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

[minikev]

Andy Hall facebook

Eventually after several defense team requests more substantial documentation has been provided to the court regarding the alleged DNA match between the accused and samples from the female deceased body. That documentation, that seeming remains still limited and incomplete, now is the key issue under examination. Reported Dr Pornthip already started to highlight concerns regarding this evidence in her testimony and surely more to come..

Are you Andy Hall's mate? 'm amazed the mods let you post those links.

Why would they not allow it?

It is informative and Andy is on the front line so up to date and direct.

[MrTee]

For example, from what I know, the date of death in David Miller's autopsy report was incorrect, obviously that would be a clerical error since there is no reasonable explanation of why the person writing the report would fake that. Of course that could easily be spun as "We have found significant errors in the autopsy report" in order to discredit the results of the autopsy; while the statement would be true it does not follow that the results of the autopsy are in error.

As the saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

If the coroner is so inept as to enter the wrong date in an autopsy report they are obviously incompetent and have no place in a legal system that could result in the execution of 2 people!

[Neeranam]

Are you Andy Hall's mate? 'm amazed the mods let you post those links.

Andy Hall facebook

Eventually after several defense team requests more substantial documentation has been provided to the court regarding the alleged DNA match between the accused and samples from the female deceased body. That documentation, that seeming remains still limited and incomplete, now is the key issue under examination. Reported Dr Pornthip already started to highlight concerns regarding this evidence in her testimony and surely more to come..

Are you another with friends on KT...........?

No, I know who did it as most do but have the intelligence to realize that they will NEVER get prosecuted, even if all the evidence in the world points to them.

You know who did it? I think you're going to have to elaborate after making that statement Neeranam.

It doesn't take much of detective work. The Head man's son is wanted along with was it an uncle? I forget the original reports. The police chief is transferred!! (Hint here) The head man is a mate of the guy who put the absolute ruler in power!

[Patsycat]

That report stating the bodies were found 20Ms apart is making me wonder about something, 20 metres is quite apart, if that's the case, was the original crime scene pictures staged as I'm pretty sure both were found close together ? Maybe I'm mistaken, considering the clothes were staged at one point it would hardly surprise me if the crime scene was also "manipulated"

Look at the pictures of the little immigrant kid washed ashore drowned on the beach, initial Crime scene pictures had this poor little chap found amongst the rocks, his body was then moved and staged to "appear more dramatic"

No reason why the same things couldn't have happened here in this case.

I think the little boy's body found amongst the rocks was his brother. Sorry, off topic.

David, i think, was found in the water and Hannah was sat against a rock.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Patsycat

[BritTim]

The problem i have with it is if he had made the trip from Koh Tao surely he would be too tired to being going to classes first thing?

That's only an slight issue if you believe that the CCTV, which was provided weeks later by him, has not had the time stamp doctored.

It holds no water just like the staged DNA testing. If anything, the way both of these were handled just adds more suspicion onto him.

The DNA testing circus was farcical. The CCTV not so much. They gave access to all the footage from all cameras to Thai PBS for the period from 2:00 am until he was seen leaving (on at least 3 cameras) around 9:30 am. The CCTV does not show him entering during that time period. It has been suggested that he might have used the fire escape to enter, but there is a camera in the corridor outside his room that was also checked. The CCTV might have been faked but, if so, either someone very senior at Thai PBS is involved in the cover up, or the falsification was very well done.

I can imagine many reasons Nomsod would not have wanted to publicize the footage of him entering his room. My guess, if the CCTV is genuine, is that he entered his room with a girl, and neither this girl, nor his steady girlfriend, would have been impressed.

[Madaussie]

For example, from what I know, the date of death in David Miller's autopsy report was incorrect, obviously that would be a clerical error since there is no reasonable explanation of why the person writing the report would fake that. Of course that could easily be spun as "We have found significant errors in the autopsy report" in order to discredit the results of the autopsy; while the statement would be true it does not follow that the results of the autopsy are in error.

As the saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

If the coroner is so inept as to enter the wrong date in an autopsy report they are obviously incompetent and have no place in a legal system that could result in the execution of 2 people!

