right but it's just a guess.

Agreed... but its a matter of deduction. ..

How was it they managed to get a DNA test done in front of the judge.?

Was the Forensic institute staff just walking past the court?

Is there an evening flight out of Samui?

Did the defence consider that the police may get the results from the items being tested?

Why after such jumping up and down and protests in the media for retests have they now said... hey its ok we dont need it??? ???????..

Why are they just satisfied with the B2 results?

Why did Nakhon say its ok we have enough to dissprove the prosecution case. Thats hefty statement? ???

It may not fit your theory and u could argue its guess. I would argue its a matter of deduction my friend..

did u ever play Cluedo??... I did and I also have had a very good insight into this case.

[StealthEnergiser]

What if the institute for forensic sciences has already done the profile of the B2. And it doesnt match the profile in the file submitted by the prosecution.

Thats also something I thought may have happened the killers/rapists could have already given DNA just put the wrong names on the bottles.

[loonodingle]

What if the institute for forensic sciences has already done the profile of the B2. And it doesnt match the profile in the file submitted by the prosecution.

Thats also something I thought may have happened the killers/rapists could have already given DNA just put the wrong names on the bottles.

Yep exactly.

Something major happened today. A massive U turn and a statement to say hey we dont need that stuff now we have what we need....

[silverado]

What if the institute for forensic sciences has already done the profile of the B2. And it doesnt match the profile in the file submitted by the prosecution.

Thats also something I thought may have happened the killers/rapists could have already given DNA just put the wrong names on the bottles.

Yep exactly.

Something major happened today. A massive U turn and a statement to say hey we dont need that stuff now we have what we need....

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

Yup... Mai bpen rai... We have what we need. Now let my clients go and go find the REAL rapists /murders.

[catsanddogs]

What if the institute for forensic sciences has already done the profile of the B2. And it doesnt match the profile in the file submitted by the prosecution.

Thats also something I thought may have happened the killers/rapists could have already given DNA just put the wrong names on the bottles.

Yep exactly.

Something major happened today. A massive U turn and a statement to say hey we dont need that stuff now we have what we need....

So this would mean that the profile submitted by the prosecution (if it is a match with DNA from Hannah and David) belongs to the real killers? That the B2 have been framed by the RTP - or someone within the RTP - by labelling the DNA profile of the real killers with the details of the B2? A possible scenario which was put forward on this forum many times over the past months. If this is the case, how long before the defence speaks up with its findings? If the families of Hannah and David wished to conduct private investigations no doubt they would be able to request that DNA samples taken from previous suspects be re-taken (whose DNA was said not to be a match) so it could be compared with the profile which is being put forward by the prosecution as the killers.

My like button not working Loono - like.

[Briggsy]

Good post, catsanddogs

It is worth adding that in the Kirsty Jones case, the Thai police have had a DNA profile of the rapist / killer for 15 years. They have made no progress. There is no will in the Thai police to push against the resistance preventing arrest of the perpetrator.

In the Koh Tao case, I would imagine the resistance would be tenfold.

[StealthEnergiser]

[StealthEnergiser]

[Dogmatix]

Good post, catsanddogs

It is worth adding that in the Kirsty Jones case, the Thai police have had a DNA profile of the rapist / killer for 15 years. They have made no progress. There is no will in the Thai police to push against the resistance preventing arrest of the perpetrator.

In the Koh Tao case, I would imagine the resistance would be tenfold.

I am still unclear on the defence's motive for no longer wanting retesting of the rape kit, although I understand that letting corrupt Thai police have control over conditions of the retesting would make a mockery of it. Khao Sod earlier reported that the police had refused to give them the DNA profiles they had prepared from the rape kit and from other samples. Does Pornthip's team now have these?

Logically, however, if Pornthip's team has not got the profiles and the defence believes in its clients' innocence, it would still want to proceed with the retesting it fought so hard for. Otherwise it would be left only arguing that the original chain of custody was broken. That would be unconvincing, if the defence had then passed up the chance to retest. If the police had inserted the 2B's samples into the rape kit samples themselves, there would presumably be evidence of additional rapists, assuming that the IFM's reported finding if semen wasn't a complete fabrication in the first place and there was actually none found in the victim but the 2B saliva samples were added later.

If Pornthip has got the IFM's DNA profiles and they are not a match with the swabs taken from the 2B in the courtroom, then I agree there would be point in retesting the samples from the rape kit under conditions that allow the police some control over the procedure. The defence has already shown that the original DNA samples taken from the 2B were taken by a bomb disposal officer with no training taking DNA samples from humans.

