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

[GanDoonToonPet]

Apologies if this has been discussed already. I've just got back home from work & couldn't make it through all the posts.

I'm confused! Previously the police presented evidence that they found the B2's DNA on the hoe but today they testified they didn't?

In a 'normal' court this evidence would cast serious doubt on the DNA evidence from Hannah's body, especially with the sample being 'used up'. I don't think that there will be any evidence, in that respect, forthcoming from the UK police due to diplomatic reasons.

Dr Porntip stated that DNA would be found on the hoe if it was held for 15 seconds or longer. This is quite a long time (count it out) for a frenzied attack with 1-3 blows; I'd estimate closer to 5 seconds.

[boomerangutang]

I haven't read all the updates, but in fairness, what Dr. Pontip said according to the half-sentence in the tweet, and the AP article, is not such a big deal. Note: it's a crying shame we have to refer to overseas news outlets and/or farang tweeting at trial, to get our news. It appears no Thais are in the loop regarding reporting on this important trial.

She said there were two men, and neither matched the 2 defendants. That's not such headline news to me. She didn't discount David nor did she discount the gardener who admitted to handling the hoe. Right there are two men who aren't the defendants. Maybe it's inferred that David (or the gardener) wasn't one of the two, but if so, let's get some halfway decent reporting. Note, Pontip is a fast talker, so even someone fluent in Thai will have to be quick to follow all she says. Not being allowed to record or take notes makes it 5X harder. We can thank judges, for putting the near-gag-order on the proceedings.

Has Ms Pontip finished her testimony? What has she said about the DNA found in/on Hannah? And is she allowed to look at NS's or Mon's DNA typing (both have given samples prior, and could be compelled to give 'em again), ....and of course Mon's tough-guy buddies who we (seekers of the true culprits) have been discussing in detail but who the RTP / prosecutors / and all other Thai authorities don't want mentioned. Hmmmm, I can't think why there's a blanket gag order on mentioning anyone connected to the Headman. Give me some time and maybe I'll find a reason why that's so.

[sweatalot]

So the Question is <D<>E<>L<>E<>T<>E<>D> did they not check that in the first place before they locked up those two innocent people .They could have been looking for the real Killers from Day one,,,,,incompetent fools,,,,,

You still think they are incompetent? Just incompetent?

What about unwilling?

Edited September 11, 2015 by sweatalot

[thailandchilli]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/dna_found_on_murder_weapon_does_not_match_with_two_men_on_trial_for_killing_hannah_witheridge_1_4228734

As good a breakdown as any as to the mistakes in this case.

Without a forensic team present during the initial crime scene cleanup it seems there could be whole series of errors in the crucial DNA sample collecting, evidence collecting and general interpretation of the crime scene which could have yielded more clues about the attackers (dominant hand of attacker as deduced from blood spatters etc)

Or, according to other posters this is probably just considered "media marketing" and I'm waiting for a deflector to come along and say something to that effect.

Oh wait, "media marketing" is the latest one, his previous regards the torture testimony was "neither here or there"

How can anyone in their RIGHT MIND now say we are witnessing a fair trial and all rests on the DNA results from Hannah.

Edited September 11, 2015 by thailandchilli

[thailandchilli]

I hope the judge reinforces this request and demands action, but somehow doing their duty is not a common theme in this trial

Nakhon said he’s requested the prosecuting attorney instruct police to find whose DNA traces were found on the garden hoe.

“We have told them to do their duty,” Nakhon said this afternoon.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1441971241&section=12&typecate=06

Edited September 11, 2015 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[fireplay]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/dna_found_on_murder_weapon_does_not_match_with_two_men_on_trial_for_killing_hannah_witheridge_1_4228734

As good a breakdown as any as to the mistakes in this case.

Without a forensic team present during the initial crime scene cleanup it seems there could be whole series of errors in the crucial DNA sample collecting, evidence collecting and general interpretation of the crime scene which could have yielded more clues about the attackers (dominant hand of attacker as deduced from blood spatters etc)

Or, according to other posters this is probably just considered "media marketing" and I'm waiting for a deflector to come along and say something to that effect.