Unfortunately AleG is putting out weak excuses for what he knows is coming up. A date wrong is not Significant and he knows is and yet he speaks off spin...lol...

I have saved his comment to Notepad so I can remind him later of what he said. Perhaps we should all do that.

Watch this space I say.

Actually if any person is guilty of spin on this thread its AleG. A twist and turn of every comment. A refusal to respond etc.

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Koh Tao defense team release basic info 22-25 Sept witnesses. Domestic/international forensics/medical experts incl. on DNA analysis/torture

[catsanddogs]

Are you Andy Hall's mate? 'm amazed the mods let you post those links.

Andy Hall facebook

Eventually after several defense team requests more substantial documentation has been provided to the court regarding the alleged DNA match between the accused and samples from the female deceased body. That documentation, that seeming remains still limited and incomplete, now is the key issue under examination. Reported Dr Pornthip already started to highlight concerns regarding this evidence in her testimony and surely more to come..

Are you another with friends on KT...........?

No, I know who did it as most do but have the intelligence to realize that they will NEVER get prosecuted, even if all the evidence in the world points to them.

You know who did it? I think you're going to have to elaborate after making that statement Neeranam.

It doesn't take much of detective work. The Head man's son is wanted along with was it an uncle? I forget the original reports. The police chief is transferred!! (Hint here) The head man is a mate of the guy who put the absolute ruler in power!

I was hoping you were going give a little bit more information than that with your statement of 'I know'. Thought there would be more enlightenment. Never mind. Agree it doesn't take much detective work to work out those who might be responsible. Shame the RTP only do defective work instead.

[sweatalot]

The problem i have with it is if he had made the trip from Koh Tao surely he would be too tired to being going to classes first thing?

That's only an slight issue if you believe that the CCTV, which was provided weeks later by him, has not had the time stamp doctored.

It holds no water just like the staged DNA testing. If anything, the way both of these were handled just adds more suspicion onto him.

The DNA testing circus was farcical. The CCTV not so much. They gave access to all the footage from all cameras to Thai PBS for the period from 2:00 am until he was seen leaving (on at least 3 cameras) around 9:30 am. The CCTV does not show him entering during that time period. It has been suggested that he might have used the fire escape to enter, but there is a camera in the corridor outside his room that was also checked. The CCTV might have been faked but, if so, either someone very senior at Thai PBS is involved in the cover up, or the falsification was very well done.

I can imagine many reasons Nomsod would not have wanted to publicize the footage of him entering his room. My guess, if the CCTV is genuine, is that he entered his room with a girl, and neither this girl, nor his steady girlfriend, would have been impressed.

if it is about murder suspicion nobody would care about a love affair coming to the daylight

[Wifflewaffle]

Does anyone know if they have used the bite marks as evidence ? this is how they caught serial killers in the old days.

"Eventually Swann was able to get the information he needed and based on a cast made of Boden's teeth he demonstrated 29 points of similarity between the bite marks in Elizabeth Porteous' body and Boden's teeth. This evidence was sufficient for the jury of Boden's trial to find him guilty of murder for which he was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Boden

[boomerangutang]

Two simple boys, gumagon boys from Burma trying to esacpe the horrible dirt floor persecuted poverty they live in and trying to get a quid to help mummy and daddy.

Thats my take on it after having visited and stayed in Burma a few times.

I'm talking about their real lives, not an idealized notion of what or who they may be.

I'm sure if RTP could dig up any disparaging tidbits on the B2, the Thai press would be shouting it from the street corners. RTP told the public for weeks that they were illegal, and then documentation shown to the judge in December proved there weren't. You got any other dirt to try to get to stick to them AleG?

On the other hand, Mon and his tough-guy buddies, regulars at the beach party bars, have sordid reputations. Data-rapes, rapes with bruises, and fights are as common at those places/beaches as brown colored beer bottles. Would a pretty young farang lady have any luck/support reporting a date-rape by a Thai - to the local Thai police? Answer: No. And not only because local cops are bosom buddies with Mon and other weapon-toting mafia-wannabes who go to the bars every night.

[Darkknight666]

Does anyone know if they have used the bite marks as evidence ? this is how they caught serial killers in the old days.

