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

[thailandchilli]

I am not to sure it looks a bit big for towel but you may be right , i was thinking possibly a blanket to carry a body or bodies in but we will never as it's another item that has fell out of the shopping trolley.

Maybe there are some pics somewhere of inside Ocean View rooms that would highlight if they use blankets on the beds?

Yes your probably right they kept towels there the same that was on Hannah I saw a photo on csila.

I think the green towel came from "In Touch" it was shown on another site on their trip advisor photos that they previously used green towels, and we know that Mon was first on the scene right after the cleaner and before the RTP arrived. Islandlover has more info on this than me but she's on holiday at the moment, not a TV holiday a real holiday

[StealthEnergiser]

I am not to sure it looks a bit big for towel but you may be right , i was thinking possibly a blanket to carry a body or bodies in but we will never as it's another item that has fell out of the shopping trolley.

Maybe there are some pics somewhere of inside Ocean View rooms that would highlight if they use blankets on the beds?

Yes your probably right they kept towels there the same that was on Hannah I saw a photo on csila.

I think the green towel came from "In Touch" it was shown on another site on their trip advisor photos that they previously used green towels, and we know that Mon was first on the scene right after the cleaner and before the RTP arrived. Islandlover has more info on this than me but she's on holiday at the moment, not a TV holiday a real holiday

Thats right I should have checked it was In Touch .

[thailandchilli]

The absence of Hannah's clothes on the official evidence list means only one thing to me. The perpetrators DNA were on them. Logically it's not the b2 or the clothes would have been evidence. And that's a sad indictment of the Rtp callous disregard of them.

I agree 100% with you on that, its impossible for any pathologist not to DNA test the clothes of the victim when she is still wearing them and has blood splattered all over them. Its beyond belief to say this was not carried out unless you want to hide the results. And the results have indeed been well and truly hidden, no presentation at court.

[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.

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)

Yes I know as I read that before.

The point I raised that to my knowledge the accused never made claim that they were not read their rights or that they were refused a lawyer. If you have information in this regards which shows different I would like to see it.

[Madaussie]

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.

Stephen Get Real M8.. This goes to the very top. Anyone pone with a book heading their way just ducks.

[Madaussie]

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 !!

Nig,

Hannah was found with her skirt pulled up and her top pulled down. She was removed from the beach like that which is why the clothes are not in the line up pics of their garments.

David had just one sock on

[Madaussie]

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?

I think he did. David was likely dead and then stripped and dragged into the sea. They forgot one sock in the process.

This will all be revealed in the following weeks I think.

[Madaussie]

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.

Perhaps you should look at the crime scene pictures. Then you will get a real idea of what happened C & D

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Prosecutor confirms Koh Tao case against accused still strong http://breakingnews.nationtv.tv/home/read.php?newsid=768452&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter …

[boomerangutang]

Pornthip says clothes not examined for DNA, Andy Hall turns it into we don't know where the clothes are and the Internet detectives one up it to them being destroyed by the police to protect the real killers.

Finding the truth by playing Chinese whispers, what could go wrong?

AleG: "Pornthip says clothes not examined for DNA"

Boomers: Probably because RTP / Headman / prosecution / court don't want anything more than a very few items tested. The court allowed a bag, a sandal, the hoe, ....but disallowed a bunch of other items and people from being tested. You can't examine something if it's not on hand (or forbidden) to be examined.

AleG: "....Andy Hall turns it into we don't know where the clothes are.."

Boomers: Andy is simply asking where that crucial evidence is, as at least one defense lawyer asked. Do you know where those items are AleG? We'd like to know. We're hoping the crime gets solved. What are you hoping for?

AleG: "...Internet detectives one up it to them being destroyed by the police to protect the real killers."

Boomers: ....or hidden or perhaps RTP can deny they ever existed, despite photos that they do exist. Then RTP can retort "we were not able to retain photos. We don't know how to save digital photos," or "we didn't think they were important" or whatever ingenious lies the RTP dish up, which AleG laps up like a dog cleaning a floor after a rowdy kid's birthday party.

