Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[cumgranosalum]

Good news that a local radio station reporter from Norfolk is at the trial -

"Then today, when the senior police officer in charge of the DNA gathering was about the leave the dock, they (the defence team) turned round and said 'we want the DNA re-taken by the Thai Ministry of Justice, they're here, they're going to do it right now, and we want you to witness it', to which the judge said was fine."

She added: "The move followed a morning of admissions by the police officers who originally took the DNA from the suspects, including unsigned forms, no photographic evidence and a key officer who said he was bomb disposal and had only taken DNA in training.

full article here -

http://www.heart.co.uk/essex/news/local/dna-re-taken-during-hannah-witheridge-murder-trial/#xWmXtv22L1q5fWdE.97

Thanks for simply posting links to news: I appreciate reading what is happening in the case, not the sort of atrocious juvenile detective work and bickering that was posted in the last lengthy thread.

With reference to the reported re-taking of the suspects' DNA samples, although the defence are right to insist on as much independent corroboration as possible, it is unlikely that any errors made by an officer who has only taken DNA a few times in training could result in the samples being so compromised that they would result in misidentification.

DNA is taken by rubbing a cotton bud on the inside of the subject's cheek, then placing it in a tube, and that's it. Companies that sell online DNA tests rely on members of the general public doing this themselves, with no experience at all, other than the simple instructions given in the kits they are sent, and it is hard to do this incorrectly.

What is more likely to be questionable is: how clear and unambiguous were the DNA fingerprints apparently isolated from the victim that the suspects' DNA fingerprints were compared to. It is this sample that is likely to be deficient, unclear or not of high enough quality to prove an unambiguous match with the suspects' DNAs (which are permanently available in unlimited quantities.)

We also need to be sure that the DNA in the tests actually came from the accused.........as you say, it is easy enough to gather but the subsequent handling requires following meticulous protocols.

[AleG]

So when can we expect more factual news in this thread ?

Next hearing for the prosecution is on the 28th, IIRC.

[phuketandsee]

So when can we expect more factual news in this thread ?

Have there been any actual facts at all in this sorry mess? Certainly none from the prosecution.

[Jonmarleesco]

The sublime to the ridiculous: Next, the ridiculous to the ludicrous.

[partington]

Good news that a local radio station reporter from Norfolk is at the trial -

"Then today, when the senior police officer in charge of the DNA gathering was about the leave the dock, they (the defence team) turned round and said 'we want the DNA re-taken by the Thai Ministry of Justice, they're here, they're going to do it right now, and we want you to witness it', to which the judge said was fine."

She added: "The move followed a morning of admissions by the police officers who originally took the DNA from the suspects, including unsigned forms, no photographic evidence and a key officer who said he was bomb disposal and had only taken DNA in training.

full article here -

http://www.heart.co.uk/essex/news/local/dna-re-taken-during-hannah-witheridge-murder-trial/#xWmXtv22L1q5fWdE.97

Thanks for simply posting links to news: I appreciate reading what is happening in the case, not the sort of atrocious juvenile detective work and bickering that was posted in the last lengthy thread.

With reference to the reported re-taking of the suspects' DNA samples, although the defence are right to insist on as much independent corroboration as possible, it is unlikely that any errors made by an officer who has only taken DNA a few times in training could result in the samples being so compromised that they would result in misidentification.

DNA is taken by rubbing a cotton bud on the inside of the subject's cheek, then placing it in a tube, and that's it. Companies that sell online DNA tests rely on members of the general public doing this themselves, with no experience at all, other than the simple instructions given in the kits they are sent, and it is hard to do this incorrectly.

What is more likely to be questionable is: how clear and unambiguous were the DNA fingerprints apparently isolated from the victim that the suspects' DNA fingerprints were compared to. It is this sample that is likely to be deficient, unclear or not of high enough quality to prove an unambiguous match with the suspects' DNAs (which are permanently available in unlimited quantities.)

We also need to be sure that the DNA in the tests actually came from the accused.........as you say, it is easy enough to gather but the subsequent handling requires following meticulous protocols.

Well, the point is the DNA collected (according to the prosecution) produced readable and recognisable profiles , good enough to compare with the profiles read from the DNA isolated from the victim, and conclude that they matched.

In court, subject to a reasonable cross-examination, the prosecution would have to produce the DNA profiles from both the accused and the victim, and show how they matched and what the probability that the match could have happened by chance would be. These would have to have been handled by at least two lab personnel doing the profiling, analysing and cross checking the match, then signed off by the lab director, who would be a final check that the profiles had been interpreted correctly and the match probability was accurate.

To fake up these results from scratch and produce original data convincing enough to get past any reasonably qualified defense DNA forensic expert would require a huge amount of very technically difficult interference, and the collusion of a significant number of lab personnel. No police official, however high up would have any idea even what to tell people to do to fake these results, so they would have to ask the lab head to do it for them.

At the other extreme the match could be entirely on paper: that is a DNA profile from the victim was obtained, and the report of the DNA profiles from the accused was just typed up to show a match, without any data from the accused DNA being used at all. To be honest it is impossible to imagine this succeeding, or anyone believing it could succeed, because even the slightest questioning would expose it. It is almost impossible to get a complete convincing DNA profile for two people using a profile obtained from a rape kit sample that is a mix of two DNAs, simply because mixed DNAs almost always have many ambiguous readings at different marker sites. Also the lab would not be able to produce any original traces of data that they could say were the actual tests of the two DNA samples from the accused.

To be honest I don't have any idea about what is happening with the DNA evidence. To refuse a retest of the DNA rape kit sample suggests the defence are on the back foot: unless you think a retest will harm your case, accumulating every single bit of data that casts doubt on the prosecution's case is always the best strategy when you have to establish reasonable doubt. Four bits of exonerating evidence are better than five, and six are better than seven. You never have enough.

