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

[loonodingle]

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.

Golden Rule in Life..

"Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover"

Some of the worlds Genius's don't look like it..

Stephen-Hawkings-Black-Hole-Only-Exists-in-His-Own-Life.jpg

Or Rapists and Murders either.

Very rare I agree with your thinking GB but here I do...

one day a rapist next day a student going to college for example.

or one day a murderer 1 hour later putti g his uniform on or running his bar. You never know do u..

Thanks for highlighting the depth of knowledge you have in this case

[Darkknight666]

Well, if I had to guess at why those two don't get it, my guess would be they're not from the U.S/U.K.... Because, in courts there (USA, anyway) the prosecution must provide all evidence the the defense at "discovery" so the defense knows what they'll need to.. You know, defend. The defense isn't under that obligation with all of their evidence as the burden of proof falls on the prosecutions shoulders. We've heard two days of testimony from the defense team and their damning piece of evidence hasn't come out... Why? My guess is they don't want to embarrass Thai authorities unless they're left no other option.

To make it really simple... Prosecution is responsible for proving guilt, defense is only responsible for creating doubt or exposing perjury.. The defense will only give what helps their case and that's no reason to view them as suspicious, that's how it usually is. On the flip side, Not entering the DNA "match" from Hannah is HIGHLY suspicious, This late into things it borders on being malicious.

[thailandchilli]

You gotta love those people who think referencing Hitler somehow helps their cause.

It seems to be rife in Thailand these days.

Yes and to think he was testifying in court as a leading prosecution witness. This is the caliber and credibility of their prime witnesses. Disturbing but hardly surprising

[Darkknight666]

"With blood on its handle"....... Hmm. It appears Jakkrapan was first on scene... Wonder if he's the man who uploaded crime scene photos to gore sites? The person who uploaded David and Hannah's goes by "Ms. Pink". Maybe Ms. Pink wears blonde wigs as well.

"Two British tourists were murdered on a beach on a Thai island, authorities said. The 24-year-old man and 23-year-old woman were found stripped naked and bloodied the morning after a beach party on Koh Tao, local police chief Jakkrapan Kaewkhao told NBC News. He said deep wounds to their heads and faces appeared to have been inflicted with a garden hoe, which was found with blood on its handle next to their clothes about 40 yards away. Kaewkhao said medical officials were investigating whether the woman was raped. Several tourists posted on social media the island was on "lockdown," with no one allowed to leave by ferry in the aftermath of the incident."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/two-british-tourists-murdered-hoe-thailands-koh-tao-cops-n203476

[Rykbanlor]

Local Police chief. Wow, he is young for a police chief, even on a wee outpost like Tao.

This is more and more like "The Departed".

WOnder if Mr Scorcese is looking for a new project?

[StealthEnergiser]

Furthermore at the end of his post, he kind of makes a plea "To all the friends and people i know on FB, do you i think I am that kind of <deleted> up guy that I would allow a crime like this to be covered up".

Yes, yes we do.

It's always the first thing a thief says as well "do you think I would steal from you?" Yes I do.

this is the translated version

[Darkknight666]

Even though Facebook translate is garbage, you can still read that the guy is talking about Burmese people. Who else "work hard but stupid"? The guy seems unstable, if I were a KT bad guy, I'd love ton have him in my "corner".

[fritzzz25]

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.

As I said before, it beggars belief that the police would just happen to pick two scapegoats that just happened to had found that phone on that night.

It also seems very, shall we say, odd that the people clamoring for the truth don't seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of that issue.

Yes that is odd AleG. But do you want to know what I find even odder than that? It is where did all those people go, and the Media, who were screaming for months for a "Fair and Transparent Trial'? Here is what I mean.

On one hand you have a High Ranking Police Officer who made an Official Request to the UK Police (I gather) to help identify the said David Miller's Mobile Phone. Had this phone not belonged to David then this would help the Defense. Had it belonged to David then of course it would have helped the Prosecution. But the reply they got was they were unable to supply official documentation on this as this involved a murder trail which carries the death penalty. Although a Witness testified he had verbal conformation on this subject.

On the other hand and for months we have heard that the Defense has damning evidence from the UK that will discredit the RTP DNA that was recently given to them from a Forensic Expert in the UK, who preformed an autopsy on Hannah. Hum??? Who this said person allegedly passed on these official documents and this information onto the Defense Team only.