[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.

Stephen Get Real M8.. This goes to the very top. Anyone pone with a book heading their way just ducks.

[Madaussie]

I see, thanks T&C. That would be the pathologist that Pornthip talked of when she cast doubts on the investigation, saying that the police neglected to involve a forensic pathologist, would it? Same pathologist that said there was no DNA on hoe?

Not sure but it is the same pathologist that put the wrong date on the autopsy report and would have been responsible to take all DNA samples from Hannah and David, I'm looking forward to the public getting to know whats in the UK autopsy that the judges have presently that shows significant differences.

https://twitter.com/Atomicalandy/status/643440970747346946

[Madaussie]

I see, thanks T&C. That would be the pathologist that Pornthip talked of when she cast doubts on the investigation, saying that the police neglected to involve a forensic pathologist, would it? Same pathologist that said there was no DNA on hoe?

Not sure but it is the same pathologist that put the wrong date on the autopsy report and would have been responsible to take all DNA samples from Hannah and David, I'm looking forward to the public getting to know whats in the UK autopsy that the judges have presently that shows significant differences.

I Bet You Do Chilli... At least then the 2 young men will be viewed in a different light

[Madaussie]

Reports then emerged from the Burmese community that nine Burmese had been playing a ball game when they were approached by police, one member told reporters that the three suspects, who were working and residing illegally in the country should flea, which they did. The remaining six were apprehended , one went on to say that the police tortured them with boiling water, before apprehending the three that fled. Two of those three Saw and Wyn were the two Burmese who took part in the reconstruction and whose DNA has been said to match that at the crime scene,

The third man, Mau, is apparently still in custody but has denied any involvement in the case.

http://www.samuitimes.com/international-confusion-murder-reconstruction-koh-tao/

Take your pick HEY!!!!

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

The police have arrested a suspect in the murder of two British tourists in Koh Tao and are still hunting for a second suspect who has escaped into Bangkok.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.

The southern police chief also assured the public that there was no arrest of scapegoats in this murder case as it now is a focal attention of the world.

He also dismissed any suggestion of local mafias or influential people that could twist the investigation with promise that local influence would pose no obstacle to the police investigation.

Instead the police will eliminate all these mafias, he said.

Meanwhile a police source said the police are also looking into the cooperation of those who helped to arrange the suspect to escape. They also will be arrested.

9-23-2014-3-14-56-PM-wpcf_728x413.jpg

And all of these people had their DNA Tested later, and since there was no match with Hannah, they were no longer a suspect. The 2 Accused however is alleged to have matched with Hannah. See the difference?

Nope!!!

This was about scapegoats and who they should choose. Considering a highly commended Officer at the top of his game clearly stated he had evidence for 2 people from Koh Tao do you think he should be fired then.

What a pathetic individual some people are

[Nigeone]

Well shoot when someone goes swimming at 2 or 3 in the morning when they are so drunk that they can hardly walk, why in the world should they expect their clothes to still be there when they get out of the water and decide to walk home?

I don't follow evidence I just read this:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/855163-koh-tao-murders-2-dna-profiles-from-alleged-murder-weapon-do-not-match-defendants-dna/page-34#entry9853528

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.

Of course, all this latest talk merrily skips over the issue of whether the clothes disappearing is true or not.

Oh without doubt in my opinion they have gone. Hannah's clothes would have been covered with DNA from the perps. They would have been prime source and would have identified whoever did this crime or was grappling with Hannah with whatever they were carrying out. The fact they have not been mentioned as a source of DNA by the prosecution says it all I'm afraid and just goes to reinforce what any sane and rational person on here is thinking.

[thailandchilli]

Confirmation the DNA from the cig butts remains unverified and all other DNA evidence gone: Dr Pornthip interview on her court appearance, good read. http://www.irrawaddy.org/interview/dr-pornthip-victims-or-suspects-have-the-right-to-ask-for-a-second-opinion.html?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

There were previous reports that DNA found on the butt of a cigarette shared by the two suspects matched that found on the female victim’s body. Were you able to consider that evidence?