I wonder whether the defence belatedly realised that maybe Khun Pornthip would be a subversive or harmful defense witness rather than a helpful one: it seems very odd to ask for months for the victim DNA to be retested, then back out. Even this isn't very convincing - as someone has already pointed out, the samples would have to be handed over to Pornthip's lab, retested by junior lab personnel, written up as a report, and signed off. It could not then be altered either by the police or by Pornthip without many people knowing.

I thought the DNA evidence would collapse because the DNA match would be so ambiguous ( because the results from the victim DNA sample were unacceptably unclear, and so few of the accused markers matched that identification criteria would not be met). Perhaps this will still be the case.

The other alternative of course is that the the DNA does match, genuinely, and the accused are guilty.

[StealthEnergiser]

Good news that a local radio station reporter from Norfolk is at the trial -

"Then today, when the senior police officer in charge of the DNA gathering was about the leave the dock, they (the defence team) turned round and said 'we want the DNA re-taken by the Thai Ministry of Justice, they're here, they're going to do it right now, and we want you to witness it', to which the judge said was fine."

She added: "The move followed a morning of admissions by the police officers who originally took the DNA from the suspects, including unsigned forms, no photographic evidence and a key officer who said he was bomb disposal and had only taken DNA in training.

full article here -

http://www.heart.co.uk/essex/news/local/dna-re-taken-during-hannah-witheridge-murder-trial/#xWmXtv22L1q5fWdE.97

Thanks for simply posting links to news: I appreciate reading what is happening in the case, not the sort of atrocious juvenile detective work and bickering that was posted in the last lengthy thread.

With reference to the reported re-taking of the suspects' DNA samples, although the defence are right to insist on as much independent corroboration as possible, it is unlikely that any errors made by an officer who has only taken DNA a few times in training could result in the samples being so compromised that they would result in misidentification.

DNA is taken by rubbing a cotton bud on the inside of the subject's cheek, then placing it in a tube, and that's it. Companies that sell online DNA tests rely on members of the general public doing this themselves, with no experience at all, other than the simple instructions given in the kits they are sent, and it is hard to do this incorrectly.

What is more likely to be questionable is: how clear and unambiguous were the DNA fingerprints apparently isolated from the victim that the suspects' DNA fingerprints were compared to. It is this sample that is likely to be deficient, unclear or not of high enough quality to prove an unambiguous match with the suspects' DNAs (which are permanently available in unlimited quantities.)

We also need to be sure that the DNA in the tests actually came from the accused.........as you say, it is easy enough to gather but the subsequent handling requires following meticulous protocols.

Well, the point is the DNA collected (according to the prosecution) produced readable and recognisable profiles , good enough to compare with the profiles read from the DNA isolated from the victim, and conclude that they matched.

In court, subject to a reasonable cross-examination, the prosecution would have to produce the DNA profiles from both the accused and the victim, and show how they matched and what the probability that the match could have happened by chance would be. These would have to have been handled by at least two lab personnel doing the profiling, analysing and cross checking the match, then signed off by the lab director, who would be a final check that the profiles had been interpreted correctly and the match probability was accurate.

To fake up these results from scratch and produce original data convincing enough to get past any reasonably qualified defense DNA forensic expert would require a huge amount of very technically difficult interference, and the collusion of a significant number of lab personnel. No police official, however high up would have any idea even what to tell people to do to fake these results, so they would have to ask the lab head to do it for them.

At the other extreme the match could be entirely on paper: that is a DNA profile from the victim was obtained, and the report of the DNA profiles from the accused was just typed up to show a match, without any data from the accused DNA being used at all. To be honest it is impossible to imagine this succeeding, or anyone believing it could succeed, because even the slightest questioning would expose it. It is almost impossible to get a complete convincing DNA profile for two people using a profile obtained from a rape kit sample that is a mix of two DNAs, simply because mixed DNAs almost always have many ambiguous readings at different marker sites. Also the lab would not be able to produce any original traces of data that they could say were the actual tests of the two DNA samples from the accused.

To be honest I don't have any idea about what is happening with the DNA evidence. To refuse a retest of the DNA rape kit sample suggests the defence are on the back foot: unless you think a retest will harm your case, accumulating every single bit of data that casts doubt on the prosecution's case is always the best strategy when you have to establish reasonable doubt. Four bits of exonerating evidence are better than five, and six are better than seven. You never have enough.

I wonder whether the defence belatedly realised that maybe Khun Pornthip would be a subversive or harmful defense witness rather than a helpful one: it seems very odd to ask for months for the victim DNA to be retested, then back out. Even this isn't very convincing - as someone has already pointed out, the samples would have to be handed over to Pornthip's lab, retested by junior lab personnel, written up as a report, and signed off. It could not then be altered either by the police or by Pornthip without many people knowing.

I thought the DNA evidence would collapse because the DNA match would be so ambiguous ( because the results from the victim DNA sample were unacceptably unclear, and so few of the accused markers matched that identification criteria would not be met). Perhaps this will still be the case.

The other alternative of course is that the the DNA does match, genuinely, and the accused are guilty.

There is also the possibility the real killers gave their DNA and a corrupt person put the b2 names on the labels.

[boomerangutang]

Mon gave evidence, but Andy Hall didn't report on it? Am I missing something here?

Andy Hall is not a reporter. There are no reporters of note within the court chambers. Thai officialdom doesn't want reporting. Like everything else they do, they want the trial under wraps. The little news that has come forth, has come mostly from Mr. Hall. There is a British woman who works for a British paper in Hannah's home town who's added some info in recent days. News from Thai press corps? As far as I know, nada. Thai press corps are as useful in this case as a bicycle is to an octopus.