"Eventually Swann was able to get the information he needed and based on a cast made of Boden's teeth he demonstrated 29 points of similarity between the bite marks in Elizabeth Porteous' body and Boden's teeth. This evidence was sufficient for the jury of Boden's trial to find him guilty of murder for which he was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Boden

No they haven't, which bite marks? I thought I saw one on Hannah's upper lip but it could be blood.... Never been discussed here as far as over read.

[thailandchilli]

Does anyone know if they have used the bite marks as evidence ? this is how they caught serial killers in the old days.

"Eventually Swann was able to get the information he needed and based on a cast made of Boden's teeth he demonstrated 29 points of similarity between the bite marks in Elizabeth Porteous' body and Boden's teeth. This evidence was sufficient for the jury of Boden's trial to find him guilty of murder for which he was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Boden

No they haven't, which bite marks? I thought I saw one on Hannah's upper lip but it could be blood.... Never been discussed here as far as over read.

Yes its been mentioned:

The brother and father of 23-year-old Hannah Witheridge walked out of court on Friday after the hearing was shown images of her mutilated body and graphic details of the attack were discussed, such as bite marks that were found on her body. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/10/family-of-briton-murdered-in-thailand-its-been-hard-very-hard

I would imagine we'll hear a little more on that in the next session

[GOLDBUGGY]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

Well let me try although I am not a defender of anyone. I just try to look at what is presented and use Common Sense.

1) Retracted Confession Obtained Under Torture?

What evidence has been presented by the Defense except from the word of mouth of an accused Murderer and Rapist who already confessed but now wants to change his mind? A fellow prisoner who testified (or at least I think he did) that he saw bruising on one of the accused but made no claims as to the accused telling him how he got those. Yet a doctor who first examined both accused shortly after their confessions claims he didn't see any. So did they obtain these bruises right after their interrogations or days after from some fellow inmates, who in most countries hate rapists in prison?

Even LIn's own testimony he recently stated he had a bag over his head but was also beaten, including to the side of his head. Yet a day or two after the confessions when the accused did a reenactment of the crime did anyone see a bruise on his face or anywhere else on his body? Or Wins? You have got to be a pretty good shot to hit a guy on the side of the head several times, when he has a bag over his head and is struggling, yet not hit the jaw or cheek bone once, causing bruising. Even hit on the side of the head can cause some bruising on the face.

Lin also testified he talked to Win on the telephone, which suggest Win was interrogated on the Main Land. Either way he was not in the same room as Lin. So what you have is 2 different people being interrogated in 2 different locations, involving 2 different sets of people, but both now claiming torture.

On the other hand you have a slew of police officers including a high ranking one, and Interpreter, regardless of his qualifications, who all sat through the entire interrogations claiming no torture was used. At no time did the accused tell the prison doctors, or even a fellow Migrant Worker how they got these bruises. So I won't go into whether they were tortured or not as none of us where their. I will simply ask a question.

Who do you think carries more weight in a court of law? The 2 Accused charged with murder and rape? Or a whole slew of police officials and interpreter who would have to perjury themselves to lie?

I will share my opinion on the other 2 points shortly as well. .

[stephenterry]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

Well let me try although I am not a defender of anyone. I just try to look at what is presented and use Common Sense.

1) Retracted Confession Obtained Under Torture?

What evidence has been presented by the Defense except from the word of mouth of an accused Murderer and Rapist who already confessed but now wants to change his mind? A fellow prisoner who testified (or at least I think he did) that he saw bruising on one of the accused but made no claims as to the accused telling him how he got those. Yet a doctor who first examined both accused shortly after their confessions claims he didn't see any. So did they obtain these bruises right after their interrogations or days after from some fellow inmates, who in most countries hate rapists in prison?

Even LIn's own testimony he recently stated he had a bag over his head but was also beaten, including to the side of his head. Yet a day or two after the confessions when the accused did a reenactment of the crime did anyone see a bruise on his face or anywhere else on his body? Or Wins? You have got to be a pretty good shot to hit a guy on the side of the head several times, when he has a bag over his head and is struggling, yet not hit the jaw or cheek bone once, causing bruising. Even hit on the side of the head can cause some bruising on the face.

