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

[Rykbanlor]

I believe the injuries to Hannah's head were the second to last part of the crime to be carried out, meaning they used the hoe to inflict degrading injuries and afterwards staged the scene. The DNA on that hoe is relevant, let's see if the general will step up or the judges will serve with honor..

Nothing I have seen so far gives me hope thats likely

[hobobo]

A competent and honest lawyer should be able to get them free now. As far as compensation goes, they shouldn't agree to a year's lost salary but more like a Western-style compensation, paid by the RTP. Might teach them a lesson for the future...

[catsanddogs]

Oh HAPPY DAY! !!! Almost one year since Hannah and David lost their lives. Hope they are chinking glasses if there is a Heaven.

One step closer to the truth. Now re-test all previous suspects with new samples including the British friends.

My like button not working, but am liking all the posts with very few exceptions.

[partington]

SO it's been noted by other posters, and by the tweet from Jonah Fisher, that actually the important DNA comes from the body, which is all well and good, but even if the Hoe is not the focus of this, for gofs sake, it's stated as the main murder weapon, so if the B2 Dna ain't on it, regardless of all the other "evidence: the prosecution has, their case still appears to be all wrong. Ridiculous.

I don't understand why you don't understand.

If the judge accepts that the evidence that the DNA from Hannah's body matches the DNA of the accused, and the defence do not adequately and completely demolish this evidence, the suspects will be found guilty.

This has been stated clearly many times by many commentators. The task of the defence is to challenge THIS evidence. If the court accepts it as true, a gulity verdict is absolutely inevitable.

I don't understand why people find this hard to grasp. If the judge is convinced, then it links the two suspects unarguably to a violent rape and murder. It has always been the part of the case that was essential for the defence to disprove.

The fact that the defence refused an offered retest of the DNA found on Hannah is still extremely puzzling, and to me that represents a crucial point in how their case has been handled. If this evidence has been somehow faked, a forensic examination of the laboratory evidence on which it is based would reveal it. I hope this will be part of the upcoming defence or they will not win.

And, if this evidence cannot be disputed, it is compelling evidence for guilt.

Nobody is having trouble understanding this.

Ok sorry, let me put it slightly differently, The fact that the DNA of the suspects was not found on the hoe means in evidentiary terms:

the defence can't prove the suspects did NOT handle the hoe

the prosecution can't prove that the suspects DID handle the hoe

So far from being a crucial blow to anyone's case , despite the headlines in newspapers, it actually doesn't represent any change at all in the actual court case.

[umbanda]

WOW! Send these guys free now!

Put the investigators and police officer involved in the street..or in jail.

Ask the UK to obtain new DNA examples from the victim bodies!

Check again the DNA of other people investigated in the case!

Ask Interpol to be involved in a new investigation!

Do not get the real criminals get away! They are in the island!

Edited September 11, 2015 by umbanda

[AleG]

I still am waiting for the DNA test results found on her body compared with the 2 defendants. Is that a positive match that can be proven ?

The defense were offered the option to retest that DNA , they refused it after campaigning for months to get it.

[StealthEnergiser]

Pol.Lt.Col. Kewalee, who conducted police’s original testing of the garden hoe, told the court today that only Witheridge’s blood was found on the weapon. No other DNA was found on the tool, she said.

When pressed by the defense about why there was no DNA found on the hoe that matched the suspects, who presumably had to grip its handle tightly, Pol.Lt.Col. Kewalee said that skin cells from the hand are not as likely to adhere to an object as blood.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437662245&section=00

[Rykbanlor]

SO it's been noted by other posters, and by the tweet from Jonah Fisher, that actually the important DNA comes from the body, which is all well and good, but even if the Hoe is not the focus of this, for gofs sake, it's stated as the main murder weapon, so if the B2 Dna ain't on it, regardless of all the other "evidence: the prosecution has, their case still appears to be all wrong. Ridiculous.

I don't understand why you don't understand.