As for Mon: He had to testify because he is allegedly the first person to have been notified of the crime. Beyond that, RTP and prosecution want Mon to say as little as humanly possible. All reasonable observers know that Mon must have a lot of pertinent info re; the crime. Yet that's just why RTP and prosecution don't want him involved in the trial. The less he says, the better, according to officials.

Officials also don't seem at all concerned about a bunch of other things such as:

>>> what went on prior to the crime - in AC bar and elsewhere,

>>> time of crime,

>>> weapons used,

>>> when and how the perps left the crime scene....

....and dozens of other things which would be pertinent to real detectives - but which are 'mai pen rai' to Thai officials. Asleep at the wheel comes to mind.

[catsanddogs]

Wasn't aware that the alleged bribe was connected to a football team.

Early on, investigation efforts were more chaotic. Media caught on to Thai police trying to bribe a taxi driver to give false evidence against a football team from whom DNA samples were collected. Pornprasit Sukdam, the taxi driver, claimed they beat him up when he refused. He says they offered 700,000 baht (£13,300) for a fake witness statement regarding events leading up to the deaths of Miller and Witheridge. Sukdam apparently complained to District Chief Kobchai Saowalak and requested protection from the officers who intended to question him again.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/10/thailand-migrant-workers-confess-to-beach-murders/

[SaamBaht]

I've always said when you need a translator, get a roti seller.

[Darkknight666]

So when can we expect more factual news in this thread ?

Gee, I dunno, Balo.. Maybe when your pals at RTP and the prosecution decide to grow a pair and release some of the transcripts or maybe even evidence?

The facts are lacking because they're under the tight grasp of the RTP and their lacky of a prosecutor. Where is their smoking gun? Oh, that's right it's been in question since day one... And they've nothing but solidify their incompetence. I see you, Balo, trying to pretend your impartial.

You're not... You're a headman nutswinger pure and simple.

[Gweiloman]

So when can we expect more factual news in this thread ?

Maybe read the Thai newspaper? Oh, I forgot, there seem to be a blanket ban on reporting this trial in the local papers. Bad news for tourism and all that, you know

[Tony121]

Who was the guy in the middle of the investigation on the beach, was it Mon? Whoever it was, that person should be a witness as he placed himself front and centre and therefore should be on the prosecution witness list. Defense should insist on his statement as to what he was doing in the thick of it, and why.

Precisely.

Mon was an integral piece of the beginning of the case and prosecution not calling him, at all, is off. Why would a man who knows all the ins and outs of the island not have a clue what happened? What did he hear from whoever discovered the bodies? Why did he claim it was him in the running man vid? Why did he refuse to give CCTV footage? Where were the clothes when he arrived, who called him..... A pile of useful questions could be answered.

So, why is he not giving testimony against these two Burmese who came to his Island and commited a horrendous crime? Why is the Island completely on hush mode? Why have the media been told

Not to cover the case? Why were translators threatened? Why was a taxi driver approached with a large amount of cash and asked to give false testimony?

All of this for two Burmese who commited a crime?

No Mate,

No way. Coincidences tend to not happen that frequently surrounding one event. Why has Panya never came out and apologized or been sued? Just off in his inactive post, keeping his lips shut because he doesn't have a choice.

So, why is he not giving testimony against these two Burmese who came to his Island and commited a horrendous crime?

Mon already gave evidence at the beginning of the trial (July) but I have not seen any press reports detailing that evidence. All we had at the time were the reports of the beach cleaner who found the hoe and the RTP officer who was called to the crime scene.

Hmm I missed that... Anyways, he must not have had anything relevant to add. I'll go see if I can find that article. Thanks IslandLover.

The only this news reports I have seen with Mon mentioned at trial is in this article " Koh Tao policeman challenged over killings" you would have to do a search

So I read that article, thank you, Stealth.

It says Mon gave testimony along with Dr.Chaisit...... And nothing more. So whatever he said was not reported on at all.... I find that odd. Did the defense get a chance to ask questions? Oh, I forgot this isn't a real trial.

This article is so old they're saying evidence points to David and Hannah being intimate at the time of the attack.

I'll tell you exactly why I don't believe the B2 are the killers.. This was a pre-meditated attack, poorly executed because the killers never thought they'd ever be questioned or even found. Like I've said before, Hannah was not just killed she was killed so brutally she couldn't have an open casket.... Why so much anger at her face? I believe the pre-meditation is derived from what occurred in AC Bar. Anyone wonder why David didn't get the same as Hannah? The killers just wanted david out of the way and then they carried out their sick crime. Whoever was in AC bar knows what happened at the very least.

more great detective work by the tinfoilers, swaps the heads over and they could both be the person in the footage.

And even the great Andy has said the footage is to unclear

watch at 1:30

[AleG]

Well, the point is the DNA collected (according to the prosecution) produced readable and recognisable profiles , good enough to compare with the profiles read from the DNA isolated from the victim, and conclude that they matched.

In court, subject to a reasonable cross-examination, the prosecution would have to produce the DNA profiles from both the accused and the victim, and show how they matched and what the probability that the match could have happened by chance would be. These would have to have been handled by at least two lab personnel doing the profiling, analysing and cross checking the match, then signed off by the lab director, who would be a final check that the profiles had been interpreted correctly and the match probability was accurate.

To fake up these results from scratch and produce original data convincing enough to get past any reasonably qualified defense DNA forensic expert would require a huge amount of very technically difficult interference, and the collusion of a significant number of lab personnel. No police official, however high up would have any idea even what to tell people to do to fake these results, so they would have to ask the lab head to do it for them.

