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

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

@PhaethonTweets you would be amazed how many court documents from prosecution/police crossed out and corrected text, even main DNA charts

[catsanddogs]

Police are also trying to trace a mystery western woman seen on CCTV running along the main street in the early hours on the night of the murders

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/thailand-beach-murders-hannah-witheridge-4297320

Any luck yet RTP a year on?

[catsanddogs]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

@PhaethonTweets you would be amazed how many court documents from prosecution/police crossed out and corrected text, even main DNA charts

Not really.

[Gweiloman]

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?

I decided to give this a "like" as it had me rolling on the floor in stitches and god knows I needed a laugh today, hahahahaha.

[Rykbanlor]

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?

I decided to give this a "like" as it had me rolling on the floor in stitches and god knows I needed a laugh today, hahahahaha.

If there was a little boardroom for the TV RTP defence, and they had little meetings about whose turn it was to defend on the forum each day, I could imagine his hand up at the back, and the others shaking their heads going, "No, not you", and then one day everyones busy so he gets let loose by himself.

The accused has proven himself a liar by recanting the confession he made = being tortured into confessing makes him a liar.

I laughed till the tears rolled down my legs.

Don't mean to make jokes in amidst such a serious business, but seriously, if it's descended into nonsense posts like the above, the only other option is crying.

[rockingrobin]

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?

I decided to give this a "like" as it had me rolling on the floor in stitches and god knows I needed a laugh today, hahahahaha.

' 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? '

or the RTP who in court denied having meeting with pathologist about the blond hair untill the defense provided documents to counter this , and then he refused to disclose the content of the meeting

[boomerangutang]

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.

Very soon after the crime, RTP investigators (remember the 1st team, who were actually trying to find the killers), opined that David's shorts could have been pulled off after he was killed. However, if you believe the RTP scenario painted by the 2nd police team, you may believe that David was nude and having sex with Hannah (was David's DNA found in/on Hannah? We don't know). It's yet another of the 467 things Thai forensics didn't look for. More reasonable scenario, and one backed by some evidence, is: David showed up while looking for Hannah. Being a courageous and valiant dude, he went to her aid. He's not going to take off his clothes to get ready to fight.

Considering David was clothed while fighting, his clothes would have lots of his blood, and some DNA evidence of his attackers. The attackers, even in their drugged state, would know about bloody clothing being incriminating. So, after killing him, it's plausible they took off his clothes and frantically laundered them. As for Hannah's clothes, the killers probably burned, buried or trashed them.

Even if David's clothes were already off and placed nearby (according to RTP scenario) they would have blood splatter on them (the murders were v. bloody), and probably DNA evidence of others. Either way, the clothes appeared laundered. Did RTP check for dampness (fresh or salt water) and/or detergent/soap? Answer: probably not, similar to how they missed hundreds of other potential clues.

[boomerangutang]

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.

You're partially right. People are clannish and naturally going to relate to others who they resemble. When USAF mistakenly bombed a building in Belgrade and killed two Chinese, the Chinese gov't, press corps and people went ballistic in their condemnation. Was there a Chinese uproar when Europeans or Americans or Canadians or Australians were killed in the same little war? No. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way humans are.

A big additional reason why there's such sustained concern about this KT case, is most of us are hoping there may be a sea-change in the way RTP does its business. Here is a partial list of how RTP can improve their crime scene investigations:

>>> cordon off crime scene professionally

>>> take and process evidence professionally

>>> look far and wide for clues, including following leads

>>> don't frame anyone

>>> don't shield anyone from scrutiny.

>>> allow investigators who are not RTP

>>> Learn now to process DNA professionally and independent of RTP and other special interests.

>>> Don't be cowed by VIP's if they deny access to evidence or threaten.

>>> Don't let important potential witnesses run off in the sunset

>>> Don't allow special interests to bully anyone.

>>> try try try to be objective (that's probably the toughest item in the list). A Thai can't be objective any more than he/she can stop believing in ghosts.

[boomerangutang]

jk6.jpg

I don't know if the pics show up in the post above, but that's blond hair fersure - no matter that it's not natural. Now, about the mystery blond hair found in Hannah's hand.... oh yea, almost forgot, RTP conveniently lost it.

[BritTim]

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.