But do we know what this evidence is? No!No! No! It is so secret that nobody in the court room knew what it was as they refused to disclose this. Not even the Prosecution so they would have a chance to debate it or the validity of those documents. Instead they passed it under the table for the judges to view alone.

All I know for sure is if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was the Prosecution who did that, and not the Defense, this whole blog would be buzzing with people complaining and calling Prosecution and Police every name under the sun. But now it is so quiet here and nobody even mentions that, except me right now.

Maybe that isn't so odd after all.

You told us you are not a lawyer, nor a judge, and it is apparent why....

In criminal trials, the prosecution goes first. They provide the court with the evidence being presented as their facts. The defence gets to go second. They get to dispute those "facts" and are there to pick apart the investigation.

Why would the defence have to provide their method of disputing the allegations leveled by the prosecution? That would be stupid of them.

In Canada (where you have purported to live in another post) it is called "disclosure". It came from a court case called R . v. Stinchcombe (you are on your own to search this one, I gave you the last search, which still by the way you haven't answered on) where it makes the prosecution provide ALL of the evidence they are going to introduce to the court in advance to the defence, in order that they be able to prepare to make a "full answer" for the accused. As you see, there was no such disclosure made to the defence team prior to the trial, as there is no apparent requirement to do so in Thailand.

Once again you have failed to educate yourself.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Further Discussion on Confessions since there in no more room to apply on my link.

I am not a Thai Lawyer or Judge so I can't debate Thai Law with certainty, but I can tell you this as this is what I know for sure.

The Prosecutor has spend days at this Trial having Witnesses on the Stand including a Senior Police Officer who sat in on the Interrogations, and Interpreter (qualified or not) testifying about the 2 Accused Confessions. To the point of even bringing in the Crime Reenactment Photos to show the court. The Defense spent their first day of the Trial with Lin on the Stand Testifying how he was forced into his Confession.

It seems to me that if there Confession was so meaningless, and don't count in the court, why would both sides go through so much trouble talking about it in Court?

The questioned I posed was who normally would have more weight in a Court of Law. An a Accused Rapist and Murdered who has already proved to the Court he has lied when he recanted his Confession (for whatever reason), or a slew of Officials including a High Ranking Police Officer, who all have no proven reason to lie and in doing so would Perjury themselves and open them up to further Prosecution?

You said you are not a lawyer but honestly tell me, do you think the confession should be accepted as relevant given the allegations of torture, the absence of legal representation during the interrogation, the unqualified translator, the confession in thai and not Burmese and the absence of recordings? Just one of these would make it unusable in the majority of courts.

And a real lawyer in this thread quoted the thai law saying the reconstitution of the crime can't be used in court after a confession has been recanted. So the tragically comical reconstitution where the two Burmese had to be told at each step what to do and where to be probably shouldn't even be mentioned.

In regards to the absence of legal representation I think it is pretty clear the 2 accused didn't have any shortly after there arrest or when they made their confession. But that is not the big game changer as people would have you believe.

Consider that it was never claimed by the Defense or the 2 Accused that they were refused a Lawyer. That they never made claim they were not read there rights to have a lawyer. You would think that something this important would have come out by now if they were refused. That they would bring this issue up in court.

What is known is that when a High Ranking Police Official was asked by the media why they did not have legal representation his reply was because they wanted to confess. Like I said I wasn't their so I don't know for sure, but this is what was said.

So the question remains. If you were arrested in your country and were read your rights (not that many of us would need that) but instead spilled the beans and confessed to this crime, could that not be used as evidence in your court of law?

Of course it could and would be as this is why they read you your rights. But then it still boils down to the Policeman and perhaps his partner, saying in court they read you your rights, even if they may not have. Isn't it?

Many people go on to defend themselves in court. Even in a murder trial like Ted Bundy did. So having a Lawyer present is not crucial on whether the confession can be held up in court or not.

[fireplay]

Gold bugs if you wanna do some interesting research jump on facebook and check out your stand up coppers who are testifying in trial.

[jaidam]

Of major concern to followers of this case is the whereabouts of "Maung Maung". This is the 3rd Burmese that confessed to the murder. His situation is worrying on so many levels. Why did he confess? He confessed, so why isn't he on remand with the B2? Official sources claim he has returned to Burma. None of this adds up at all. The only thing that is clear is that Maung Maung was tortured along with the B2. I do hope he is alive and well, not another nameless corpse somewhere and not still being detained in a black safe-house. Andy Hall may have further info on his wellbeing and whereabouts?