At the other extreme the match could be entirely on paper: that is a DNA profile from the victim was obtained, and the report of the DNA profiles from the accused was just typed up to show a match, without any data from the accused DNA being used at all. To be honest it is impossible to imagine this succeeding, or anyone believing it could succeed, because even the slightest questioning would expose it. It is almost impossible to get a complete convincing DNA profile for two people using a profile obtained from a rape kit sample that is a mix of two DNAs, simply because mixed DNAs almost always have many ambiguous readings at different marker sites. Also the lab would not be able to produce any original traces of data that they could say were the actual tests of the two DNA samples from the accused.

To be honest I don't have any idea about what is happening with the DNA evidence. To refuse a retest of the DNA rape kit sample suggests the defence are on the back foot: unless you think a retest will harm your case, accumulating every single bit of data that casts doubt on the prosecution's case is always the best strategy when you have to establish reasonable doubt. Four bits of exonerating evidence are better than five, and six are better than seven. You never have enough.

I wonder whether the defence belatedly realised that maybe Khun Pornthip would be a subversive or harmful defense witness rather than a helpful one: it seems very odd to ask for months for the victim DNA to be retested, then back out. Even this isn't very convincing - as someone has already pointed out, the samples would have to be handed over to Pornthip's lab, retested by junior lab personnel, written up as a report, and signed off. It could not then be altered either by the police or by Pornthip without many people knowing.

I thought the DNA evidence would collapse because the DNA match would be so ambiguous ( because the results from the victim DNA sample were unacceptably unclear, and so few of the accused markers matched that identification criteria would not be met). Perhaps this will still be the case.

The other alternative of course is that the the DNA does match, genuinely, and the accused are guilty.

The about face of the defense vis-a-vis the retesting of DNA is the most significant thing so far. The case, as far as I can tell rests overwhelmingly on that evidence; personally speaking that may be one of the reasons of the generally sloppy work of the police in collecting and presenting other evidence.

As for what the defense may be thinking of doing, I would expect them to cart out a foreign expert to cast doubts on the results from the original testing by pointing out they didn't cross this T here or dot that I there.

[Darkknight666]

Who was the guy in the middle of the investigation on the beach, was it Mon? Whoever it was, that person should be a witness as he placed himself front and centre and therefore should be on the prosecution witness list. Defense should insist on his statement as to what he was doing in the thick of it, and why.

Precisely.

Mon was an integral piece of the beginning of the case and prosecution not calling him, at all, is off. Why would a man who knows all the ins and outs of the island not have a clue what happened? What did he hear from whoever discovered the bodies? Why did he claim it was him in the running man vid? Why did he refuse to give CCTV footage? Where were the clothes when he arrived, who called him..... A pile of useful questions could be answered.

So, why is he not giving testimony against these two Burmese who came to his Island and commited a horrendous crime? Why is the Island completely on hush mode? Why have the media been told

Not to cover the case? Why were translators threatened? Why was a taxi driver approached with a large amount of cash and asked to give false testimony?

All of this for two Burmese who commited a crime?

No Mate,

No way. Coincidences tend to not happen that frequently surrounding one event. Why has Panya never came out and apologized or been sued? Just off in his inactive post, keeping his lips shut because he doesn't have a choice.

So, why is he not giving testimony against these two Burmese who came to his Island and commited a horrendous crime?

Mon already gave evidence at the beginning of the trial (July) but I have not seen any press reports detailing that evidence. All we had at the time were the reports of the beach cleaner who found the hoe and the RTP officer who was called to the crime scene.

Hmm I missed that... Anyways, he must not have had anything relevant to add. I'll go see if I can find that article. Thanks IslandLover.

The only this news reports I have seen with Mon mentioned at trial is in this article " Koh Tao policeman challenged over killings" you would have to do a search

So I read that article, thank you, Stealth.

It says Mon gave testimony along with Dr.Chaisit...... And nothing more. So whatever he said was not reported on at all.... I find that odd. Did the defense get a chance to ask questions? Oh, I forgot this isn't a real trial.

This article is so old they're saying evidence points to David and Hannah being intimate at the time of the attack.

I'll tell you exactly why I don't believe the B2 are the killers.. This was a pre-meditated attack, poorly executed because the killers never thought they'd ever be questioned or even found. Like I've said before, Hannah was not just killed she was killed so brutally she couldn't have an open casket.... Why so much anger at her face? I believe the pre-meditation is derived from what occurred in AC Bar. Anyone wonder why David didn't get the same as Hannah? The killers just wanted david out of the way and then they carried out their sick crime. Whoever was in AC bar knows what happened at the very least.

more great detective work by the tinfoilers, swaps the heads over and they could both be the person in the footage.

And even the great Andy has said the footage is to unclear

watch at 1:30

Yes, he's says it's not clear who's in the video because he's only got access to what RTP gave him. In my country (U.S) running man vid would be enough for the cops to assess the "gait"

Of the man in the video, in the U.K same thing, competent investigators with no agenda other than catching the offender. In Thailand, you can't trust the police especially when high profile people are involved. Are you denying that? May I point you to the RedBull cop killer, or the son of a beauty queen who assaulted Thais with his car and walked?

Running man video could easily identify a suspect providing that was the objective in this trial... But it isn't , is it?

The purpose of this trial is to nail anyone besides a Thai, and especially a "hi-so"

Thai. Same as the bombing,, they don't want help because they don't care. Som Nam Na, wouldn't happen if the stupid Falang stayed home, right?

Makes me sick how disillusioned some people are in this case.

[Gweiloman]

The only this news reports I have seen with Mon mentioned at trial is in this article " Koh Tao policeman challenged over killings" you would have to do a search

So I read that article, thank you, Stealth.

It says Mon gave testimony along with Dr.Chaisit...... And nothing more. So whatever he said was not reported on at all.... I find that odd. Did the defense get a chance to ask questions? Oh, I forgot this isn't a real trial.