Very soon after the crime, RTP investigators (remember the 1st team, who were actually trying to find the killers), opined that David's shorts could have been pulled off after he was killed. However, if you believe the RTP scenario painted by the 2nd police team, you may believe that David was nude and having sex with Hannah (was David's DNA found in/on Hannah? We don't know). It's yet another of the 467 things Thai forensics didn't look for. More reasonable scenario, and one backed by some evidence, is: David showed up while looking for Hannah. Being a courageous and valiant dude, he went to her aid. He's not going to take off his clothes to get ready to fight.

Considering David was clothed while fighting, his clothes would have lots of his blood, and some DNA evidence of his attackers. The attackers, even in their drugged state, would know about bloody clothing being incriminating. So, after killing him, it's plausible they took off his clothes and frantically laundered them. As for Hannah's clothes, the killers probably burned, buried or trashed them.

Even if David's clothes were already off and placed nearby (according to RTP scenario) they would have blood splatter on them (the murders were v. bloody), and probably DNA evidence of others. Either way, the clothes appeared laundered. Did RTP check for dampness (fresh or salt water) and/or detergent/soap? Answer: probably not, similar to how they missed hundreds of other potential clues.

On David's clothes, my guess is they rinsed them in the sea to remove obvious evidence. They relied on being able to prevent proper forensic testing.

On Hannah's clothes (excluding her underwear) the situation is clearer. She was still wearing her top and skirt when found. Her clothes were disposed of (presumably by the local police) later.

[rockingrobin]

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.

Very soon after the crime, RTP investigators (remember the 1st team, who were actually trying to find the killers), opined that David's shorts could have been pulled off after he was killed. However, if you believe the RTP scenario painted by the 2nd police team, you may believe that David was nude and having sex with Hannah (was David's DNA found in/on Hannah? We don't know). It's yet another of the 467 things Thai forensics didn't look for. More reasonable scenario, and one backed by some evidence, is: David showed up while looking for Hannah. Being a courageous and valiant dude, he went to her aid. He's not going to take off his clothes to get ready to fight.

Considering David was clothed while fighting, his clothes would have lots of his blood, and some DNA evidence of his attackers. The attackers, even in their drugged state, would know about bloody clothing being incriminating. So, after killing him, it's plausible they took off his clothes and frantically laundered them. As for Hannah's clothes, the killers probably burned, buried or trashed them.

Even if David's clothes were already off and placed nearby (according to RTP scenario) they would have blood splatter on them (the murders were v. bloody), and probably DNA evidence of others. Either way, the clothes appeared laundered. Did RTP check for dampness (fresh or salt water) and/or detergent/soap? Answer: probably not, similar to how they missed hundreds of other potential clues.

Boomer

With regard Dr Pornthip , I understand many aspects of the forensics were discussed in court , however I cannot state my source on this forum

[Aj Mick]

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.

Very soon after the crime, RTP investigators (remember the 1st team, who were actually trying to find the killers), opined that David's shorts could have been pulled off after he was killed. However, if you believe the RTP scenario painted by the 2nd police team, you may believe that David was nude and having sex with Hannah (was David's DNA found in/on Hannah? We don't know). It's yet another of the 467 things Thai forensics didn't look for. More reasonable scenario, and one backed by some evidence, is: David showed up while looking for Hannah. Being a courageous and valiant dude, he went to her aid. He's not going to take off his clothes to get ready to fight.

Considering David was clothed while fighting, his clothes would have lots of his blood, and some DNA evidence of his attackers. The attackers, even in their drugged state, would know about bloody clothing being incriminating. So, after killing him, it's plausible they took off his clothes and frantically laundered them. As for Hannah's clothes, the killers probably burned, buried or trashed them.

Even if David's clothes were already off and placed nearby (according to RTP scenario) they would have blood splatter on them (the murders were v. bloody), and probably DNA evidence of others. Either way, the clothes appeared laundered. Did RTP check for dampness (fresh or salt water) and/or detergent/soap? Answer: probably not, similar to how they missed hundreds of other potential clues.

On David's clothes, my guess is they rinsed them in the sea to remove obvious evidence. They relied on being able to prevent proper forensic testing.

On Hannah's clothes (excluding her underwear) the situation is clearer. She was still wearing her top and skirt when found. Her clothes were disposed of (presumably by the local police) later.