No. Because the police said that all that evidence was destroyed already. The police said there was no evidence left to send to our institute.

[thailandchilli]

[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 !!

Nig,

Hannah was found with her skirt pulled up and her top pulled down. She was removed from the beach like that which is why the clothes are not in the line up pics of their garments.

David had just one sock on

Sorry, I know she was found with the clothes like you say. I was replying to JL crab who was suggesting that a clothes thief took Hannah's clothes. Which is nonsense. The RTP took over the crime scene and the bodies and as I've stated in my opinion Hannah's clothes would have been full,of collectable DNA from the perps. But no mention of said clothes from the prosecutors. The clothes you mention that is that were pulled up and down. To much of a coincidence in my view that they don't seem to be around anymore and not a major source of DNA. Sorry if you misunderstood my answering of his post

[saminoz]

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.

With all due respect JLC, your comment is either inane or in very poor taste.

Photos show that Hannah's body still had the skirt and top in the morning when surrounded by the BiB. She was clearly wearing them whilst she was attacked. They were still on here when she was put in the plastic tarp or body bag.

So, how could the RTP or pathologist possibly not include them in the forensic examination unless directed by someone(s) NOT to do so and to get rid of them.

This is a shocking omission from such a crime scene!

Disgusting, like the rest of the RTP's handling of this case.

[PaPiPuPePo]

So the B2 claim they got to drunk to remember anything went for a swim, then lost there clothes and also found a phone identical to Davids.

Then we have the video of running man wearing what seems to be be Davids shorts holding what looks like a phone.

"This indicated that he mistakenly grabbed the pants of the victim to wear and left his own at the scene in a hurry as shown in the CCTV showing he ran past."

- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/new-evidence-found-in-tourists-murder-case-48818.php#sthash.rlDNBwfp.dpuf

What a Do'Nut u r really are.. Why have you even bothered to come on the forum. Day release? Care in the community??

It looks like his post got deleted but looking at this article and the sentence he quotes--who came to this conclusion? Poor journalism but it's a small online rag what can one expect.

Hardly something to base any claim on.

[catsanddogs]

Confirmation the DNA from the cig butts remains unverified and all other DNA evidence gone: Dr Pornthip interview on her court appearance, good read. http://www.irrawaddy.org/interview/dr-pornthip-victims-or-suspects-have-the-right-to-ask-for-a-second-opinion.html?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

There were previous reports that DNA found on the butt of a cigarette shared by the two suspects matched that found on the female victim’s body. Were you able to consider that evidence?

No. Because the police said that all that evidence was destroyed already. The police said there was no evidence left to send to our institute.

Thanks for that. Also interesting to note that unlike other reports of two Asian mens DNA on the hoe, Pornthip says here only one mans.

It belongs to an unknown man. We need to have the DNA of other people [involved]. We only found the DNA from an unidentified man which was not compatible with the suspects’ [DNA].

[Madaussie]

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.

Stephen Get Real M8.. This goes to the very top. Anyone pone with a book heading their way just ducks.

Exactly Chilli, I think we sing from the same Hymn sheet.

[PaPiPuPePo]

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.

Photos show that Hannah's body still had the skirt and top in the morning when surrounded by the BiB. She was clearly wearing them whilst she was attacked. They were still on here when she was put in the plastic tarp or body bag.

So, how could the RTP or pathologist possibly not include them in the forensic examination unless directed by someone(s) NOT to do so and to get rid of them.

This is a shocking omission from such a crime scene!

Disgusting, like the rest of the RTP's handling of this case.

Sorry but can someone point me to the source for the clothes having gone missing--where it was announced or a media source for it. Quicker than google maybe certainly less hassle (for me at least ). And this thread is *only* 38 pages so far but still, searching through it (even with certain folks on ignore thus cutting out whole pages of clutter) for a single item is not an attractive option. TIA.