Oh wait, "media marketing" is the latest one, his previous was "neither here or there"

How can anyone in their RIGHT MIND now say we are witnessing a fair trial and all rests on the DNA results from Hannah.

Ya rests on hannah sans the CLOTHES SHE WAS WEARING. What, not enough room in the trolley to fit everything? Jesus man.

[boomerangutang]

As for your theories regarding the DNA evidence it is dead simple to validate them, get documentation showing the DNA typing as used during the first days of the investigation, compare it with the DNA typing from the defendants and if it doesn't match then there's grounds to dismiss the evidence as being altered to frame the accused after their arrest.

My guess is that the defense will not do that; because while having such theories bouncing around the media (social or otherwise) may be good from a marketing point of view, they have already shown not to be interested in directly refuting the inculpatory DNA evidence.

AleG, DNA typing from the defendants is not in question. The big questions are:

>>> is the DNA taken from Hannah reliable. Thus far, there are many indications (not just from Ms Pontip months ago and today) that it's not.

>>> why did Nomsod refuse DNA testing for many days, and then when he was persuaded to get a test (with his dad and chief of police grinning alongside), he was all-too-quickly declared a non-match. Then we find out at the trial, months later, that the lead detective said he doesn't know where NS's sample is, he doesn't know if it was ever really tested, and if it was, he doesn't know if it was compared to DNA found on Hannah. In other words, RTP top detective in charge of DNA trail says he doesn't know diddly squat about NS's DNA in relation to the investigation. In effect, that's saying what all of us have suspected all along: The RTP is purposefully skewing the DNA trail in order to frame the scapegoats, while shielding anyone connected to the Headman.

As if that weren't enough screw-ups, chief cop Somyot held a press conference immediately after claiming NS's DNA didn't match and stated clearly that RTP would NOT share DNA findings with the British experts. His reason: "British police already know we're doing a perfect job in this case, so there's no need to share data."

I'm confused! Previously the police presented evidence that they found the B2's DNA on the hoe but today they testified they didn't?

RTP never claimed they found B2 DNA on hoe. Indeed, they always claimed they only found Hannah's blood/DNA on it, and didn't even find any traces of David's DNA, despite RTP claiming David was struck repeatedly by the sharp end of the hoe - which in itself is doubtful, considering David's wounds.

In a farang court, wounds and weapons would be a large part of a murder trial. In Thailand, it seems to barely warrant a mention.

Edited September 11, 2015 by boomerangutang

[sweatalot]

Its easy to find if the DNA on the Hoe was the gardeners or the police man. Just test them... RTP get results very quickly...LOL 3 hours and you will get your answer...

if you pay more you will get it immediately

[Mudcrab]

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.

Utter tripe. The re-enactment facade clearly indicated that the prosecution based the defendants confession on using the hoe as the murder weapon. And if they are basing their case on anything else it has not been shown in court reports.

Their case: DNA, confession, re-enactment. All of which has been successfully challenged. As to the MURDER WEAPON, the bloody hoe, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that had either of the B2 handled the hoe, in all probability their DNA would also have been found along with two unidentified males.

along with two unidentified males.

Interesting statement. Plenty of jealous women have murdered before. What makes you so sure there are only two unidentified males involved? This assumes that the hoes is the only murder weapon

As to the MURDER WEAPON, the bloody hoe,

Again supposition - alleged murder weapon. I recall earlier that a stingray ring was worn by a man who may have been alleged to be the killer, that apparently would have inflicted similar wounds.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Mudcrab

[phuketandsee]

Good piece from Khaosod:

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1441971241&section=12&typecate=06

"Nakhon said he’s requested the prosecuting attorney instruct police to find whose DNA traces were found on the garden hoe".

“We have told them to do their duty,” Nakhon said this afternoon.

Wonder if that will ever happen

"Nakhon said three more defense witnesses, all forensic institute experts, are due to take the stand when the trial continues 22 Sept".

Edited September 11, 2015 by metisdead

[dcutman]

Good piece from Khaosod:

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1441971241&section=12&typecate=06

"Nakhon said he’s requested the prosecuting attorney instruct police to find whose DNA traces were found on the garden hoe".

“We have told them to do their duty,” Nakhon said this afternoon.

