Koh Tao murders: 2 DNA profiles from alleged murder weapon do not match defendants' DNA

[hugh2121]

Re test DNA found on victims by Dr Pornthip?

[Darkknight666]

The DNA the entire case rests on hasn't been seen by anyone but the prosecution and yet, there are still people who are convinced the B2 are guilty. All I can do is shake my head at this nonsense anymore, really unbelievable.

[Rykbanlor]

Really no big surprises here. The RTP already gave testimony in court that they moved the body (David) for fear it might be washed away but the tide. Whether that was the right thing to do or not I don't know. But it does sound like a plausible reason to do so. It was never claimed the Hannah's Body was moved.

As to the garden hoe it is also known that the hoe was moved after the murders. The partially blind gardener (Beach Cleaner) already admitted he did in court. It then would not be considered unusual that his finger prints may have been on the hoe, although that was never proved by either side as far as I know. Since the hoe was moved I suppose anyone could have touched it.

This would have had much more significance if the hoe was found at the murder scene untouched, but it wasn't. Anyone could have touched it after that and the gardener already admitted he did. It is more likely that the hoe was thrown in the ocean and was washed. Based on that only a trace amount of Hannah' s Blood was found on the hoe. When you consider that if this was the murder weapon, and the blood splatter on the nearby rocks, there should have been more blood on it, that is unless it was washed off first.

The most damning evidence has been the DNA linking the accused to Hannah. To my knowledge this hasn't been disproved yet. If the Defense Team can do that, than fine. If they cannot then, but show reasonable doubt, then I am not sure.

This damning DNA evidence of yours that links the accused to the victim, is this the same lot that has only been confirmed verbally by a cop, and not actually available to examine?

Also as far as I heard, the washing of the hoe is a moot point, as it has been claimed it was both washed and not washed. It still had blood on it though, so it can't have been washed very well.

First of all this damning DNA Evidence is not mine. It belongs to the Prosecutor. I hold no DNA Evidence on anyone whatsoever.

If you chose to believe that this DNA Evidence is only a verbal statement in court, then go ahead, as this would be wrong. But you are entitled to believe whatever you want to.

The hoe in itself is a moot point even with someones else's DNA on it. If you could prove through Ballistics that the murder weapon was a gun, but yet several people afterwards handled this gun and their finger prints were on it even if the accused wasn't, does it prove one of them others killed this person? Or does it open the possibility that someone wiped his finger prints off, who actually did the crime?

If you read this full article you would have seen that the Prosecution does not agree with you.That they do in fact believe they have evidence that links the accused to Hannah and it was presented. If you have a beef about that then I suggest you contact them for a correction.

Yes, I am quite sure the prosecution does not agree with me, nor I them and I do not believe that without the proper chain of custody (as the defence complained was not provided ) that the DNA samples form the victim can be trusted.

Also, try to catch up to speed with figures of speech.

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Koh Tao defense team just introduced complete UK postmortem pictures/report of Hannah Witheridge to Koh Samui court as best practice mode

[metisdead]

Personal attack posts have been removed as well as some troll posts.

[Fore Man]

It may be time for a certain higher authority to step in and issue a summary pardon, along with full compensation, immediate citizenship, an official apology and a reprimand issued to the Royal Thai Police for their callous handling of the case and willingness to send two innocent men to a lifetime in jail or worse.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Fore Man

[Madaussie]

So they should walk I would guess

Why should they? If the prosecution was using a DNA match between the two defendants and the murder weapon yes they should. But that's not what they are basing their case on, the DNA results could be from any other person that handled the hoe before or after the murders.

Yep you wouldn't expect the murders DNA on the Hoe. Even after he had swung it around to beat David to death and then Hannah. Pesky gardeners hey!!!!

In fact Pornthip suggested you would have had to use considerable force to smash Hannah's skull open. SO a very TIGHT GRIP would have been needed.