Now, why would the local police want to dispose of Hannah's clothes?

[BritTim]

On David's clothes, my guess is they rinsed them in the sea to remove obvious evidence. They relied on being able to prevent proper forensic testing.

On Hannah's clothes (excluding her underwear) the situation is clearer. She was still wearing her top and skirt when found. Her clothes were disposed of (presumably by the local police) later.

Now, why would the local police want to dispose of Hannah's clothes?

Occam's razor suggests they did not want anyone doing forensic testing on them as a lack of the Burmese kids' DNA and presence of other DNA would be even more difficult to explain away than the same on the alleged murder weapon. If asked, the police spokesman will probably tell you that they were not considered relevant.

[boomerangutang]

Very soon after the crime, RTP investigators (remember the 1st team, who were actually trying to find the killers), opined that David's shorts could have been pulled off after he was killed. However, if you believe the RTP scenario painted by the 2nd police team, you may believe that David was nude and having sex with Hannah (was David's DNA found in/on Hannah? We don't know). It's yet another of the 467 things Thai forensics didn't look for. More reasonable scenario, and one backed by some evidence, is: David showed up while looking for Hannah. Being a courageous and valiant dude, he went to her aid. He's not going to take off his clothes to get ready to fight.

Considering David was clothed while fighting, his clothes would have lots of his blood, and some DNA evidence of his attackers. The attackers, even in their drugged state, would know about bloody clothing being incriminating. So, after killing him, it's plausible they took off his clothes and frantically laundered them. As for Hannah's clothes, the killers probably burned, buried or trashed them.

Even if David's clothes were already off and placed nearby (according to RTP scenario) they would have blood splatter on them (the murders were v. bloody), and probably DNA evidence of others. Either way, the clothes appeared laundered. Did RTP check for dampness (fresh or salt water) and/or detergent/soap? Answer: probably not, similar to how they missed hundreds of other potential clues.

On David's clothes, my guess is they rinsed them in the sea to remove obvious evidence. They relied on being able to prevent proper forensic testing.

On Hannah's clothes (excluding her underwear) the situation is clearer. She was still wearing her top and skirt when found. Her clothes were disposed of (presumably by the local police) later.

Now, why would the local police want to dispose of Hannah's clothes?

Answer: for the same reason they disposed of CCTV, the hair, and other evidence: to continue their agenda.

I have intentionally not looked at the forensic photos of Hannah. My understanding was her skirt and blouse not longer existed or were lost. I didn't know if it was among items originally found at the crime scene. I'd seen photo of her panties. Regardless, any of her clothing, other than maybe shoes, would almost certainly harbor traces of her attackers. It's yet more proof of a screwed up non-investigation (as if any were needed) if her clothing was not meticulously scrutinized and retained. Even 6 year olds could tell you that much.

[stephenterry]

Probably the main perp told them to dispose of them.

[stephenterry]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

[JLCrab]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

It has already been established by defense testimony 02 SEP 2015 that there was a clothes thief on the loose that night.

Edited September 14, 2015 by JLCrab

[mcm991]

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.

Here you go GB..... probably not stuff you read every day ... but give it a go.

There are a few important things about rights to legal councel and confessions etc.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Criminal_Procedure_Code_of_Thailand/Provisions

§ 83^[50]

In conducting an arrest, the official or private citizen shall enlighten the arrestee that he shall be under arrest, and order him to make his presence at the local office of inquiry together with the person conducting the arrest, save where the arrestee may be brought to the office of the responsible inquirer at that very time. In case of necessity, the arrestee may be apprehended.

Where the arrest is conducted by the official, such official shall inform the arrestee of the charge and, if any, produce the warrant of arrest to the arrestee. The arrestee shall then be enlightened that he is entitled to remain silent and his statement may be used as evidence in a trial, and that the he is also entitled to meet with and take advice of a counsel or a person to become his counsel. If the arrestee wishes to inform his relative or a person in whom he reposes of the fact that he is under arrest, and such information can be made facilely, and it would not obstruct the arrest or restraint of the arrestee or endanger any person, the official shall allow the arrestee to fulfill his wish as suitable to the circumstances. In this respect, the official shall make an arrest note.