This article is so old they're saying evidence points to David and Hannah being intimate at the time of the attack.

I'll tell you exactly why I don't believe the B2 are the killers.. This was a pre-meditated attack, poorly executed because the killers never thought they'd ever be questioned or even found. Like I've said before, Hannah was not just killed she was killed so brutally she couldn't have an open casket.... Why so much anger at her face? I believe the pre-meditation is derived from what occurred in AC Bar. Anyone wonder why David didn't get the same as Hannah? The killers just wanted david out of the way and then they carried out their sick crime. Whoever was in AC bar knows what happened at the very least.

more great detective work by the tinfoilers, swaps the heads over and they could both be the person in the footage.

And even the great Andy has said the footage is to unclear

watch at 1:30

Of what relevance is your post?

[thailandchilli]

Well, the point is the DNA collected (according to the prosecution) produced readable and recognisable profiles , good enough to compare with the profiles read from the DNA isolated from the victim, and conclude that they matched.

In court, subject to a reasonable cross-examination, the prosecution would have to produce the DNA profiles from both the accused and the victim, and show how they matched and what the probability that the match could have happened by chance would be. These would have to have been handled by at least two lab personnel doing the profiling, analysing and cross checking the match, then signed off by the lab director, who would be a final check that the profiles had been interpreted correctly and the match probability was accurate.

To fake up these results from scratch and produce original data convincing enough to get past any reasonably qualified defense DNA forensic expert would require a huge amount of very technically difficult interference, and the collusion of a significant number of lab personnel. No police official, however high up would have any idea even what to tell people to do to fake these results, so they would have to ask the lab head to do it for them.

At the other extreme the match could be entirely on paper: that is a DNA profile from the victim was obtained, and the report of the DNA profiles from the accused was just typed up to show a match, without any data from the accused DNA being used at all. To be honest it is impossible to imagine this succeeding, or anyone believing it could succeed, because even the slightest questioning would expose it. It is almost impossible to get a complete convincing DNA profile for two people using a profile obtained from a rape kit sample that is a mix of two DNAs, simply because mixed DNAs almost always have many ambiguous readings at different marker sites. Also the lab would not be able to produce any original traces of data that they could say were the actual tests of the two DNA samples from the accused.

To be honest I don't have any idea about what is happening with the DNA evidence. To refuse a retest of the DNA rape kit sample suggests the defence are on the back foot: unless you think a retest will harm your case, accumulating every single bit of data that casts doubt on the prosecution's case is always the best strategy when you have to establish reasonable doubt. Four bits of exonerating evidence are better than five, and six are better than seven. You never have enough.

I wonder whether the defence belatedly realised that maybe Khun Pornthip would be a subversive or harmful defense witness rather than a helpful one: it seems very odd to ask for months for the victim DNA to be retested, then back out. Even this isn't very convincing - as someone has already pointed out, the samples would have to be handed over to Pornthip's lab, retested by junior lab personnel, written up as a report, and signed off. It could not then be altered either by the police or by Pornthip without many people knowing.

I thought the DNA evidence would collapse because the DNA match would be so ambiguous ( because the results from the victim DNA sample were unacceptably unclear, and so few of the accused markers matched that identification criteria would not be met). Perhaps this will still be the case.

The other alternative of course is that the the DNA does match, genuinely, and the accused are guilty.

The about face of the defense vis-a-vis the retesting of DNA is the most significant thing so far. The case, as far as I can tell rests overwhelmingly on that evidence; personally speaking that may be one of the reasons of the generally sloppy work of the police in collecting and presenting other evidence.

As for what the defense may be thinking of doing, I would expect them to cart out a foreign expert to cast doubts on the results from the original testing by pointing out they didn't cross this T here or dot that I there.

I think your in for a surprise and your expectations are going to be deflated if you think the defense are bringing in a forensic expert 5,000 thousand miles away from the UK just to point out where they failed to cross the T or dot here and there, the defense has already done a very good job of that just by asking a few basic questions that the witnesses failed to know about

[boomerangutang]

Well, the point is the DNA collected (according to the prosecution) produced readable and recognisable profiles , good enough to compare with the profiles read from the DNA isolated from the victim, and conclude that they matched.

In court, subject to a reasonable cross-examination, the prosecution would have to produce the DNA profiles from both the accused and the victim, and show how they matched and what the probability that the match could have happened by chance would be. These would have to have been handled by at least two lab personnel doing the profiling, analysing and cross checking the match, then signed off by the lab director, who would be a final check that the profiles had been interpreted correctly and the match probability was accurate.

To fake up these results from scratch and produce original data convincing enough to get past any reasonably qualified defense DNA forensic expert would require a huge amount of very technically difficult interference, and the collusion of a significant number of lab personnel. No police official, however high up would have any idea even what to tell people to do to fake these results, so they would have to ask the lab head to do it for them.

At the other extreme the match could be entirely on paper: that is a DNA profile from the victim was obtained, and the report of the DNA profiles from the accused was just typed up to show a match, without any data from the accused DNA being used at all. To be honest it is impossible to imagine this succeeding, or anyone believing it could succeed, because even the slightest questioning would expose it. It is almost impossible to get a complete convincing DNA profile for two people using a profile obtained from a rape kit sample that is a mix of two DNAs, simply because mixed DNAs almost always have many ambiguous readings at different marker sites. Also the lab would not be able to produce any original traces of data that they could say were the actual tests of the two DNA samples from the accused.

To be honest I don't have any idea about what is happening with the DNA evidence. To refuse a retest of the DNA rape kit sample suggests the defence are on the back foot: unless you think a retest will harm your case, accumulating every single bit of data that casts doubt on the prosecution's case is always the best strategy when you have to establish reasonable doubt. Four bits of exonerating evidence are better than five, and six are better than seven. You never have enough.