Lin also testified he talked to Win on the telephone, which suggest Win was interrogated on the Main Land. Either way he was not in the same room as Lin. So what you have is 2 different people being interrogated in 2 different locations, involving 2 different sets of people, but both now claiming torture.

On the other hand you have a slew of police officers including a high ranking one, and Interpreter, regardless of his qualifications, who all sat through the entire interrogations claiming no torture was used. At no time did the accused tell the prison doctors, or even a fellow Migrant Worker how they got these bruises. So I won't go into whether they were tortured or not as none of us where their. I will simply ask a question.

Who do you think carries more weight in a court of law? The 2 Accused charged with murder and rape? Or a whole slew of police officials and interpreter who would have to perjury themselves to lie?

I will share my opinion on the other 2 points shortly as well. .

GB it's a known fact that the RTP use torture to extract confessions, so much so that Thai law was changed for the judges to ignore confessions in a criminal trial. What I find questionable is why THESE judges allowed the police to provide such 'evidence' plus a re-enactment when it shouldn't have been permitted.

I won't dwell on that, however.

And clearly, you now sod all about Thai society. Persons of authority are NEVER questioned. If the whole processions of officers say black is white or the B2 did it, or no torture took place, that's enough to gain a conviction. About time you did some research, before you mouth off about who is lying.

I've tried to keep my response polite, but your total ignorance on these matters deserves a rebuke.

[mcm991]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

Well let me try although I am not a defender of anyone. I just try to look at what is presented and use Common Sense.

1) Retracted Confession Obtained Under Torture?

What evidence has been presented by the Defense except from the word of mouth of an accused Murderer and Rapist who already confessed but now wants to change his mind? A fellow prisoner who testified (or at least I think he did) that he saw bruising on one of the accused but made no claims as to the accused telling him how he got those. Yet a doctor who first examined both accused shortly after their confessions claims he didn't see any. So did they obtain these bruises right after their interrogations or days after from some fellow inmates, who in most countries hate rapists in prison?

Even LIn's own testimony he recently stated he had a bag over his head but was also beaten, including to the side of his head. Yet a day or two after the confessions when the accused did a reenactment of the crime did anyone see a bruise on his face or anywhere else on his body? Or Wins? You have got to be a pretty good shot to hit a guy on the side of the head several times, when he has a bag over his head and is struggling, yet not hit the jaw or cheek bone once, causing bruising. Even hit on the side of the head can cause some bruising on the face.

Lin also testified he talked to Win on the telephone, which suggest Win was interrogated on the Main Land. Either way he was not in the same room as Lin. So what you have is 2 different people being interrogated in 2 different locations, involving 2 different sets of people, but both now claiming torture.

On the other hand you have a slew of police officers including a high ranking one, and Interpreter, regardless of his qualifications, who all sat through the entire interrogations claiming no torture was used. At no time did the accused tell the prison doctors, or even a fellow Migrant Worker how they got these bruises. So I won't go into whether they were tortured or not as none of us where their. I will simply ask a question.

Who do you think carries more weight in a court of law? The 2 Accused charged with murder and rape? Or a whole slew of police officials and interpreter who would have to perjury themselves to lie?

I will share my opinion on the other 2 points shortly as well. .

Not entirely sure where to start ......... not often I see so much manure piled in one place.

If the B2 were advised of their legal rights to representation during questioning and proper interview protocols were followed ... then none of this would be up for discussion.

But they were not ... which is against Thai law, BTW ....... so on this alone the confessions are not admissable.

I'll continue later once the nausea from reading your post subsides.

[Darkknight666]

Does anyone know if they have used the bite marks as evidence ? this is how they caught serial killers in the old days.

"Eventually Swann was able to get the information he needed and based on a cast made of Boden's teeth he demonstrated 29 points of similarity between the bite marks in Elizabeth Porteous' body and Boden's teeth. This evidence was sufficient for the jury of Boden's trial to find him guilty of murder for which he was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Boden

No they haven't, which bite marks? I thought I saw one on Hannah's upper lip but it could be blood.... Never been discussed here as far as over read.