[Rykbanlor]

It may be time for a certain higher authority to step in and issue a summary pardon, along with full compensation, immediate citizenship, an official apology and a reprimand issued to the Royal Thai Police for their callous handling of the case and willingness to send two innocent men to a lifetime in jail or worse.

They might pass on the citizenship offer...

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

UK post mortem report has illustrative photographs whereas Thai police until now produced just 2 post mortem/DNA testing process photographs

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Koh Tao defense lawyers/team thank independent Norfolk Coroner 4 cooperation on basis of what she said was natural justice/right of accused

[Rykbanlor]

Really no big surprises here. The RTP already gave testimony in court that they moved the body (David) for fear it might be washed away but the tide. Whether that was the right thing to do or not I don't know. But it does sound like a plausible reason to do so. It was never claimed the Hannah's Body was moved.

As to the garden hoe it is also known that the hoe was moved after the murders. The partially blind gardener (Beach Cleaner) already admitted he did in court. It then would not be considered unusual that his finger prints may have been on the hoe, although that was never proved by either side as far as I know. Since the hoe was moved I suppose anyone could have touched it.

This would have had much more significance if the hoe was found at the murder scene untouched, but it wasn't. Anyone could have touched it after that and the gardener already admitted he did. It is more likely that the hoe was thrown in the ocean and was washed. Based on that only a trace amount of Hannah' s Blood was found on the hoe. When you consider that if this was the murder weapon, and the blood splatter on the nearby rocks, there should have been more blood on it, that is unless it was washed off first.

The most damning evidence has been the DNA linking the accused to Hannah. To my knowledge this hasn't been disproved yet. If the Defense Team can do that, than fine. If they cannot then, but show reasonable doubt, then I am not sure.

This damning DNA evidence of yours that links the accused to the victim, is this the same lot that has only been confirmed verbally by a cop, and not actually available to examine?

Also as far as I heard, the washing of the hoe is a moot point, as it has been claimed it was both washed and not washed. It still had blood on it though, so it can't have been washed very well.

First of all this damning DNA Evidence is not mine. It belongs to the Prosecutor. I hold no DNA Evidence on anyone whatsoever.

If you chose to believe that this DNA Evidence is only a verbal statement in court, then go ahead, as this would be wrong. But you are entitled to believe whatever you want to.

The hoe in itself is a moot point even with someones else's DNA on it. If you could prove through Ballistics that the murder weapon was a gun, but yet several people afterwards handled this gun and their finger prints were on it even if the accused wasn't, does it prove one of them others killed this person? Or does it open the possibility that someone wiped his finger prints off, who actually did the crime?

If you read this full article you would have seen that the Prosecution does not agree with you.That they do in fact believe they have evidence that links the accused to Hannah and it was presented. If you have a beef about that then I suggest you contact them for a correction.

Yes, I am quite sure the prosecution does not agree with me, nor I them and I do not believe that without the proper chain of custody (as the defence complained was not provided ) that the DNA samples form the victim can be trusted.

Also, try to catch up to speed with figures of speech.

The main murder weapon is not a moot point. It may have other DNA on it as well, highly likely, but surely it should also have the perps DNA too.

[LomSak27]

I do think there are about 6 posters that need to eat some humble pie and admit that the witch hunt is over.

Fritzzzz

These poster never do that ... their MO is to just ignore and move onto the next outrage doing the exact same thing. When the real cause of the Quebec sisters death was found the big RTP supporters quietly folded their tents with nary a word of surprise or shock and NO Apologies. Then it is on to the next streetcar of disaster that comes along. Trolling means you never have to say you are sorry

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

But UK gov until now provided no cooperation/support to Koh Tao defense team to enhance right to fair trial for accused @KentBKK @HugoSwire

[Patanawet]

I predict that soon a technicality will be found, sufficient to declare a non-trial and save the face of the RTP.

[Madaussie]

Is it just me, or is this somewhat confusing?

The DNA on the hoe would most likely be the victims,no?

The article seems to insinuate there is unknown DNA on it,

yet it doesnt go as far as to say the DNA doesnt belong to the victims either.