If the judge accepts that the evidence that the DNA from Hannah's body matches the DNA of the accused, and the defence do not adequately and completely demolish this evidence, the suspects will be found guilty.

This has been stated clearly many times by many commentators. The task of the defence is to challenge THIS evidence. If the court accepts it as true, a gulity verdict is absolutely inevitable.

I don't understand why people find this hard to grasp. If the judge is convinced, then it links the two suspects unarguably to a violent rape and murder. It has always been the part of the case that was essential for the defence to disprove.

The fact that the defence refused an offered retest of the DNA found on Hannah is still extremely puzzling, and to me that represents a crucial point in how their case has been handled. If this evidence has been somehow faked, a forensic examination of the laboratory evidence on which it is based would reveal it. I hope this will be part of the upcoming defence or they will not win.

And, if this evidence cannot be disputed, it is compelling evidence for guilt.

Nobody is having trouble understanding this.

Ok sorry, let me put it slightly differently, The fact that the DNA of the suspects was not found on the hoe means in evidentiary terms:

the defence can't prove the suspects did NOT handle the hoe

the prosecution can't prove that the suspects DID handle the hoe

So far from being a crucial blow to anyone's case , despite the headlines in newspapers, it actually doesn't represent any change at all in the actual court case.

Which brings us back to the issues we feel there are concerning the DNA which was found in the victim.

Why the defence eventually refused an independent retest is as of now still anyone's guess, perhaps we will discover more in the coming days.

[apalink_thailand]

I cannot see what all the fuss is about!

What difference does it make that there is no DNA match to the defendants? I mean this is the RTP here after all, evidence is just an inconvenience for them. The two lads are "obviously" guilty as they provided a full confession, and of course did a re-enactment video complete with finger pointing, what more does the RTP need? They already have all this on, it is a watertight case!​​

You are correct and this could be the deciding factor, despite this new revelation on DNA mismatch. If they do manage to get off ,then the case will go cold. End of story.

[Basil B]

We were expecting some breaking news from Dr Pornthip but this is more explosive than I thought, and we have still got to hear the other evidence from the UK! There's enough now to call a complete halt to these unjust and farcical proceedings

They will not stop the trial now the loss of face would be just to great. Better to stumble on to the end and then plead S*******y

Under the Thai criminal procedure code, the judge cannot stop the case and enter a dismissal. That process is called a directed verdict or nonsuit, and doesn't exist in Thailand. The judge must hear all the testimony and evidence before rendering a verdict. Even in modern judicial systems, a directed verdict is only entered if the prosecution failed to establish all of the elements of the crime in its prima facie case.

Dr. Pornthip is only an expert witness for the defense. The judge is the factfinder and has to decide the facts, including resolving any conflicts in the testimony provided by the expert witnesses for both sides. In modern judicial systems, it is the norm to have expert witnesses conflict on their testimony. I think most of the posters here think that Dr. Pornthip is some type of independent, court-appointed expert. She is not. She is a hired gun, like any expert witness.

As for the hoe, I'm not even convinced it was the murder weapon. I think there is equally as great a chance that the victims were already dead, and they were posthumously bludgeoned with the hoe (to cover up the real perpetrator, aka "a set up"). In any event, the hoe was not secured by the police, and any evidence that could be taken from it was contaminated and unreliable.

I'm not sure there was ever testimony from the police officer who actually removed samples from the victims' bodies and the chain of custody in taking that evidence for testing. To me, and I've been a lawyer for 20 years, that would be the only probative evidence in the case. The rest of the prosecution's case was a sham - it reminded me a lot of the prosecution's case in the OJ Simpson trial. Put everything into evidence, and see if it sticks.

Well, RTP can walk away from this and say they gave it their best shot. The investigation was botched from the start, and whether, like the Erawan bombing, this is due to incompetence, or police officers on the take, we will never know.