[Madaussie]

Nig,

Hannah was found with her skirt pulled up and her top pulled down. She was removed from the beach like that which is why the clothes are not in the line up pics of their garments.

David had just one sock on

Sorry, I know she was found with the clothes like you say. I was replying to JL crab who was suggesting that a clothes thief took Hannah's clothes. Which is nonsense. The RTP took over the crime scene and the bodies and as I've stated in my opinion Hannah's clothes would have been full,of collectable DNA from the perps. But no mention of said clothes from the prosecutors. The clothes you mention that is that were pulled up and down. To much of a coincidence in my view that they don't seem to be around anymore and not a major source of DNA. Sorry if you misunderstood my answering of his post

Hi Nig u don't have to apologise.. You know how messages and emails etc get misread . For some reason I thought you hadn't seen the crime scene photos in detail?

As for the clothes they would most defiantly contained DNA from the assailants without any doubt in my mind. So why we get this charade of well we didn't test and cant find etc etc god only knows.

I would also have all my money on the fact that there was DNA on Hannahs body under her nails etc etc. However the RTP pathologist has made errors.

Its been clearly stated by Sarah Yuen who was in court last Friday and subsequently reported in the UK press that and I quote

"During the hearing it was disclosed that Norfolk Coroner’s court had carried out its own autopsy on the body of Ms Witheridge, after it was returned to the UK, and there were significant differences noted between that report and the report compiled by the Thai pathologist.

The exact details of what is in the Norfolk coroner’s report were not disclosed in court, but it was handed to the three judges for their consideration."

[Madaussie]

Dr Pornthip: ‘Victims or Suspects Have the Right to Ask For a Second Opinion’

Thailand’s most prominent forensics expert, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, who is head of the country’s Central Institute of Forensic Science, was recently called on by the defense team representing two Burmese men accused of murder to reexamine crucial DNA evidence. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were arrested last year for the killing of British backpackers David Miller and Hannah Witheridge on a Thai resort island on the night of September 15, 2014. However, the handling of the case by Thai police has been the subject of significant controversy and the two Burmese men have alleged they were tortured into a confession. The trial is continuing on Koh Samui. The Irrawaddy’s Saw Yan Naing spoke with Dr Pornthip about her team’s findings and ongoing involvement in the case.

http://www.irrawaddy.org/interview/dr-pornthip-victims-or-suspects-have-the-right-to-ask-for-a-second-opinion.html?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

[Madaussie]

Jesus.....

There were previous reports that DNA found on the butt of a cigarette shared by the two suspects matched that found on the female victim’s body. Were you able to consider that evidence?

No. Because the police said that all that evidence was destroyed already. The police said there was no evidence left to send to our institute.

From now on, how will you and your team be involved in the process?

In the next [week or two], there will be scientific testimony given in [Koh Samui Provincial] court. Two scientists and one doctor [from the Central Institute of Forensic Science] will testify at the court. The two scientists will testify about the DNA findings. And a doctor will testify on the physical examination of the two suspects because they [the suspects] told judges and the National Human Rights Commission that they were tortured by the police [during interrogation]. The doctor did the physical determination when the suspects were in prison. So that will be our institute’s testimony.

http://www.irrawaddy.org/interview/dr-pornthip-victims-or-suspects-have-the-right-to-ask-for-a-second-opinion.html?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

[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.

Photos show that Hannah's body still had the skirt and top in the morning when surrounded by the BiB. She was clearly wearing them whilst she was attacked. They were still on here when she was put in the plastic tarp or body bag.

So, how could the RTP or pathologist possibly not include them in the forensic examination unless directed by someone(s) NOT to do so and to get rid of them.

This is a shocking omission from such a crime scene!

Disgusting, like the rest of the RTP's handling of this case.