[GOLDBUGGY]

Further Discussion on Confessions since there in no more room to apply on my link.

I am not a Thai Lawyer or Judge so I can't debate Thai Law with certainty, but I can tell you this as this is what I know for sure.

The Prosecutor has spend days at this Trial having Witnesses on the Stand including a Senior Police Officer who sat in on the Interrogations, and Interpreter (qualified or not) testifying about the 2 Accused Confessions. To the point of even bringing in the Crime Reenactment Photos to show the court. The Defense spent their first day of the Trial with Lin on the Stand Testifying how he was forced into his Confession.

It seems to me that if there Confession was so meaningless, and don't count in the court, why would both sides go through so much trouble talking about it in Court?

The questioned I posed was who normally would have more weight in a Court of Law. An a Accused Rapist and Murdered who has already proved to the Court he has lied when he recanted his Confession (for whatever reason), or a slew of Officials including a High Ranking Police Officer, who all have no proven reason to lie and in doing so would Perjury themselves and open them up to further Prosecution?

It seems to me that if there Confession was so meaningless, and don't count in the court, why would both sides go through so much trouble talking about it in Court?

You are correct. Since according to Thai criminal law the confessions and reenactment are not valid evidence, it is shocking that the prosecution was allowed to present it. Are you as incensed as I am that it was? Even if the judges disregard it in their final verdict, it smacks of media manipulation to even suggest it is relevant.

No because I never claimed to know Thai Law like other here have claimed. I just see what I look at. For someone to say they can't do this, after they did, then this suggest to me they don't know much about Thai Law either.

I would sooner put my trust on Thai Judges, the Prosecution Lawyer, and the Defense Team Lawyers to let me know what is or is not allowed in a Thai Court. I never saw a word from anyone saying this was illegal. Have you?

[boomerangutang]

As I said before, it beggars belief that the police would just happen to pick two scapegoats that just happened to had found that phone on that night. It also seems very, shall we say, odd that the people clamoring for the truth don't seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of that issue.

I'll try to make it simple for you AleG. Police needed scapegoats. Headman didn't like how the initial investigation was fingering his son and brother. Headman is very rich (and has a less-than-sterling reputation) and willing to spend money however he can to get his way. Lots of pressure added by top cops and the PM to find scapegoats a.s.a.p. They find three (soon became two) that fit at the same time they let the prior two prime suspects go free on a less-than-flimsy alibi. Then all the 2nd police team's efforts went immediately toward finding as much dirt as possible on the scapegoats, while being forbidden from mentioning prior suspects. After heaping as much unfounded accusations on the B2 as they could think of, including a stolen phone and sunglasses, they do nothing for the ensuing seven months.

What we're seeing now is the falling apart of a flimsy house-of-cards frame-up attempt. I'm not sorry if you AleG don't like how the RTP and prosecution's concoctions are fizzing out like an Alka Seltzer in toilet water. The truth is slowly oozing out from under the ton of toxic offal. It's tough going up (for underfunded defense) against the full force of Thai officialdom, but stay tuned, there will be some very interesting revelations in the latter part of this month - unless the judges declare a mistrial.

[StealthEnergiser]

Furthermore at the end of his post, he kind of makes a plea "To all the friends and people i know on FB, do you i think I am that kind of <deleted> up guy that I would allow a crime like this to be covered up".

Yes, yes we do.

You are correct he is a DJ also

[JLCrab]

It appears that there is no provision in the Thai Criminal Procedure for a Judge to declare a mistrial and not offer a report on his/their findings as required under Section 182

The Criminal Procedure Code Section 176 In the trial of a case, if the accused pleads guilty to the charge, the Court may give judgement without taking any further evidence, provided that if the minimum punishment in the case where the accused pleads guilty to the charge is imprisonment from five years upwards or heavier, the Court must hear the witness for the prosecution until it is satisfied that the accused is guilty.

The Criminal Procedure Code Section 182 After the trial is over,a judgement or order shall be given in accordance with the merits of the case.