Yes its been mentioned:

The brother and father of 23-year-old Hannah Witheridge walked out of court on Friday after the hearing was shown images of her mutilated body and graphic details of the attack were discussed, such as bite marks that were found on her body. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/10/family-of-briton-murdered-in-thailand-its-been-hard-very-hard

I would imagine we'll hear a little more on that in the next session

Ah, had forgot about that story, I remember reading It though. Is it just me or does Hannah's top lip seem to have a bite mark? That was my initial thought, I've looked closer and still I think it's a bite mark. IMO, the presence of bites to her further proves that the attacker was not some opportunist but a man who's done this kind of thing before. I'm not sure about the gunshot theory at this point but for the how to have caused that much damage there would have to be multiple hits with it, say ten or more. Looking at the photos again for bite marks has made me a bit sick and angry again. I'm out for tonight.

[thailandchilli]

The problem i have with it is if he had made the trip from Koh Tao surely he would be too tired to being going to classes first thing?

That's only an slight issue if you believe that the CCTV, which was provided weeks later by him, has not had the time stamp doctored.

It holds no water just like the staged DNA testing. If anything, the way both of these were handled just adds more suspicion onto him.

The DNA testing circus was farcical. The CCTV not so much. They gave access to all the footage from all cameras to Thai PBS for the period from 2:00 am until he was seen leaving (on at least 3 cameras) around 9:30 am. The CCTV does not show him entering during that time period. It has been suggested that he might have used the fire escape to enter, but there is a camera in the corridor outside his room that was also checked. The CCTV might have been faked but, if so, either someone very senior at Thai PBS is involved in the cover up, or the falsification was very well done.

I can imagine many reasons Nomsod would not have wanted to publicize the footage of him entering his room. My guess, if the CCTV is genuine, is that he entered his room with a girl, and neither this girl, nor his steady girlfriend, would have been impressed.

I'm 50 - 50 on NS. I would like to have seen a verified DNA to reassure me rather than the circus in Bangkok, but regards the CCTV that was analysed by Thai PBS. As far as I'm concerned this carries no weight or proof whatsoever.

CCTV evidence can only be credible if the actual source has been verified from where it was taken and that the time stamp is the original one. There are plenty of UK police guidance documents on this do a Google for "uk police cctv evidence collection and authentication" and you'll find numerous official documents and guidance on the use of cctv as evidence in court and the authentication process it needs to go through first.

Its been demonstrated just how easy it is to change the time stamp for the whole stored cctv recording in situ of the hard drive on another site on that particular model of cctv, it then just needs to be handed to whoever wants it and it appears genuine but in fact has been changed to whatever dates or time were wanted.

Edited September 13, 2015 by thailandchilli

[minikev]

Reported on 15th September

The young woman’s throat had reportedly been cut while the man had suffered a cutting wound on the back of his head. Some of the pair’s clothes were located nearby, as was a hoe, which police believe was used in the murder.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-couple-murdered-in-thailand-pairs-bloodied-bodies-found-naked-on-koh-tao-beach-9732889.html

First time I've seen that reported.

I just went back and looked at the horrific pictures of poor Hannah. She didn't have her throat cut.

[rockingrobin]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

Well let me try although I am not a defender of anyone. I just try to look at what is presented and use Common Sense.

1) Retracted Confession Obtained Under Torture?

What evidence has been presented by the Defense except from the word of mouth of an accused Murderer and Rapist who already confessed but now wants to change his mind? A fellow prisoner who testified (or at least I think he did) that he saw bruising on one of the accused but made no claims as to the accused telling him how he got those. Yet a doctor who first examined both accused shortly after their confessions claims he didn't see any. So did they obtain these bruises right after their interrogations or days after from some fellow inmates, who in most countries hate rapists in prison?

Even LIn's own testimony he recently stated he had a bag over his head but was also beaten, including to the side of his head. Yet a day or two after the confessions when the accused did a reenactment of the crime did anyone see a bruise on his face or anywhere else on his body? Or Wins? You have got to be a pretty good shot to hit a guy on the side of the head several times, when he has a bag over his head and is struggling, yet not hit the jaw or cheek bone once, causing bruising. Even hit on the side of the head can cause some bruising on the face.

Lin also testified he talked to Win on the telephone, which suggest Win was interrogated on the Main Land. Either way he was not in the same room as Lin. So what you have is 2 different people being interrogated in 2 different locations, involving 2 different sets of people, but both now claiming torture.