Sorry but can someone point me to the source for the clothes having gone missing--where it was announced or a media source for it. Quicker than google maybe certainly less hassle (for me at least ). And this thread is *only* 38 pages so far but still, searching through it (even with certain folks on ignore thus cutting out whole pages of clutter) for a single item is not an attractive option. TIA.

there are a couple of tweets from Any Hall basically saying defense lawyers dont know where Hannah's skirt and top have gone, and another tweet saying they was not in evidence list

[Nigeone]

Nig,

Hannah was found with her skirt pulled up and her top pulled down. She was removed from the beach like that which is why the clothes are not in the line up pics of their garments.

David had just one sock on

Sorry, I know she was found with the clothes like you say. I was replying to JL crab who was suggesting that a clothes thief took Hannah's clothes. Which is nonsense. The RTP took over the crime scene and the bodies and as I've stated in my opinion Hannah's clothes would have been full,of collectable DNA from the perps. But no mention of said clothes from the prosecutors. The clothes you mention that is that were pulled up and down. To much of a coincidence in my view that they don't seem to be around anymore and not a major source of DNA. Sorry if you misunderstood my answering of his post

Hi Nig u don't have to apologise.. You know how messages and emails etc get misread . For some reason I thought you hadn't seen the crime scene photos in detail?

As for the clothes they would most defiantly contained DNA from the assailants without any doubt in my mind. So why we get this charade of well we didn't test and cant find etc etc god only knows.

I would also have all my money on the fact that there was DNA on Hannahs body under her nails etc etc. However the RTP pathologist has made errors.

Its been clearly stated by Sarah Yuen who was in court last Friday and subsequently reported in the UK press that and I quote

"During the hearing it was disclosed that Norfolk Coroners court had carried out its own autopsy on the body of Ms Witheridge, after it was returned to the UK, and there were significant differences noted between that report and the report compiled by the Thai pathologist.

The exact details of what is in the Norfolk coroners report were not disclosed in court, but it was handed to the three judges for their consideration."

No your actually right I haven't seen the pictures of Hannah and have no wish too. As I've said before I would rather remember her for the beautiful girl she was before this horrific crime. But I do know who to believe on here and can also absorb info regarding this case so I was confident in saying Hannah had her top and skirt on. And as I said I'm also very very positive these items of clothing would have been saturated with DNA from the perps. So the fact they haven't been produced says it all.

And can I say thank you to yourself and many more honourable people on here you have fought and still fighting for justice for Hannah,David and the B2. It's the eve of that terrible crime and it's still a mess and we are all no nearer finding the real perps of this crime. Congratulations RTP and defenders for this miscarriage of justice!

[berybert]

So the B2 claim they got to drunk to remember anything went for a swim, then lost there clothes and also found a phone identical to Davids.

Then we have the video of running man wearing what seems to be be Davids shorts holding what looks like a phone.

"This indicated that he mistakenly grabbed the pants of the victim to wear and left his own at the scene in a hurry as shown in the CCTV showing he ran past."

- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/new-evidence-found-in-tourists-murder-case-48818.php#sthash.rlDNBwfp.dpuf

And then ran back to the crime scene to put the pants back on the beach, unseen by CCTV then back again unseen by CCTV so as to be in bed by 5am when the murders occurred. And why did the CCTV camera only pick up one of them ?

So many questions so few answers.

Maybe Win is so small the CCTV camera was unable to pick him up. Or maybe the headman loves those boys as his own therefore withheld the rest of the CCTV footage.

[Fat Haggis]

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)

Yes I know as I read that before.

The point I raised that to my knowledge the accused never made claim that they were not read their rights or that they were refused a lawyer. If you have information in this regards which shows different I would like to see it.

Considering they don't speak Thai, and the Thai cops sure couldn't speak Burmese and used an unofficial useless translator in the interrogations, who was subsequently ripped to shreds over his lack of even knowing Thai, how do YOU personally know they had their rights read out to them? How would they have acknowledged these rights ? for all they know, and for all you know, they could have been getting a recipe for Mango and sticky rice read out to them!