Edited September 14, 2015 by JLCrab

[thailandchilli]

It appears that there is no provision in the Thai Criminal Procedure for a Judge to declare a mistrial and not offer a report on his/their findings as required under Section 182

The Criminal Procedure Code Section 176 In the trial of a case, if the accused pleads guilty to the charge, the Court may give judgement without taking any further evidence, provided that if the minimum punishment in the case where the accused pleads guilty to the charge is imprisonment from five years upwards or heavier, the Court must hear the witness for the prosecution until it is satisfied that the accused is guilty.

The Criminal Procedure Code Section 182 After the trial is over,a judgement or order shall be given in accordance with the merits of the case.

I think a mistrial can be ruled but only retrospectively at the appeal court

"Chiranuch herself said that the mistrial ruling two weeks ago shows that the judiciary in Thailand can work on an impartial level, and that this “can support freedom of expression here” http://www.simonroughneen.com/asia/seasia/thailand/some-relief-for-thailands-freedom-of-speech-advocates-south-china-morning-post/

[RWA]

I am sure that many will not like my post but: what's the point to reply to trolling, baiting attention seekers?

Sure cannot put reason in them because their only target is to get attention, and make other posters nervous, maybe insult them and get suspended.

And also I feel they sure have all the interest top feel important to be the one to make the topic trashed and blocked.

So, let them tell their "ideas" and just write your ideas without replying or implying them. Simple as that.

I see that replying to them, often calls new trolls in the system, so (but that's just my opinion) I'd avoid.

To stay in topic, I am very glad of how the defense is scoring points (many own goals from the prosecution, but star scores from the first witness for the defense), though as seen as the whole system in Thailand is so corrupt and devious I won't feel satisfied till the Court will give their judgement.

Sadly you, and many of us, will not feel satisfied when the court gives it's judgement, even if the B2 are acquitted:

1. How was it ever allowed to get this far? At least we all know the answer to this now.

2. Without Andy Hall and social media the B2 would be toast already.

3. The true perps are free to do it again. And they will be more careful next time.

4. The RTP may have learned how to better cover up their incompetence/complicity.

5. Hannah and David are dead because the perps knew the system here would allow them to get away with it.

The British government really has a responsibility now. Ok, they can't intervene in the Thai "justice" system but they absolutely must warn visitors of the extreme risks that that system subjects them to. Maybe then a sliver of good will come from this.

[JLCrab]

It appears that there is no provision in the Thai Criminal Procedure for a Judge to declare a mistrial and not offer a report on his/their findings as required under Section 182

The Criminal Procedure Code Section 176 In the trial of a case, if the accused pleads guilty to the charge, the Court may give judgement without taking any further evidence, provided that if the minimum punishment in the case where the accused pleads guilty to the charge is imprisonment from five years upwards or heavier, the Court must hear the witness for the prosecution until it is satisfied that the accused is guilty.

The Criminal Procedure Code Section 182 After the trial is over,a judgement or order shall be given in accordance with the merits of the case.

I think a mistrial can be ruled but only retrospectively at the appeal court

"Chiranuch herself said that the mistrial ruling two weeks ago shows that the judiciary in Thailand can work on an impartial level, and that this “can support freedom of expression here” http://www.simonroughneen.com/asia/seasia/thailand/some-relief-for-thailands-freedom-of-speech-advocates-south-china-morning-post/

The current proceeding on Koh Samui is not an appeal and there TTBOMK appears to be no provision in the Thai Criminal Procedure for a Judge to summarily throw out a case once it has been accepted.

[StealthEnergiser]

How does a police Leuitinant not know better than to post what's he's posted to his own public Facebook? I can't believe some of crap he says on his page, wow. So TC, the Thai labs certificate is out of date? Some shocker there.

if you search this on google there is also some interesting info "police-co-operation-on-koh-tao-murders"

[bander]

It shows the world how bad the RTP are. But more importantly it shows the corruption that controls Thai society.

It shows the world how useless the RTP are, they have been helping the village chief and his mafia scumbags from day one.

[Darkknight666]

How does a police Leuitinant not know better than to post what's he's posted to his own public Facebook? I can't believe some of crap he says on his page, wow. So TC, the Thai labs certificate is out of date? Some shocker there.

if you search this on google there is also some interesting info "police-co-operation-on-koh-tao-murders"

Thanks for that, good read. I especially like the part where the Koh Phangan police chief follows the headman around while his family's being investigated.