I hope the Judges will look into this case when it is concluded, and if evidence has been fabricated or false statements made that those responsible will be prosecuted, bearing in mind what the B2 have had to endure for the last year.

[AleG]

I just stated the obvious, this is not positive proof of the innocence of the two Burmese; clutching at straws is, IMO, declaring that the case is over based on DNA results from a source that has been known to be contaminated since day one.

Once again, the case was not built upon a DNA match between the hoe and the defendants.

This is just common sense.

I hope I have a neutral point of view about this case, but clearly if the police testified that they never looked for DNA on the hoe, then saying the suspects' DNA was on the hoe can never have been part of the prosecution's case. This is just simple fact.

That the suspect's DNA was not found on the hoe is a very telling suggestion that the police's reconstruction of what happened may be wrong, and the fact that they didn't look for DNA on the hoe suggests deep problems and probable bias in the investigation.

Nevertheless as a matter of fact it would be possible for an object to be handled by an individual, then handled by several other individuals and the traces of DNA from the first to be undetectable or swamped out by the contaminating DNA, so while this is yet another piece of circumstantial evidence that completely fails to support the police's version of events it does not destroy the case.

DNA from the rape kit samples not matching the suspects destroys the police case beyond reasonable doubt.

I admit to being very wrong about Pornthip - I was convinced she would subtly undermine the defence to facilitate the establishment's desire to end the case with a conviction of the suspects. Good for her that she seems not to be doing this.

I would expect DNA from the person(s) laboring with the hoe day in and day out to overwhelm any traces from people supposedly using it only once.

In my opinion the police wrapped up their case based mainly on the DNA from inside the victim's body, very little chance of contamination or false results there; I think it quite possible that armed with very definitive evidence as that that they would neglect other areas of the investigation.

After all the hoe was known to have been contaminated, during the search for the perpetrators they wouldn't had bothered to use unreliable DNA results from it while there were other much less ambiguous sources.

[fritzzz25]

I believe the injuries to Hannah's head were the second to last part of the crime to be carried out, meaning they used the hoe to inflict degrading injuries and afterwards staged the scene. The DNA on that hoe is relevant, let's see if the general will step up or the judges will serve with honor..

To carry on further with your last sentence -

At this point, Somyot is riding off into the sunset in a few weeks with his hundreds of millions, so he doesn't care. His latest task has been to make the investigation into the Immigration Police the front page news, to detract from the other investigational blunders. Then, a new boss comes online with his pockets over-flowing, and bides his time in the "throne" of office.

If this is NOT a time for Section 44 to be invoked "for the sake of the reforms in any field, the promotion of love and harmony amongst the people in the nation, or the prevention, abatement or suppression of any act detrimental to national order or security, royal throne, national economy or public administration, whether the act occurs inside or outside the kingdom", I do not know what would be (oh wait, to comply with the ICAO sanctions that are being slapped upon the Kingdom).

Edited September 11, 2015 by fritzzz25

[StealthEnergiser]

He added, "I have already requested this information, but they won't give us. That is why I am suspicious."

According to Nakhon, the defense has not received a number of requested documents from the prosecution, including photographs taken during the post-mortem examinations, and required paper trails – known as a ‘chains of custody’ – that document the collection, movement, and current location of all physical evidence.

"We haven’t received any of this," he said.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437662245&section=00

[phuketandsee]

Oh HAPPY DAY! !!! Almost one year since Hannah and David lost their lives. Hope they are chinking glasses if there is a Heaven.

One step closer to the truth. Now re-test all previous suspects with new samples including the British friends.

My like button not working, but am liking all the posts with very few exceptions.

Much as I'd like to agree with you, while we may be closer to the hoped for acquittal of the B2, I fear we are not one step closer to the most important truth - who actually committed these heinous murders. They are still out there being protected and could well kill again.