On the other hand you have a slew of police officers including a high ranking one, and Interpreter, regardless of his qualifications, who all sat through the entire interrogations claiming no torture was used. At no time did the accused tell the prison doctors, or even a fellow Migrant Worker how they got these bruises. So I won't go into whether they were tortured or not as none of us where their. I will simply ask a question.

Who do you think carries more weight in a court of law? The 2 Accused charged with murder and rape? Or a whole slew of police officials and interpreter who would have to perjury themselves to lie?

I will share my opinion on the other 2 points shortly as well. .

What GB fails to grasp is the prosecution witnesses statements , fellow inmate seen bruises , visit to the hospital where the doctor acknowledged injuries.

As for Aleg I can only surmise from his comment that he has no Knowledge on dna testing .

What should be noted is that the B2 dna sample contained there actual names and not a coded identifier associated with each sample

[catsanddogs]

Super graphic succinct brilliant post MCM991 (694)!

[minikev]

The problem i have with it is if he had made the trip from Koh Tao surely he would be too tired to being going to classes first thing?

That's only an slight issue if you believe that the CCTV, which was provided weeks later by him, has not had the time stamp doctored.

It holds no water just like the staged DNA testing. If anything, the way both of these were handled just adds more suspicion onto him.

The DNA testing circus was farcical. The CCTV not so much. They gave access to all the footage from all cameras to Thai PBS for the period from 2:00 am until he was seen leaving (on at least 3 cameras) around 9:30 am. The CCTV does not show him entering during that time period. It has been suggested that he might have used the fire escape to enter, but there is a camera in the corridor outside his room that was also checked. The CCTV might have been faked but, if so, either someone very senior at Thai PBS is involved in the cover up, or the falsification was very well done.

I can imagine many reasons Nomsod would not have wanted to publicize the footage of him entering his room. My guess, if the CCTV is genuine, is that he entered his room with a girl, and neither this girl, nor his steady girlfriend, would have been impressed.

I'm 50 - 50 on NS. I would like to have seen a verified DNA to reassure me rather than the circus in Bangkok, but regards the CCTV that was analysed by Thai PBS. As far as I'm concerned this carries no weight or proof whatsoever.

CCTV evidence can only be credible if the actual source has been verified from where it was taken and that the time stamp is the original one. There are plenty of UK police guidance documents on this do a Google for "uk police cctv evidence collection and authentication" and you'll find numerous official documents and guidance on the use of cctv as evidence in court and the authentication process it needs to go through first.

Its been demonstrated just how easy it is to change the time stamp for the whole stored cctv recording in situ of the hard drive on another site on that particular model of cctv, it then just needs to be handed to whoever wants it and it appears genuine but in fact has been changed to whatever dates or time were wanted.

Perhaps there is someone else that has a close similarity in both looks and the way he walks. Just a thought!

[thailandchilli]

Thumbs up for Dr Pornthip, looks like a typical loony scientist but proved her honesty, technical skills, knowledge and impartiality at the trial for the sake of real justice.

[Nigeone]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

Well let me try although I am not a defender of anyone. I just try to look at what is presented and use Common Sense.

1) Retracted Confession Obtained Under Torture?

What evidence has been presented by the Defense except from the word of mouth of an accused Murderer and Rapist who already confessed but now wants to change his mind? A fellow prisoner who testified (or at least I think he did) that he saw bruising on one of the accused but made no claims as to the accused telling him how he got those. Yet a doctor who first examined both accused shortly after their confessions claims he didn't see any. So did they obtain these bruises right after their interrogations or days after from some fellow inmates, who in most countries hate rapists in prison?

Even LIn's own testimony he recently stated he had a bag over his head but was also beaten, including to the side of his head. Yet a day or two after the confessions when the accused did a reenactment of the crime did anyone see a bruise on his face or anywhere else on his body? Or Wins? You have got to be a pretty good shot to hit a guy on the side of the head several times, when he has a bag over his head and is struggling, yet not hit the jaw or cheek bone once, causing bruising. Even hit on the side of the head can cause some bruising on the face.