Where the arrestee does or is likely to resist the arrest, or does or attempts to abscond, the person conducting the arrest may undertake any measures for prevention as far as suitable to the circumstances of the event.

(Table of contents)

§ 84^[51]

The official or private citizen conducting the arrest shall without hesitation bring the arrestee to the local office of inquiry pursuant to section 83 where the arrestee shall be delivered to an administrative or police official attached to such office. The following actions shall then be taken:

(1) In case of the official’s arrest, the official conducting the arrest shall inform the arrestee of the allegation and the essential facts of the offence alleged. If any, the warrant of arrest shall be produced and read to the arrestee. Also, a copied arrest note shall be given to the arrestee.

(2) In case of the citizen’s arrest, the administrative or police official receiving the arrestee shall make a note of the name, profession and residence of the person conducting the arrest, as well as the information and circumstances as to the arrest, with the signature of the person conducting the arrest affixed. The arrestee shall, then, be informed of the allegation and the essential facts of the offence alleged, and the fact that he is entitled to remain silent and his statement may be used as evidence in a trial.

At the earliest occasion from the time the arrestee appears at the office of inquiry under paragraph 1, the administrative or police official receiving the arrestee shall, upon having complied with paragraph 1, enlighten the arrestee on the rights set forth in section 7/1, and allow him to contact with his relative or a person in whom he reposes, so that he would inform such person about the fact that he is under arrest and the place of his restraint. If the arrestee requests the administrative or police official to make such information on his behalf, this request must be fulfilled without delay and be noted down by the administrative or police official. In this respect, no costs may be demanded from the arrestee.

In case of necessity, the official or private citizen conducting the arrest may have the arrestee medically aided prior to bringing him to the responsible official under this section.

Any statement given by the arrestee to the official conducting the arrest, or to the administrative or police official in the course of the arrest or receipt of the arrestee, shall be excluded from evidence if it be an admission of guilt regarding the offence alleged. If the statement is not the said admission, it may be adduced as evidence for proving the guilt of the arrestee only when the rights under paragraph 1 or section 83, paragraph 2, whichever applies, have been informed to the arrestee.

(Table of contents)

[catsanddogs]

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.

Very soon after the crime, RTP investigators (remember the 1st team, who were actually trying to find the killers), opined that David's shorts could have been pulled off after he was killed. However, if you believe the RTP scenario painted by the 2nd police team, you may believe that David was nude and having sex with Hannah (was David's DNA found in/on Hannah? We don't know). It's yet another of the 467 things Thai forensics didn't look for. More reasonable scenario, and one backed by some evidence, is: David showed up while looking for Hannah. Being a courageous and valiant dude, he went to her aid. He's not going to take off his clothes to get ready to fight.

Considering David was clothed while fighting, his clothes would have lots of his blood, and some DNA evidence of his attackers. The attackers, even in their drugged state, would know about bloody clothing being incriminating. So, after killing him, it's plausible they took off his clothes and frantically laundered them. As for Hannah's clothes, the killers probably burned, buried or trashed them.

Even if David's clothes were already off and placed nearby (according to RTP scenario) they would have blood splatter on them (the murders were v. bloody), and probably DNA evidence of others. Either way, the clothes appeared laundered. Did RTP check for dampness (fresh or salt water) and/or detergent/soap? Answer: probably not, similar to how they missed hundreds of other potential clues.

On David's clothes, my guess is they rinsed them in the sea to remove obvious evidence. They relied on being able to prevent proper forensic testing.

On Hannah's clothes (excluding her underwear) the situation is clearer. She was still wearing her top and skirt when found. Her clothes were disposed of (presumably by the local police) later.

Another possibility is that the entire fight/struggle with David took place in the water. If that had happened then the blood would not have had a chance to stain his clothes. The murderer/s would then have simply been able to wring them out in the sea and scatter them around to dry on the beach (as they were photographed by someone early on - big thank you to that anonymous person!). This scenario would fit it with the autopsy findings - death by drowning. He still had one sock on though - maybe the killers were disturbed when they stripped him. Unlikely that his clothes got ripped off in a fight in the sea because there seems to be no damage to them from the photos and there have been no reports to this end.

[Nigeone]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

It has already been established by defense testimony that there was a clothes thief on the loose that night.