If it turns out that the 2B samples are not a match, despite the perfect police investigation after studying the same textbooks as Scotland Yard, you can very confident that there will be no further efforts to find the real rapists and mutters. The new police chief is the one who was put in charge of the case just before the investigation tilted towards the 2B and he will stay in the job for 5 years, as he is only 55.

[Dogmatix]

tw27.jpg

Daily Mail hiding behind the fact that it is banned in Thailand to publish disinformation. It's high time the garbage rag was banned in the UK too.

[Gulfsailor]

I think a deal has been struck between police/prosecution and defense.

Some people involved may be scared that new DNA test of rape kit will show to be different than what was submitted to the prosecution. Among all the screw ups so far that would fit in nicely. However in this case it would also provide an irrefutable piece of future evidence of the identities of the rapists / killers. Evidence which would be out of the hands of the police. What is to stop the defense from handing over the new rape kit DNA profile to David and Hannah's parents. They can then move forward to hire private investigators to find the person or persons whose DNA match that of the rape kit.

If the B2 are scapegoats, they are not because some influential people are out to get them, but to protect the real perpetrators. The B2 in that case are just collateral damage. If the defense is in a position to show clear evidence that the B2 are not guilty, by implicating other suspects, or by being a future threat to to other suspects, then the whole point of scapegoating the B2 loses its point. In that case it is safer to give up the pursuit of B2 conviction and avoid this new evidence coming to light altogether.

[boomerangutang]

In the bigger picture, the whole campaign is going according to RTP and Headman's plan.

They're less concerned about finding the B2 guilty, than they are about keeping legal focus away from the Headman's staff, buddies and family.

They don't like the loss of face which accompanies their sustained blunderings, but that's a small price to pay for staying the course.

My assumption is there won't be a guilty verdict, and the case will without doubt go to appeal. That fits nicely in to the overall plan for RTP and the Headman's people. More time, means the case grows colder (if, in the unlikely event, the H's people are reinstated as suspects). More time lapse also means peoples' concern (general public) gets hazier. Already, most Thais are bored or forgetful about this case, and that's fine with Thai authorities and the H's people.

[boomerangutang]

I am very surprised , the defense team should know from the start that another DNA test would be performed in Thailand , in a Thai DNA lab. And they have asked for a retest, not only one time but repeatedly.

Suddenly they change their minds. Why ?

It's a smart move by the defense. The re-testing results would be channeled to the RTP who, in turn, would channel it to the prosecution. How much does anyone trust the RTP? They've shown, in a thousand ways, that they've got a thick agenda to bust the B2 while sheltering the real culprits.

[KunMatt]

OK, let me try to rephrase this as "personal cause" and "self interest" seem to have totally different meanings in your dialect of English.

You said it would be justice if he "lands in jail" for his activities. Why do you feel his incarceration would be in the interests of justice, and what are the motives you ascribe to Mr Hall for these crimes?

After all this time and all of the Koh Tao threads being shut down so far, do you honestly not realise what these shills and trolls are doing here?

Simply ignore them and discuss the case with real people, or this thread will go the same way.

[philr]

Please, can all the TV users that actually want justice in this case, for the accused, the poor victims and their families stop responding to the tactics of those that clearly have a different agenda to the majority.

Those that respond in kind, causing threads to be locked and the silencing of discussion are falling into a simple trap and in my view are as responsible for the inevitable consequences as the shills.

Count to ten, walk the dog, put the kettle on to let the air out of your tyre before hitting Post. I know, it works, I've done it several times myself.

[StealthEnergiser]

What if the institute for forensic sciences has already done the profile of the B2. And it doesnt match the profile in the file submitted by the prosecution.

Thats also something I thought may have happened the killers/rapists could have already given DNA just put the wrong names on the bottles.

Yep exactly.

Something major happened today. A massive U turn and a statement to say hey we dont need that stuff now we have what we need....

So this would mean that the profile submitted by the prosecution (if it is a match with DNA from Hannah and David) belongs to the real killers? That the B2 have been framed by the RTP - or someone within the RTP - by labelling the DNA profile of the real killers with the details of the B2? A possible scenario which was put forward on this forum many times over the past months. If this is the case, how long before the defence speaks up with its findings? If the families of Hannah and David wished to conduct private investigations no doubt they would be able to request that DNA samples taken from previous suspects be re-taken (whose DNA was said not to be a match) so it could be compared with the profile which is being put forward by the prosecution as the killers.