Lin also testified he talked to Win on the telephone, which suggest Win was interrogated on the Main Land. Either way he was not in the same room as Lin. So what you have is 2 different people being interrogated in 2 different locations, involving 2 different sets of people, but both now claiming torture.

On the other hand you have a slew of police officers including a high ranking one, and Interpreter, regardless of his qualifications, who all sat through the entire interrogations claiming no torture was used. At no time did the accused tell the prison doctors, or even a fellow Migrant Worker how they got these bruises. So I won't go into whether they were tortured or not as none of us where their. I will simply ask a question.

Who do you think carries more weight in a court of law? The 2 Accused charged with murder and rape? Or a whole slew of police officials and interpreter who would have to perjury themselves to lie?

I will share my opinion on the other 2 points shortly as well. .

Just think now if the RTP had recorded and CCTV of the interviews etc we would not have to listen to your opinions. As international standards require them to do. The reenactment was a interesting occasion!! As it was clear that the B2 didn't have a clue what was happening and were coached in the proceedings. It must have been hard too to go through that with there helmets! on to protect them from the baying angry crowds. Actually wait a minute, not a murmur from the crowds,just a silent statement! And of course it wasn't possible to view the injuries! As the helmets conviently made it impossible to tell if they were any. And as a foot note. Who carries most weight in a court of law..Easy question and obvious answer. Anybody except the authorities,RTP, interrogator ,forensic and anyone else involved in this botched and incompetent and probably criminal case...don't need to come back to me I understand your opinions entirely thank you.

Oh and as a footnote. And will put this out there for anyone to argue against! What evidence has the prosecution produced,backed up by witnesses or other credible process, to indicate that the B2 are even remotely involved in this crime,in how many days now this case?. NONE !!

Edited September 13, 2015 by Nigeone

[GOLDBUGGY]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

[Aj Mick]

Well yes, it's not something that supports the theory of the two men being victims of a conspiracy; if that would be the case it would had been very easy for one of the conspirators to rub some samples from the defendants on the hoe (or other evidence provided for retesting) before handing it over, no?

It's not as if crazier things have been suggested to have happened regarding this case.

However it makes the excuse for not wanting to retest the DNA samples from the autopsy less believable, if they think they could be tampered with then the same standard would had been used for the other items, which the defense appears to hold as reliable.

If I'm not mistaken the next hearings will have the two defendants testifying; that would be interesting because there's something very unusual about this case that I haven't seen anyone noticing. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo are very much a mystery, besides being Burmese from Rakhine and that they worked in Koh Tao for a couple years there's practically nothing else to be known about them. I don't know if the police did a background investigation on them, and normally the press would be digging up the lives of the suspects, but in this case? Nothing.

Two simple boys, gumagon boys from Burma trying to esacpe the horrible dirt floor persecuted poverty they live in and trying to get a quid to help mummy and daddy.

Thats my take on it after having visited and stayed in Burma a few times.

I'm talking about their real lives, not an idealized notion of what or who they may be.

Oh AleG, your insight is so deep.

Now perhaps you could answer the simple questions that have been put to you.

[Nigeone]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

Who says whatever phone or phones found belonged to David. They haven't shown in court with back up phone records that any phone found belonged to him....Next point.....can't wait!

[thailandchilli]

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

So who's phone was it the investigators found at the crime scene? Reported at the trial by an RTP officer under oath but he would not confirm who it belonged to when asked by the defense? Now that's kinda strange don't you think. Now I think its one and the same, seeing as they also did not produce this phone that was found at the scene in court. Lies always catch up in the end

Edited September 13, 2015 by thailandchilli

[MrTee]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

Or someone planted the phone "there" and the police have lied about statements that may have been coerced?

There is zero Material Evidence connecting the B2 to the phone

Further its not even been established who the phone belonged to - conjecture built on conjecture is worthless.

Occam's Razor anyone?

[stephenterry]

What is clear to me that the key point in this case is the RTP's assertion that the sperm samples found in Hannah match the B2. If and when the defence can discredit it, the case will fall apart. As yet the prosecution has not provided substantiated and verifiable evidence to support this. It should be made crystal to them that providing a written report and their court testimony is NOT evidence. IT'S NOT EVIDENCE.