Wonder if that will ever happen

"Nakhon said three more defense witnesses, all forensic institute experts, are due to take the stand when the trial continues 22 Sept".

In all fairness the persecution was was "shy" on this case from the get go. I do believe they sent this case back to the police no less than three times, possibly more.

Of course there was another prosecutor murdered in Samui, ( not related to this case apparently) but could have been one reason this prosecutor, finally did accept this case as it stood.

[thailandchilli]

Good piece from Khaosod:

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1441971241&section=12&typecate=06

"Nakhon said he’s requested the prosecuting attorney instruct police to find whose DNA traces were found on the garden hoe".

“We have told them to do their duty,” Nakhon said this afternoon.

Wonder if that will ever happen

"Nakhon said three more defense witnesses, all forensic institute experts, are due to take the stand when the trial continues 22 Sept".

So plenty of time to DNA test anyone suspected of touching the hoe, ie the Burmese gardener. If there's still no match then what we have is a strong possibility of the DNA on the hoe belonging to the real murderers. This is now a priority for the court to insist it happens or at least it would be if it was a fair trial!

[metisdead]

Troll posts and replies have been removed.

[jacky54]

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

Not quite, if you are rich or influential enough you never have to even go to a court, or if you do, never spend a night in prison or 'prove anything at all., even for murder or manslaughter in daylight with witnesses and CTV evidence. When it comes to justice Thailand is the laughing stock of the world, there is none. Maybe they could fit these guys up for LM instead, that seems to be how people are got rid of at the moment.

[tigermonkey]

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.

I would suggest that if it truly is the murder weapon, there should be DNA on it from both of the victims - so it's NOT the murder weapon !

[beammeup]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

[Rykbanlor]

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.

I would suggest that if it truly is the murder weapon, there should be DNA on it from both of the victims - so it's NOT the murder weapon !

Which begs the question - Why did the police claim it was?

[Rykbanlor]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the primary/only murder weapon has yielded such supposedly insignificant results?

Edit - and the washing claims - Some claim that Mon or a cop asked for the hoe to be washed, why would they do that?

Some claim it wasn;t washed, so then DNA on it should be intact.

Some claim the gardener washed it of his own accord, and yet it's still covered in blood.

As far as the court/trial process goes we have to accept that they will do it in the way their law dictates, but for the record here, anyone who clings on to the DNA evidence that was supposedly taken from inside the victim and ignores the Hoe and now as we discover, Hannah's clothing, then they are being far from objective.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Rykbanlor

[arrowsdawdle]

I guess there's not much to defend about the RTP disaster... Speechless.

If you were one of the BIB your explanation would be that you really have no choice at the end of the day when "elites" are involved. And this would be accurate.

[Acharn]

https://twitter.com/pakhead/status/642202002634743808

Now, run, run, run for your life, Dr. Porthip,... the mafia is gonna witch hunt you now....

Nah. She's done this before. She's too well known and admired by the public for them to go after her. Besides, the Army leadership owes her big time for claiming their GT200 scanners (basically dowsing rods) actually worked, helping them shut down a graft investigation. The Police brass hate her because she's not afraid o showing them up for the chumps they are.

[thailandchilli]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

I find it hilarious that certain RTP defenders were only one week ago trying to insinuate that was a lack of media interest in the international press, when its then rubbed in their faces they cry foul and say its media marketing or hype. Man how shallow can these guys get?

[arrowsdawdle]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the primary/only murder weapon has yielded such supposedly insignificant results?

Edit - and the washing claims - Some claim that Mon or a cop asked for the hoe to be washed, why would they do that?

Some claim it wasn;t washed, so then DNA on it should be intact.

Some claim the gardener washed it of his own accord, and yet it's still covered in blood.

As far as the court/trial process goes we have to accept that they will do it in the way their law dictates, but for the record here, anyone who clings on to the DNA evidence that was supposedly taken from inside the victim and ignores the Hoe and now as we discover, Hannah's clothing, then they are being far from objective.

What part of rapists do not take the time to put on a condom does no one understand?

[Rykbanlor]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the primary/only murder weapon has yielded such supposedly insignificant results?