I've heard it all now...so the so called clothes thief took the clothes off the murdered Hannah!! I suppose the same 'thief' also decided to collect the scattered clothes and check them out to see if they wanted them before leaving them in a nice pile for future perusal. Really ! Oh but wait, the first persons to find the bodies and report allegedly , maybe they took them, or maybe,just maybe the police and there mates decided that after such a gruesome murder in which Hannah had her clothes on ,might incriminate there mates, or even them !! Which do I believe ,let's see I better take my time as its a difficult decision ! NOT !!

[rockingrobin]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

It has already been established by defense testimony 02 SEP 2015 that there was a clothes thief on the loose that night.

Hannah's clothes were in the custody of the RTP

[fab99]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

I agree with that, let's see what the RTP defenders will say about that to try to spin it... They probably will dismiss that as irrelevant as they did with the numerous other discrepancies in this so called investigation.

[catsanddogs]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

It has already been established by defense testimony 02 SEP 2015 that there was a clothes thief on the loose that night.

Don't the police have a legal obligation to return all belongings back to the next of kin following a death? So even if the Royal Trash Police thought the clothes were of no use in the investigation (yea right) then surely they should have been respectfully returned to her family?

[Nigeone]

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.

Very soon after the crime, RTP investigators (remember the 1st team, who were actually trying to find the killers), opined that David's shorts could have been pulled off after he was killed. However, if you believe the RTP scenario painted by the 2nd police team, you may believe that David was nude and having sex with Hannah (was David's DNA found in/on Hannah? We don't know). It's yet another of the 467 things Thai forensics didn't look for. More reasonable scenario, and one backed by some evidence, is: David showed up while looking for Hannah. Being a courageous and valiant dude, he went to her aid. He's not going to take off his clothes to get ready to fight.

Considering David was clothed while fighting, his clothes would have lots of his blood, and some DNA evidence of his attackers. The attackers, even in their drugged state, would know about bloody clothing being incriminating. So, after killing him, it's plausible they took off his clothes and frantically laundered them. As for Hannah's clothes, the killers probably burned, buried or trashed them.

Even if David's clothes were already off and placed nearby (according to RTP scenario) they would have blood splatter on them (the murders were v. bloody), and probably DNA evidence of others. Either way, the clothes appeared laundered. Did RTP check for dampness (fresh or salt water) and/or detergent/soap? Answer: probably not, similar to how they missed hundreds of other potential clues.

On David's clothes, my guess is they rinsed them in the sea to remove obvious evidence. They relied on being able to prevent proper forensic testing.

On Hannah's clothes (excluding her underwear) the situation is clearer. She was still wearing her top and skirt when found. Her clothes were disposed of (presumably by the local police) later.

Another possibility is that the entire fight/struggle with David took place in the water. If that had happened then the blood would not have had a chance to stain his clothes. The murderer/s would then have simply been able to wring them out in the sea and scatter them around to dry on the beach (as they were photographed by someone early on - big thank you to that anonymous person!). This scenario would fit it with the autopsy findings - death by drowning. He still had one sock on though - maybe the killers were disturbed when they stripped him. Unlikely that his clothes got ripped off in a fight in the sea because there seems to be no damage to them from the photos and there have been no reports to this end.

Hasn't Loon said that the latest on forensic that's going to come out is possibly proof that David didn't die from drowning?

[tingtongfarang]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

It has already been established by defense testimony 02 SEP 2015 that there was a clothes thief on the loose that night.

[JLCrab]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

It has already been established by defense testimony that there was a clothes thief on the loose that night.

I've heard it all now...so the so called clothes thief took the clothes off the murdered Hannah!! I suppose the same 'thief' also decided to collect the scattered clothes and check them out to see if they wanted them before leaving them in a nice pile for future perusal. Really ! Oh but wait, the first persons to find the bodies and report allegedly , maybe they took them, or maybe,just maybe the police and there mates decided that after such a gruesome murder in which Hannah had her clothes on ,might incriminate there mates, or even them !! Which do I believe ,let's see I better take my time as its a difficult decision ! NOT !!