It also doesnt state that the DNA was sourced from blood or otherwise

Logic would have it, if the DNA wasnt blood based, it could be DNA from the gardener or anyone that used the hoe for gardening or whatever innocent purpose.

But surely they would already have taken the DNA of the gardener to exclude from the evidence pool?

if you READ one report it said DNA of two males found on the hoe, neither of which were the defendants. One could be the gardener. I doubt anyone took his DNA.

I would suggest that if either of the defendants DNA had handled the murder weapon, their DNA could also have been on it.

Stephen the exertion needed to swing that how around would in my opinion mean the full profile was of the killer was transferred. The partial could well be from an individual not connected. But nobody can convince me you can haul that hoe around beating 2 people to death over a sustained amount of time and NOT transfer DNA to it. It beggars belief some people can even consider that a possibility.

[Time Traveller]

Too bad they signed confessions to the police. That's all the evidence the Thai justice system needs to send the innocent away for 50 years.

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Dr Pornthip's testimony just ended on day 15 Koh Tao murder trial. More forensics experts/defense witnesses still to come as trial continues

[partington]

Ok sorry, let me put it slightly differently, The fact that the DNA of the suspects was not found on the hoe means in evidentiary terms:

the defence can't prove the suspects did NOT handle the hoe

the prosecution can't prove that the suspects DID handle the hoe

So far from being a crucial blow to anyone's case , despite the headlines in newspapers, it actually doesn't represent any change at all in the actual court case.

Which brings us back to the issues we feel there are concerning the DNA which was found in the victim.

Why the defence eventually refused an independent retest is as of now still anyone's guess, perhaps we will discover more in the coming days.

Response to Partington.

I think it does change the actual court case. If the prosecution can't prove the B2 did handle the hoe, then their re-enactment showing the B2 wielding the hoe can't be proven (in an absolute sense), which was again based on their confession.

Also, the FACT that 2 unknown male DNA was found on the hoe would indicate to any reasonable person that DNA from the perp, who would be gripping the hoe, was not that of the B2. Based on probabilities, it could cast reasonable doubt without absolute proof being critical.

It is my assumption that the defence don't require an independent test because they have evidence to disprove the prosecution's assertions. Why do you think the B2 provided DNA samples in court, thus establishing a chain of custody, plus providing evidence of a true B2 profile? I feel this revelation today is just the first strike.

Ok just briefly, though I want to avoid being drawn into long fruitless discussions and prefer to comment on the news. It was always the case that the police assertion about the hoe could not be proved. This situation is just continued, not changed by the evidence.

The fact that the DNA detectable on the hoe was not the Burmese suspects' doesn't prove anything at all legally. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to use the common phrase.

It has been reported by many sources that the hoe was lying at the crime scene, was removed by its owner, handled repeatedly and unverifiably by him, and possibly many others, carried to his house, (wiped on his trousers if it felt wet (?), scraped on trees and leaves, washed not washed(?) , used by his wife to scratch her back (?), and handed back to the police days afterwards.

You don't have to prove any of these things happened. You merely have to point out that they could have done. You are talking about touch DNA, which is from adhering skin cells, and is at very low concentration, on an object that may have been handled by many people, splashed by sea water, carried on someone's shoulder etc etc, so traces of one or more of the people who have touched it over 3 or four days may well be contaminated beyond detection or rubbed off.

Amanda Knox was freed on appeal because of exactly these considerations about some of the DNA evidence that was used to convict her.

EDIT: to put the damn correct name in!

Edited September 11, 2015 by partington

[Madaussie]

They do not need evidence to convict them. The prisons are full of people who were convicted with no evidence.Its up to the defendants to prove they are innocent. Thats how this system works

RTP have admitted 35% of cases go to court without any evidence and get convicted so yes I agree with. The only way these 2 will not go to jail or death is if there's a public outcry. Otherwise they are dead meat walking.

[Madaussie]

I did tell you they would get it....