I wonder whether the defence belatedly realised that maybe Khun Pornthip would be a subversive or harmful defense witness rather than a helpful one: it seems very odd to ask for months for the victim DNA to be retested, then back out. Even this isn't very convincing - as someone has already pointed out, the samples would have to be handed over to Pornthip's lab, retested by junior lab personnel, written up as a report, and signed off. It could not then be altered either by the police or by Pornthip without many people knowing.

I thought the DNA evidence would collapse because the DNA match would be so ambiguous ( because the results from the victim DNA sample were unacceptably unclear, and so few of the accused markers matched that identification criteria would not be met). Perhaps this will still be the case.

The other alternative of course is that the the DNA does match, genuinely, and the accused are guilty.

Partington, I respect your expertise on DNA and its handling/presentation/verification in a court of law. However, this is Thailand. As you probably know, things are a lot different here. Basically, the chief of police steps up to a mic in front of press corps and says what he wants to say. In this case, he says, "the DNA from the two Burmese match DNA found on the victim" and another time, "Nomsod's DNA does not match that found on the victim."

Thailand is a paternalistic society where every child is taught to unquestionably respect elders and authority. When the police chief of chiefs makes an assertion, that's it. No Thai person is going to contest it.

To a large extent, it harkens also to court proceedings. That's why the RTP are so flummoxed with this case: they didn't expect a couple of powerless dirt-poor migrants to put up any legal challenges to RTP claims. With Dr. Porntip scheduled to appear, and also Brit forensic evidence scheduled, the RTP's assertion (of having DNA evidence wrapped up to their liking) will be challenged - but the whole scenario is unprecedented in Thai judicial history.

The judges will have to decide whether to simply believe what they're being pressured to believe (the RTP data is more reliable than outsiders'), or toss out DNA evidence altogether and make a ruling based on other evidence (the reenactment, the forced confession?).

I think this will end without a guilty verdict. Then Thai authorities will likely be obliged to appeal - not because they think they will win on appeal - but because it will add more time lag to further distance the original prime suspects (Mon and Nomsod) from legal scrutiny. For the prosecution, winning is not the primary goal. Instead, dragging proceedings out for months/years is the goal - thereby shielding people connected to the Headman.

In Thailand, the Statute of Limitations on murder is 20 years. Nomsod is nearly 5% there. Meanwhile the scapegoats are stuck shackled in prison - nearly one year and counting. Even if NS or his uncle Mon got indicted, who thinks they would be locked up without bail? Not possible in highly stratified Thailand.

[balo]

So when can we expect more factual news in this thread ?

Next hearing for the prosecution is on the 28th, IIRC.

Thank you, I'll be back on Friday.

[tuanku]

Doesn't matter who did it, the whole trial is tainted from the start - arguing about who might have done it is quite irrelevant....the whole thing is a farce from beginning to end expert or no expert, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

I agree - supposing it doesn't matter to anyone "important" whether these two are convicted or not. Supposing the whole purpose of the B2 investigation is to deflect attention away from the real culprits. Even if not convicted it is highly unlikely that there will be any real expectation of the police being sent back to successfully prosecute any alternative suspects. Where is the evidence? never collected or already gone.

Supposing some very savvy manipulators are using their wealth and influence to make fools of the justice system, the police (at least at the lower level), the victims families, to some extent possibly the Government and the country of Thailand and certainly many of the TVF posters and other followers of the case so that their own "interests" are protected. You would reluctantly have to admire such effective manipulation wouldn't you?

[SaamBaht]

Well, the point is the DNA collected (according to the prosecution) produced readable and recognisable profiles , good enough to compare with the profiles read from the DNA isolated from the victim, and conclude that they matched.

In court, subject to a reasonable cross-examination, the prosecution would have to produce the DNA profiles from both the accused and the victim, and show how they matched and what the probability that the match could have happened by chance would be. These would have to have been handled by at least two lab personnel doing the profiling, analysing and cross checking the match, then signed off by the lab director, who would be a final check that the profiles had been interpreted correctly and the match probability was accurate.

To fake up these results from scratch and produce original data convincing enough to get past any reasonably qualified defense DNA forensic expert would require a huge amount of very technically difficult interference, and the collusion of a significant number of lab personnel. No police official, however high up would have any idea even what to tell people to do to fake these results, so they would have to ask the lab head to do it for them.

At the other extreme the match could be entirely on paper: that is a DNA profile from the victim was obtained, and the report of the DNA profiles from the accused was just typed up to show a match, without any data from the accused DNA being used at all. To be honest it is impossible to imagine this succeeding, or anyone believing it could succeed, because even the slightest questioning would expose it. It is almost impossible to get a complete convincing DNA profile for two people using a profile obtained from a rape kit sample that is a mix of two DNAs, simply because mixed DNAs almost always have many ambiguous readings at different marker sites. Also the lab would not be able to produce any original traces of data that they could say were the actual tests of the two DNA samples from the accused.

To be honest I don't have any idea about what is happening with the DNA evidence. To refuse a retest of the DNA rape kit sample suggests the defence are on the back foot: unless you think a retest will harm your case, accumulating every single bit of data that casts doubt on the prosecution's case is always the best strategy when you have to establish reasonable doubt. Four bits of exonerating evidence are better than five, and six are better than seven. You never have enough.

I wonder whether the defence belatedly realised that maybe Khun Pornthip would be a subversive or harmful defense witness rather than a helpful one: it seems very odd to ask for months for the victim DNA to be retested, then back out. Even this isn't very convincing - as someone has already pointed out, the samples would have to be handed over to Pornthip's lab, retested by junior lab personnel, written up as a report, and signed off. It could not then be altered either by the police or by Pornthip without many people knowing.