No you haven't heard it all but thanks anyway. I guess there must've been 2 clothes thieves out that night. Or maybe this guy:

http://www.phuketgazette.net/weird/Khon-Kaen-crazy-nicking-knickers/11856

[Aj Mick]

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 do seem to be rather a naive, trusting soul when it comes to the RTP, Gold Buggy. I hope you never have to have dealings with them. Even the Thai people regard them as the most inept and corrupt of Thai officialdom. I avoid them…… Like many locals, I don't even bother stopping to exchange pleasantries when they wave at me from the side of the road.

The judiciary, on the other hand, while they may not all be paragons of competence and virtue, by and large they are among the more respected of Thai institutions. I have associated with a few socially, and professionally (my profession, not theirs, though sometimes on their turf; I have often been right into their chambers), and I have been quite impressed with many (though not all). They are working under an antiquated system, and have a heavy workload, of which criminal cases are only a part.

In this Koh Tao murders case they will be obliged to hear out both the prosecution and the defence before passing judgment. Calling a mistrial is not an option, as far as I can tell. As long as there are good judges hearing the case, and they are not interfered with, and leaned on, or tempted to, come up with the verdict certain of the powers that be and other powerful folk would like to hear, I feel there is at least a reasonable chance that they will do a proper job of judging this case…… as they did in the Phuketwan case earlier this month.

You, GOLDBUGGY, AleG and a few other seem to be hellbent on obscuring the truth, in apparent support of the RTP, for whatever reason. I just hope the judges, like so many others, see through the subterfuge.

[catsanddogs]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

It has already been established by defense testimony that there was a clothes thief on the loose that night.

I've heard it all now...so the so called clothes thief took the clothes off the murdered Hannah!! I suppose the same 'thief' also decided to collect the scattered clothes and check them out to see if they wanted them before leaving them in a nice pile for future perusal. Really ! Oh but wait, the first persons to find the bodies and report allegedly , maybe they took them, or maybe,just maybe the police and there mates decided that after such a gruesome murder in which Hannah had her clothes on ,might incriminate there mates, or even them !! Which do I believe ,let's see I better take my time as its a difficult decision ! NOT !!

If I understand it correctly (have not seen pictures) Hannah had her top on when she was found murdered. 'Partially clothed' as the press reports read. The clothes were disposed of sometime after the police arrived obviously.

[thailandchilli]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

It has already been established by defense testimony that there was a clothes thief on the loose that night.

I've heard it all now...so the so called clothes thief took the clothes off the murdered Hannah!! I suppose the same 'thief' also decided to collect the scattered clothes and check them out to see if they wanted them before leaving them in a nice pile for future perusal. Really ! Oh but wait, the first persons to find the bodies and report allegedly , maybe they took them, or maybe,just maybe the police and there mates decided that after such a gruesome murder in which Hannah had her clothes on ,might incriminate there mates, or even them !! Which do I believe ,let's see I better take my time as its a difficult decision ! NOT !!

If I understand it correctly (have not seen pictures) Hannah had her top on when she was found murdered. 'Partially clothed' as the press reports read. The clothes were disposed of sometime after the police arrived obviously.

Yes she had her top and skirt on, her body was then wrapped, frozen and sent directly for the autopsy, the clothes will have been removed there and so the pathologist would be the man responsible for the whereabouts from that point onwards or at least have written records where they are now

Edited September 14, 2015 by thailandchilli

[JLCrab]

The absence of Hannah clothes is absolute proof that the rtp fabricated this case. Deliberate removal of key evidence is a criminal offence. I'm amazed the defence hasn't thrown the book at the Rtp.

It has already been established by defense testimony that there was a clothes thief on the loose that night.

I've heard it all now...so the so called clothes thief took the clothes off the murdered Hannah!! I suppose the same 'thief' also decided to collect the scattered clothes and check them out to see if they wanted them before leaving them in a nice pile for future perusal. Really ! Oh but wait, the first persons to find the bodies and report allegedly , maybe they took them, or maybe,just maybe the police and there mates decided that after such a gruesome murder in which Hannah had her clothes on ,might incriminate there mates, or even them !! Which do I believe ,let's see I better take my time as its a difficult decision ! NOT !!

If I understand it correctly (have not seen pictures) Hannah had her top on when she was found murdered. 'Partially clothed' as the press reports read. The clothes were disposed of sometime after the police arrived obviously.

So when the B2's clothes disappear it can only be because someone took them but when other clothes disappear that same evening it can only be because of duplicitous action on the part of the RTP and other interested parties. OK