Andy Hall

9 mins · Twitter ·

Koh Tao defense team just introduced complete UK postmortem pictures/report of Hannah Witheridge to Koh Samui court as best practice model

[Rykbanlor]

Response to Partington.

I think it does change the actual court case. If the prosecution can't prove the B2 did handle the hoe, then their re-enactment showing the B2 wielding the hoe can't be proven (in an absolute sense), which was again based on their confession.

Also, the FACT that 2 unknown male DNA was found on the hoe would indicate to any reasonable person that DNA from the perp, who would be gripping the hoe, was not that of the B2. Based on probabilities, it could cast reasonable doubt without absolute proof being critical.

It is my assumption that the defence don't require an independent test because they have evidence to disprove the prosecution's assertions. Why do you think the B2 provided DNA samples in court, thus establishing a chain of custody, plus providing evidence of a true B2 profile? I feel this revelation today is just the first strike.

Ok just briefly, though I want to avoid being drawn into long fruitless discussions and prefer to comment on the news. It was always the case that the police assertion about the hoe could not be proved. This situation is just continued, not changed by the evidence.

The fact that the DNA detectable on the hoe was not the Burmese suspects' doesn't prove anything at all legally. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to use the common phrase.

It has been reported by many sources that the hoe was lying at the crime scene, was removed by its owner, handled repeatedly and unverifiably by him, and possibly many others, carried to his house, (wiped on his trousers if it felt wet (?), scraped on trees and leaves, washed not washed(?) , used by his wife to scratch her back (?), and handed back to the police days afterwards.

You don't have to prove any of these things happened. You merely have to point out that they could have done. You are talking about touch DNA, which is from adhering skin cells, and is at very low concentration, on an object that may have been handled by many people, splashed by sea water, carried on someone's shoulder etc etc, so traces of one or more of the people who have touched it over 3 or four days may well be contaminated beyond detection or rubbed off.

Meredith Kirchner was freed on appeal because of exactly these considerations about some of the DNA evidence that was used to convict her.

Sorry, I think you mean Amanda Knox, Meredith was the victim, sorry for off topic.

[Lite Beer]

RT@Atomicalandy: Dr Pornthip's testimony just ended on day 15 Koh Tao murder trial. More forensics experts/defense witnesses still to come as trial continues

[webfact]

Thailand backpackers murder trial: No DNA match on weapon, court told

KOH SAMUI: -- Forensic samples taken from a weapon allegedly used to kill two British backpackers in Thailand do not match the two men on trial for the killing, a court has heard.

Forensic samples taken from a weapon allegedly used to kill two British backpackers in Thailand do not match the two men on trial for the killing, a court has heard.

Hannah Witheridge, 23, from Norfolk, and David Miller, 24, from Jersey, were found dead on the island of Koh Tao last September.

Burmese migrants Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo are on trial for murder after denying their involvement.

Andy Hall, a British migrant rights activist working with the defence team, said the development was the first breakthrough in the men's case.

Dr Porntip Rojanasunand, from Thailand's Central Institute for Forensic Science, told the court on Koh Samui that a garden hoe alleged to have been used in the killings carried the DNA of two men but there was no trace of either defendant.

She also raised concerns about flaws in the early investigations, including how forensic evidence was collected.

Mr Hall said: "The police previously said they did not test the weapon, so we asked for a retest.

"We recently got the results and the doctor came to court to testify that there was no trace of the two defendants.

"It is our case that there has never been any evidence to link the two boys to the murder weapon and our case over the coming weeks will focus on the reliability of forensic evidence."

Source: http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/thailand-backpackers-murder-trial-no-dna-match-on-weapon-court-told-11364003182584

-- BT 2015-09-11

[smedly]

Let them go now, it is plain as day that these two Burmese lads are just scapegoats, the sad thing is the real killers are still out there.

Agreed - with compensation !

There are so many stories about the Hoe that this doesn't surprise me, handled by people at the scene, police handling it, rumours that is was wiped or washed.