I thought the DNA evidence would collapse because the DNA match would be so ambiguous ( because the results from the victim DNA sample were unacceptably unclear, and so few of the accused markers matched that identification criteria would not be met). Perhaps this will still be the case.

The other alternative of course is that the the DNA does match, genuinely, and the accused are guilty.

Partington, I respect your expertise on DNA and its handling/presentation/verification in a court of law. However, this is Thailand. As you probably know, things are a lot different here. Basically, the chief of police steps up to a mic in front of press corps and says what he wants to say. In this case, he says, "the DNA from the two Burmese match DNA found on the victim" and another time, "Nomsod's DNA does not match that found on the victim."

Thailand is a paternalistic society where every child is taught to unquestionably respect elders and authority. When the police chief of chiefs makes an assertion, that's it. No Thai person is going to contest it.

To a large extent, it harkens also to court proceedings. That's why the RTP are so flummoxed with this case: they didn't expect a couple of powerless dirt-poor migrants to put up any legal challenges to RTP claims. With Dr. Porntip scheduled to appear, and also Brit forensic evidence scheduled, the RTP's assertion (of having DNA evidence wrapped up to their liking) will be challenged - but the whole scenario is unprecedented in Thai judicial history.

The judges will have to decide whether to simply believe what they're being pressured to believe (the RTP data is more reliable than outsiders'), or toss out DNA evidence altogether and make a ruling based on other evidence (the reenactment, the forced confession?).

I think this will end without a guilty verdict. Then Thai authorities will likely be obliged to appeal - not because they think they will win on appeal - but because it will add more time lag to further distance the original prime suspects (Mon and Nomsod) from legal scrutiny. For the prosecution, winning is not the primary goal. Instead, dragging proceedings out for months/years is the goal - thereby shielding people connected to the Headman.

Yeah, shit. I don't know what makes me feel worse, two guys getting framed or two guys getting away with murder. Makes you feel ashamed to live in a land where justice is a game.

[KunMatt]

So when can we expect more factual news in this thread ?

Next hearing for the prosecution is on the 28th, IIRC.

Thank you, I'll be back on Friday.

Yeah you slink off mate and pretend you have no interest in this thread now you are being called on your BS. I knew you wouldn't have an answer to my last reply to you.

It was here in case you are pretending to not have seen it and I asked you some very genuine and important questions pertaining to your posts: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/849310-koh-tao-murder-trial-reconvenes-in-koh-samui/?p=9770912

See, when you can't blame everything on gossip or CSI LA then you have no other leg to stand on.

[spidermike007]

Is using a roti seller really the best the Thai courts could do? Was that done to humiliate the defendants? Was it intentional that they used men with no former experience as interpreters? Does the court deem the fairness of the trial to be such a low priority?

[KunMatt]

Is using a roti seller really the best the Thai courts could do? Was that done to humiliate the defendants? Was it intentional that they used men with no former experience as interpreters? Does the court deem the fairness of the trial to be such a low priority?

Because, like has been said before, the police never expected the B2 to have any defense team to call them on their practices so all they needed to show was that they used a Burmese translator to the trial. They never expected an international backing team for the defense to scrutinize their every step of the investigation and point out that he didn't speak Thai or even Burmese!! This is fundamentally why the case the prosecution has been left with has looked so shambolic during their time in court.

Now imagine how many thousands of cases have gone ahead in Thailand without an all star defense team over the last few decades where the police have acted with complete impunity and made up and won cases against whoever they wanted to.

[Linky]

Who was the guy in the middle of the investigation on the beach, was it Mon? Whoever it was, that person should be a witness as he placed himself front and centre and therefore should be on the prosecution witness list. Defense should insist on his statement as to what he was doing in the thick of it, and why.

Precisely.

Mon was an integral piece of the beginning of the case and prosecution not calling him, at all, is off. Why would a man who knows all the ins and outs of the island not have a clue what happened? What did he hear from whoever discovered the bodies? Why did he claim it was him in the running man vid? Why did he refuse to give CCTV footage? Where were the clothes when he arrived, who called him..... A pile of useful questions could be answered.

So, why is he not giving testimony against these two Burmese who came to his Island and commited a horrendous crime? Why is the Island completely on hush mode? Why have the media been told

Not to cover the case? Why were translators threatened? Why was a taxi driver approached with a large amount of cash and asked to give false testimony?

All of this for two Burmese who commited a crime?

No Mate,

No way. Coincidences tend to not happen that frequently surrounding one event. Why has Panya never came out and apologized or been sued? Just off in his inactive post, keeping his lips shut because he doesn't have a choice.

So, why is he not giving testimony against these two Burmese who came to his Island and commited a horrendous crime?

Mon already gave evidence at the beginning of the trial (July) but I have not seen any press reports detailing that evidence. All we had at the time were the reports of the beach cleaner who found the hoe and the RTP officer who was called to the crime scene.

Hmm I missed that... Anyways, he must not have had anything relevant to add. I'll go see if I can find that article. Thanks IslandLover.

The only this news reports I have seen with Mon mentioned at trial is in this article " Koh Tao policeman challenged over killings" you would have to do a search

So I read that article, thank you, Stealth.

It says Mon gave testimony along with Dr.Chaisit...... And nothing more. So whatever he said was not reported on at all.... I find that odd. Did the defense get a chance to ask questions? Oh, I forgot this isn't a real trial.

This article is so old they're saying evidence points to David and Hannah being intimate at the time of the attack.

I'll tell you exactly why I don't believe the B2 are the killers.. This was a pre-meditated attack, poorly executed because the killers never thought they'd ever be questioned or even found. Like I've said before, Hannah was not just killed she was killed so brutally she couldn't have an open casket.... Why so much anger at her face? I believe the pre-meditation is derived from what occurred in AC Bar. Anyone wonder why David didn't get the same as Hannah? The killers just wanted david out of the way and then they carried out their sick crime. Whoever was in AC bar knows what happened at the very least.

more great detective work by the tinfoilers, swaps the heads over and they could both be the person in the footage.