Edit - and the washing claims - Some claim that Mon or a cop asked for the hoe to be washed, why would they do that?

Some claim it wasn;t washed, so then DNA on it should be intact.

Some claim the gardener washed it of his own accord, and yet it's still covered in blood.

As far as the court/trial process goes we have to accept that they will do it in the way their law dictates, but for the record here, anyone who clings on to the DNA evidence that was supposedly taken from inside the victim and ignores the Hoe and now as we discover, Hannah's clothing, then they are being far from objective.

What part of rapists do not take the time to put on a condom does no one understand?

Meaning what?

[AleG]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

DNA matches from the hoe were never part of the prosecution case against the Burmese, the principal evidence is DNA evidence recovered from inside the body of the rape victim.

Contrary to the claims of the defense lawyer, finding DNA on the hoe from two men who are not the defendants does not prove their innocence.

[Rykbanlor]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

DNA matches from the hoe were never part of the prosecution case against the Burmese, the principal evidence is DNA evidence recovered from inside the body of the rape victim.

Contrary to the claims of the defense lawyer, finding DNA on the hoe from two men who are not the defendants does not prove their innocence.

If you could ignore the case ,made by the prosecution for just a moment, and think along other lines

[Rykbanlor]

I swear, they could come out with timestamped CCTV of the B2 somewhere else at the time of the murder, and AleG would say, nyaa, it's not part of the prosecution case.

[MrTee]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the primary/only murder weapon has yielded such supposedly insignificant results?

Edit - and the washing claims - Some claim that Mon or a cop asked for the hoe to be washed, why would they do that?

Some claim it wasn;t washed, so then DNA on it should be intact.

Some claim the gardener washed it of his own accord, and yet it's still covered in blood.

As far as the court/trial process goes we have to accept that they will do it in the way their law dictates, but for the record here, anyone who clings on to the DNA evidence that was supposedly taken from inside the victim and ignores the Hoe and now as we discover, Hannah's clothing, then they are being far from objective.

What part of rapists do not take the time to put on a condom does no one understand?

Condom use by rapists is not unusual.

Even dumb criminals have now realised that CSI can pinpoint crimes on them so they are covering their tracks

Maybe you'll catch on soon too

.

[thailandchilli]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

DNA matches from the hoe were never part of the prosecution case against the Burmese, the principal evidence is DNA evidence recovered from inside the body of the rape victim.

Contrary to the claims of the defense lawyer, finding DNA on the hoe from two men who are not the defendants does not prove their innocence.

And the whole point being perhaps the DNA matches from the hoe should have been part of the evidence presented at the trial, but the fact is the RTP said there was no DNA on it and this has proven to be untrue.

[KunMatt]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

DNA matches from the hoe were never part of the prosecution case against the Burmese, the principal evidence is DNA evidence recovered from inside the body of the rape victim.

Contrary to the claims of the defense lawyer, finding DNA on the hoe from two men who are not the defendants does not prove their innocence.

I find it amusing and very telling the questions that you choose to ignore. And yet you have the time and energy to post the same point over and over and over.

So;

1. Do you now accept that the B2 were tortured into confessing?

2. Do you still believe the RTP's case against the B2 is solid and that the B2 are guilty?

[Darkknight666]

I dont remember the DNA on the hoe ever even being discussed. I thought the DNA was from the condom? IF Porntip could dispute that evidence then that would be something. This just seems like media hype.

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the primary/only murder weapon has yielded such supposedly insignificant results?

Edit - and the washing claims - Some claim that Mon or a cop asked for the hoe to be washed, why would they do that?

Some claim it wasn;t washed, so then DNA on it should be intact.

Some claim the gardener washed it of his own accord, and yet it's still covered in blood.

As far as the court/trial process goes we have to accept that they will do it in the way their law dictates, but for the record here, anyone who clings on to the DNA evidence that was supposedly taken from inside the victim and ignores the Hoe and now as we discover, Hannah's clothing, then they are being far from objective.

What part of rapists do not take the time to put on a condom does no one understand?

That's not entirely true. Rapes do happen with condoms to some extent.

I find the trial dates odd, why one day of testimony then 10 days for the next court session? Media attention isn't dying down and when the verdict is read world press will be all over it.