[catsanddogs]

Of major concern to followers of this case is the whereabouts of "Maung Maung". This is the 3rd Burmese that confessed to the murder. His situation is worrying on so many levels. Why did he confess? He confessed, so why isn't he on remand with the B2? Official sources claim he has returned to Burma. None of this adds up at all. The only thing that is clear is that Maung Maung was tortured along with the B2. I do hope he is alive and well, not another nameless corpse somewhere and not still being detained in a black safe-house. Andy Hall may have further info on his wellbeing and whereabouts?

jaidam - Maung Maung didn't confess to anything. I have posted several times highlighting concern for his wellbeing also and like you, really hope Andy Hall has information of his well being and whereabouts. Surely if he has not been seen for some time this news would have been put in the public domain by his family?

[longtom]

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.

As I said before, it beggars belief that the police would just happen to pick two scapegoats that just happened to had found that phone on that night.

It also seems very, shall we say, odd that the people clamoring for the truth don't seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of that issue.

Yes that is odd AleG. But do you want to know what I find even odder than that? It is where did all those people go, and the Media, who were screaming for months for a "Fair and Transparent Trial'? Here is what I mean.

On one hand you have a High Ranking Police Officer who made an Official Request to the UK Police (I gather) to help identify the said David Miller's Mobile Phone. Had this phone not belonged to David then this would help the Defense. Had it belonged to David then of course it would have helped the Prosecution. But the reply they got was they were unable to supply official documentation on this as this involved a murder trail which carries the death penalty. Although a Witness testified he had verbal conformation on this subject.

On the other hand and for months we have heard that the Defense has damning evidence from the UK that will discredit the RTP DNA that was recently given to them from a Forensic Expert in the UK, who preformed an autopsy on Hannah. Hum??? Who this said person allegedly passed on these official documents and this information onto the Defense Team only.

But do we know what this evidence is? No!No! No! It is so secret that nobody in the court room knew what it was as they refused to disclose this. Not even the Prosecution so they would have a chance to debate it or the validity of those documents. Instead they passed it under the table for the judges to view alone.

All I know for sure is if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was the Prosecution who did that, and not the Defense, this whole blog would be buzzing with people complaining and calling Prosecution and Police every name under the sun. But now it is so quiet here and nobody even mentions that, except me right now.

Maybe that isn't so odd after all.

You told us you are not a lawyer, nor a judge, and it is apparent why....

In criminal trials, the prosecution goes first. They provide the court with the evidence being presented as their facts. The defence gets to go second. They get to dispute those "facts" and are there to pick apart the investigation.

Why would the defence have to provide their method of disputing the allegations leveled by the prosecution? That would be stupid of them.

In Canada (where you have purported to live in another post) it is called "disclosure". It came from a court case called R . v. Stinchcombe (you are on your own to search this one, I gave you the last search, which still by the way you haven't answered on) where it makes the prosecution provide ALL of the evidence they are going to introduce to the court in advance to the defence, in order that they be able to prepare to make a "full answer" for the accused. As you see, there was no such disclosure made to the defence team prior to the trial, as there is no apparent requirement to do so in Thailand.

Once again you have failed to educate yourself.

You can be educated as much as you want about court procedures in other countries, fact is this trial takes place in Thailand, .

Most of these arguments about 'chain of custody', evidence to be included/dismissed, back home this or that would happen etc. wont even enter the judge's mind.

There is not one murder case here (foreigners or Thais or Burmese or whoever was 'murdered') where there was a proper CSI being done, let alone the further processing by police.

The one point that really disturbs me about this case is the hundreds of pages of comments on this case, but when a Thai or Burmese is killed we get maybe 1 or 2 pages of comments. Looks like for most people here the life of a foreigner is worth so much more then the life of a local.

I would have to say a few more things but I'm sure to get enough flames about the above already, so ... .

[lucaswallachia]

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.

Ms Pontip's expertise is appreciated, and it was heartening to see the photo of her and AH standing alongside the scapegoats' mothers and offering support. However, I can't help but think Ms Pontip could have done a bit more. She mentioned findings of the two mystery mens' DNA found on the murder weapon, but did she demand there be a search for who those men are? OK, this is Thailand, so 50% of most conversations are inference (things not plainly stated, but instead inferred). Did Ms Pontip mention DNA related to that found on Hannah or on any of the clothing/items found in/around the crime scene? On second thought, the court put a tight clamp on what could or could not be tested. Plus RTP didn't expend any calories looking for clothes/items outside the crime scene. Indeed, RTP didn't even care about where Hannah's skirt or blouse may have gone. So, I guess if items don't exist, then they can't tested, eh? ....oh, and why David's clothing at the crime scene looked newly laundered, ....not even any blood splatter, despite blood all over the sand. ....and none of the blood on the sand was tested. The mind reels at how the investigation was so profoundly inept.