And even the great Andy has said the footage is to unclear

watch at 1:30

Yes Tony, so unclear that police have stated it is one of the accused. But for some reason could not say which one.

Keep posting, its giving me a laugh.

[smokie36]

Is using a roti seller really the best the Thai courts could do? Was that done to humiliate the defendants? Was it intentional that they used men with no former experience as interpreters? Does the court deem the fairness of the trial to be such a low priority?

Because, like has been said before, the police never expected the B2 to have any defense team to call them on their practices so all they needed to show was that they used a Burmese translator to the trial. They never expected an international backing team for the defense to scrutinize their every step of the investigation and point out that he didn't speak Thai or even Burmese!! This is fundamentally why the case the prosecution has been left with has looked so shambolic during their time in court.

Now imagine how many thousands of cases have gone ahead in Thailand without an all star defense team over the last few decades where the police have acted with complete impunity and made up and won cases against whoever they wanted to.

Pretty much sums it up.

The terrible thing is there are murderers who need to be removed from society and these police are simply not up to the job of catching and having them convicted.

[Linky]

So when can we expect more factual news in this thread ?

Next hearing for the prosecution is on the 28th, IIRC.

Thank you, I'll be back on Friday.

If you have other things to attend to it will be ok if you dont come back friday. Im sure we will survive without you.

[berybert]

RTP apologists and Nomsod shielders have been telling us (those of us seeking truth and justice) for nearly a year ...."just wait until the trial starts. Then all will be made clear. The Police are professionals and they know a whole lot more about this crime then any of us do."

Some of them even projected their wrong-headed fantasy to include the families: "How can you second guess the victims' families?! They were briefed by British experts. They know a lot more about the case than we do....."

Well, Nomsod lovers, you're flat out 100% wrong. The trial has been proving what we said all along: The RTP doesn't have a clue, literally. Actually, I thought the RTP would pull a better ruse than they have shown thus far. Are they intentionally bumbling even more than they would ordinarily bumble? The mind reels.

Actually, what the trial is proving is that the doomsayers that claimed they would not receive a fair trial were completely wrong. Certainly what the trial is not doing is proving any of your fantasies regarding people of whom you don't even know their names right.

Incidentally, talking about trials proving things.

"Khaosod newspaper apologized for two headlines suggesting the Warot Toovichian, the son of a village chief on Koh Tao, was responsible for the savage murders of British tourists David Miller and Hannah Witheridge on the island.

The newspaper also accused Warot, 22, of being the son of local “mafia” in two articles published on 24 and 25 Sept.

“We have verified facts and discovered that the aforementioned news items were inaccurate,” a statement published in today’s newspaper read.

It added the newspaper paid compensation of an undisclosed amount to Warot’s family."

Are you claiming this is a fair trial ?

Fair is giving a proper answer to a question, not saying I dont know to question after question.

But then we know your idea of fair in this trial is far different to that of anyone wanting justice.

[berybert]

That goes up there as being in the top 10 of the most bizarre statements made by Aleg. Completely lost touch with reality.

Well then, what has been unfair about the trial so far?

Latest news were that the defense has been allowed to retest the DNA evidence from the autopsy, which they refused. How unfair.

You must be very impressed with the way the Police have handled this case AleG. It really has been a textbook open and shut case. The Police have been thorough in every aspect, not overlooking any key investigation paths, being perfectly consistent with their press releases, and all their officers that stood up to give evidence at the trial were highly knowledgeable about the case and could answer every question pertaining to the details of the DNA evidence and other artifacts found at the scene. It just surprises me they haven't got a straight up guilty verdict already. It's easy to see why you have such unshakeable confidence in them.

Not that it would make any difference to explain...

No, I'm not very impressed with the police investigation but that doesn't mean that I'm going to jump in the "They are scapegoats" bandwagon, let alone buy into the myriad conspiracy theories being thrown around.

Just because the police doesn't live up to some ideal of professionalism it doesn't mean that the men on trial are innocent, by that argument every single inmate in Thai prisons should be set free.

Every couple of years they virtually are, under royal amnesty.

Then they get down to re-offending.

So you concede the police work has been weak. It does interest me to know what has instilled your firm belief in the guilt of the accused though. If you disregard the confessions they made and signed under the instruction of illiterate translators, which other pieces of evidence have convinced you. Oh, right, the DNA samples, yawn.

He believes the Burmese guilt simply because it gets Nomsod and family off the hook.

Make what you will of that.

Lowest of the low.

[007cableguy]

So when can we expect more factual news in this thread ?

Next hearing for the prosecution is on the 28th, IIRC.

Thank you, I'll be back on Friday.

If you have other things to attend to it will be ok if you dont come back friday. Im sure we will survive without you.

Don't worry he and his mates will still be lurking praying that things start to go their way!....,..,,One thing for sure their loyalty to the RTP and the others perfect case is unwavering!...Poor saps

[boomerangutang]

Is using a roti seller really the best the Thai courts could do? Was that done to humiliate the defendants? Was it intentional that they used men with no former experience as interpreters? Does the court deem the fairness of the trial to be such a low priority?

I don't think it's the court, specifically, which has orchestrated such a mess. The inquisition at the "Safe House" took place 10 months ago by the RTP, not the court. Now, whether the court now deems it's fine that unprofessional, inexperienced, inept, threatening Roti venders are taken off the sidewalk and used as translators - remains to be seen. Note: when the B2 emerged and gave a statement, they said it was the translator who scared them the most.