My like button not working Loono - like.

The hole is getting bigger everyday and the defence side hasn't started yet.

[metisdead]

Disruptive posts, inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

[stephenterry]

In the bigger picture, the whole campaign is going according to RTP and Headman's plan.

They're less concerned about finding the B2 guilty, than they are about keeping legal focus away from the Headman's staff, buddies and family.

They don't like the loss of face which accompanies their sustained blunderings, but that's a small price to pay for staying the course.

My assumption is there won't be a guilty verdict, and the case will without doubt go to appeal. That fits nicely in to the overall plan for RTP and the Headman's people. More time, means the case grows colder (if, in the unlikely event, the H's people are reinstated as suspects). More time lapse also means peoples' concern (general public) gets hazier. Already, most Thais are bored or forgetful about this case, and that's fine with Thai authorities and the H's people.

Just one point of accuracy, Boom. Until the case has been considered closed by the courts right up to the Supreme court (if possible), and a final verdict given, H's people would not be reinstated as suspects, or at all. And even in the unlikely event that at some future point they are apprehended and found to be guilty, they could be freed on bail ad infinitum, just like other powerful people in similar situations.

What is interesting is that if the defence's case is overwhelming in clearing the B2 of any involvement in these crimes, and this court finds them not guilty, the Appeals court could turn down a request for an appeal by the prosecution. However, as it stands at the moment, the RTP are pinning their main thrust that video evidence of a confession supported by professionally qualified witnesses and people in authority could be enough for an appeal to be granted, whatever the DNA results. One picture is worth a thousand words, scenario.

And that's something the defence cannot fully counter to claim reasonable doubt - the nagging thought in the judges mind that maybe, just maybe, it was true.

[boomerangutang]

article from yesterday's Eastern Daily Press. . . .

(defense attorney) Nakhon Chomphuchat intimated that control of the re-testing procedure was the issue, as the results would not be directly returned to the defence, but to the police and then the court. “This is a very sensitive issue,” said Mr Chomphuchat.

“The lawyers cannot speak of it. There is also a lot of debate in the lawyers’ team on this issue. But if they retest it we have no control over that testing process.”

source

Boomer's spin: By mentioning how the re-tested DNA data will be handled by the RTP, the defense lawyer is sensibly doubting its veracity. The RTP has already shown, in a hundred examples, how it has a thick agenda in this case, and how it can't be trusted. Just the act of transferring data from one place to another is questionable. This is the same RTP who don't know how to save digital photos and who don't know how to find a photocopying machine in a city.

Here's how Thai officialdom's assertions make sense, re; DNA evidence. It boils down to two announcements RTP made at press conferences last year:

1. When officials announced, "DNA from the Burmese suspects match DNA found on the victim" ...a simple lie.

2. When officials announced, "DNA from Nomsod does not match DNA found on the victim" ...it was a lie.

It's as clear as glass. Who's going to argue with or challenge the chief of police? You? Me? a reporter? A lower ranked policeman? a lab techie?

The defense, by saying they don't want RTP-managed DNA results, are saying they don't trust anything RTP do with DNA. I think it was a smart move.

[stephenterry]

I think a deal has been struck between police/prosecution and defense.

Some people involved may be scared that new DNA test of rape kit will show to be different than what was submitted to the prosecution. Among all the screw ups so far that would fit in nicely. However in this case it would also provide an irrefutable piece of future evidence of the identities of the rapists / killers. Evidence which would be out of the hands of the police. What is to stop the defense from handing over the new rape kit DNA profile to David and Hannah's parents. They can then move forward to hire private investigators to find the person or persons whose DNA match that of the rape kit.

If the B2 are scapegoats, they are not because some influential people are out to get them, but to protect the real perpetrators. The B2 in that case are just collateral damage. If the defense is in a position to show clear evidence that the B2 are not guilty, by implicating other suspects, or by being a future threat to to other suspects, then the whole point of scapegoating the B2 loses its point. In that case it is safer to give up the pursuit of B2 conviction and avoid this new evidence coming to light altogether.

A deal only happens here if money passes hands. I'm sure the authorities and powerful people couldn't give a rat's a*se about any private investigation - look at the Kirsty Jones case. In some ways, I hope that the defence's evidence supports the B2 scapegoats scenario, because it's about time the spotlight falls well and truly on the Thai justice system.