Because maybe David wasn't wearing his clothes when he was attacked.

[canuckamuck]

Investigating police work at the club as DJ's?

Wow, they should know this case intimately then.

Good thing that the owners of the club have been cleared. Otherwise there may have been a conflict of interest.

[lucaswallachia]

You can be educated as much as you want about court procedures in other countries, fact is this trial takes place in Thailand, .

Most of these arguments about 'chain of custody', evidence to be included/dismissed, back home this or that would happen etc. wont even enter the judge's mind.

There is not one murder case here (foreigners or Thais or Burmese or whoever was 'murdered') where there was a proper CSI being done, let alone the further processing by police.

The one point that really disturbs me about this case is the hundreds of pages of comments on this case, but when a Thai or Burmese is killed we get maybe 1 or 2 pages of comments. Looks like for most people here the life of a foreigner is worth so much more then the life of a local.

I would have to say a few more things but I'm sure to get enough flames about the above already, so ... .

Well the reason this case has become such a topic of discussion is because the police immediately put the crime scene photos on the internet and so naturally people are going to speculate themselves what happened, especially because of the way the police have handled the case, it happens with any case that gets intense media coverage i.e. OJ Simpson, Zimmeran Trial etc.

[catsanddogs]

Investigating police work at the club as DJ's?

Wow, they should know this case intimately then.

Good thing that the owners of the club have been cleared. Otherwise there may have been a conflict of interest.

Maybe Jakkrapan kaewkhao was working as a DJ wearing his blonde wig on the evening of the 14th September last year?

It's a year today since Hannah and David had their last full days of their lives. A terrible day for their families and friends. Feeling very sad for them all mixed in with anger that their friends - as far as can be seen - have done nothing to shed any light on the circumstances surrounding their deaths and the alleged altercation. Seems we live in an Everyman for Himself dominated world unfortunately.

[phuketandsee]

Investigating police work at the club as DJ's?

Wow, they should know this case intimately then.

Good thing that the owners of the club have been cleared. Otherwise there may have been a conflict of interest.

Maybe Jakkrapan kaewkhao was working as a DJ wearing his blonde wig on the evening of the 14th September last year?

It's a year today since Hannah and David had their last full days of their lives. A terrible day for their families and friends. Feeling very sad for them all mixed in with anger that their friends - as far as can be seen - have done nothing to shed any light on the circumstances surrounding their deaths and the alleged altercation. Seems we live in an Everyman for Himself dominated world unfortunately.

Well said C&D

[Madaussie]

Investigating police work at the club as DJ's?

Wow, they should know this case intimately then.

Good thing that the owners of the club have been cleared. Otherwise there may have been a conflict of interest.

Maybe Jakkrapan kaewkhao was working as a DJ wearing his blonde wig on the evening of the 14th September last year?

It's a year today since Hannah and David had their last full days of their lives. A terrible day for their families and friends. Feeling very sad for them all mixed in with anger that their friends - as far as can be seen - have done nothing to shed any light on the circumstances surrounding their deaths and the alleged altercation. Seems we live in an Everyman for Himself dominated world unfortunately.

Hold on a mo, WE don't know what stuff is being held in the wings until the Thai court comes to it's conclusion........Powder (still) dry. Just wait, see what transpires..

Exactly... The Lead Lawyer Khun Nakhon has claimed he has enough information/evidence to prove his clients case.

The next court days are filled with expert witness's that specialise on DNA results and Forensic crime scene analysis. The UK guy has already been on Koh Tao as part of his investigations.

So the Significant Discrepancies will all filter out as the case proceeds. Pornthip was the warm up act IMHO. Bit like eating your sunday roast, you save the best bits until last.

[MrTee]

What he also said is that he talked to them and they verbally verified it was David Miller's Mobile Phone even if they would not give written documentation to that effect. No! That is not solid evidence! But it is still evidence none the less. A sworn statement in court by and Eye Witness, such as the case with this High Ranking Police Officer, is in fact considered evidence until proven otherwise. Like it or not!

"That is not solid evidence! But it is still evidence none the less"

No, its hearsay based on conjecture.. worthless..