The police should be put on the stand and asked to clarify some things

1. Did they take samples from the hoe

2. Did they do dna tests from the samples on the hoe and the accused or anyone else for that matter

3. If yes to the above why have we not heard about it in evidence

what about the tests that are supposed to match the dna found on the victim, what exactly is the situation with that, why has it not been retested ?

[X pat]

They do not need evidence to convict them. The prisons are full of people who were convicted with no evidence.Its up to the defendants to prove they are innocent. Thats how this system works

You have a point,but in this case I don't think it will work,because the whole world is watching this very closely and I don't think the RTP is so dumb as to try any thing else in order to save face.

[macca3248]

Wow ,why does this not surprise me,,, TIT !!

[Dogmatix]

We have to look at a little reality here. There is no way those two young men can be released. It was not just the local people nor the entire nation of Thailand but the whole world that was assured by the chief of state that those confessions were given voluntarily. Since the representartives from Scotland Yard have voiced no opinion about it, it can be presumed that they were persuaded that there was no violence involved in getting the confessions. If those two men are released, it is tantamount to declaring that they were indeed tortured into confessing and any future incident in which the police manage to extract a confession will be suspect and challengeable. So the trial must go on and the presiding judge must render a decision in which he declares that the alleged confessions were never a part of his deliberation, thereby making them redundant to any discussion. Then the police involved will be moved to another district, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

In most countries there is no need to prove that confessions were extracted under torture to retract them. Also in Thailand there have been many cases where the defendants retracted confessions before trial, often just saying there were placed under duress by police. In developed countries the whole case would have been thrown out because the police didn't inform the suspects of their right to remain silent and get a lawyer.

[StealthEnergiser]

Thailand backpackers murder trial: No DNA match on weapon, court told

KOH SAMUI: -- Forensic samples taken from a weapon allegedly used to kill two British backpackers in Thailand do not match the two men on trial for the killing, a court has heard.

Forensic samples taken from a weapon allegedly used to kill two British backpackers in Thailand do not match the two men on trial for the killing, a court has heard.

Hannah Witheridge, 23, from Norfolk, and David Miller, 24, from Jersey, were found dead on the island of Koh Tao last September.

Burmese migrants Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo are on trial for murder after denying their involvement.

Andy Hall, a British migrant rights activist working with the defence team, said the development was the first breakthrough in the men's case.

Dr Porntip Rojanasunand, from Thailand's Central Institute for Forensic Science, told the court on Koh Samui that a garden hoe alleged to have been used in the killings carried the DNA of two men but there was no trace of either defendant.

She also raised concerns about flaws in the early investigations, including how forensic evidence was collected.

Mr Hall said: "The police previously said they did not test the weapon, so we asked for a retest.

"We recently got the results and the doctor came to court to testify that there was no trace of the two defendants.

"It is our case that there has never been any evidence to link the two boys to the murder weapon and our case over the coming weeks will focus on the reliability of forensic evidence."

Source: http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/thailand-backpackers-murder-trial-no-dna-match-on-weapon-court-told-11364003182584

-- BT 2015-09-11

From that article

Prosecutors say the DNA evidence, collected from cigarette butts, a condom and the bodies of the victims, links the two men to the killings and defence lawyers have been requesting that evidence for re-examination since April.

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/thailand-backpackers-murder-trial-no-dna-match-on-weapon-court-told-11364003182584

[catsanddogs]

Prosecution witnesses have said that Miss Witheridge had been raped and DNA from Zaw Lin and Wei Phyo, both 22, was found in her body. The defence is also expected to seek to challenge the reliability of that evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

[tajtom]

Oh really what a suprise NOT...

The Police Chief is on TV show boating about the corrupt immigration police whilist his own men are the most corrupt in Thailand. These 2 were framed up nicely. Reason is they not want charge a Thai for this dirty disgraceful act.. They are cowards thats why and the police are lazy and useless

Wake up Chief the good old PM may investigate you and he should. Your unit has given Thailand a bad name worldwide

Rorters