[webfact]

Koh Tao murders: DNA on weapon ‘does not match’ suspects
By Coconuts Bangkok


ABOVE: Myanmar migrant workers Zaw Lin ® and Win Zaw Htun (L) arrive at the Koh Samui Provincial Court on July 8. Photo: Reuters / Athit Perawongmetha

BANGKOK: -- A forensics expert has testified that the DNA samples taken from a garden hoe believed to have been used to kill two British tourists in Koh Tao last year does not belong to the two Myanmar men on trial.

The bodies of Hannah Witheridge and David Miller were found on a beach on the holiday island last September.

The head of the Thai forensics institute, Porntip Rojanasunand, told judges on Koh Samui that her team had identified DNA on a garden hoe, found bloodied near the deceased. The samples belonged to two males but there was no match with the defendants, she said.

Full story: http://bangkok.coconuts.co/2015/09/11/koh-tao-murders-dna-weapon-does-not-match-suspects


-- Coconuts Bangkok 2015-09-11

[phuketandsee]

As OJ Simpson's lawyer once famously said " If the DNA doesn't fit, you must acquit".

I think you meant to paraphrase Johnny Cochran since he was referring to a glove not DNA. The sentiments are correct though.

[Nigeone]

So they should walk I would guess

Why should they? If the prosecution was using a DNA match between the two defendants and the murder weapon yes they should. But that's not what they are basing their case on, the DNA results could be from any other person that handled the hoe before or after the murders.

One set of DNA is almost certainly from the beach cleaner/gardener. It is highly probable that the other is from the assailant who smashed Hannah's head in. It is clutching at straws to suggest otherwise.

At any rate, it appears the "perfect investigation" using a magnifying glass to check for DNA, was not quite as effective as real forensic analysis.

I just stated the obvious, this is not positive proof of the innocence of the two Burmese; clutching at straws is, IMO, declaring that the case is over based on DNA results from a source that has been known to be contaminated since day one.

Once again, the case was not built upon a DNA match between the hoe and the defendants.

Oh is that right. So what was the case based on please?? 13 days in court for the RTP and no other evidence to support there case. It was based sorely on DNA. And guess what there is none and you know so many on here will not be surprised in the slightest

[fritzzz25]

I just stated the obvious, this is not positive proof of the innocence of the two Burmese; clutching at straws is, IMO, declaring that the case is over based on DNA results from a source that has been known to be contaminated since day one.

Once again, the case was not built upon a DNA match between the hoe and the defendants.

This is just common sense.

I hope I have a neutral point of view about this case, but clearly if the police testified that they never looked for DNA on the hoe, then saying the suspects' DNA was on the hoe can never have been part of the prosecution's case. This is just simple fact.

That the suspect's DNA was not found on the hoe is a very telling suggestion that the police's reconstruction of what happened may be wrong, and the fact that they didn't look for DNA on the hoe suggests deep problems and probable bias in the investigation.

Nevertheless as a matter of fact it would be possible for an object to be handled by an individual, then handled by several other individuals and the traces of DNA from the first to be undetectable or swamped out by the contaminating DNA, so while this is yet another piece of circumstantial evidence that completely fails to support the police's version of events it does not destroy the case.

DNA from the rape kit samples not matching the suspects destroys the police case beyond reasonable doubt.

I admit to being very wrong about Pornthip - I was convinced she would subtly undermine the defence to facilitate the establishment's desire to end the case with a conviction of the suspects. Good for her that she seems not to be doing this.

I would expect DNA from the person(s) laboring with the hoe day in and day out to overwhelm any traces from people supposedly using it only once.

In my opinion the police wrapped up their case based mainly on the DNA from inside the victim's body, very little chance of contamination or false results there; I think it quite possible that armed with very definitive evidence as that that they would neglect other areas of the investigation.

After all the hoe was known to have been contaminated, during the search for the perpetrators they wouldn't had bothered to use unreliable DNA results from it while there were other much less ambiguous sources.

I would expect DNA from the actual killers to overwhelm the traces of ANYONE who ever handled the hoe. These folks were no doubt in a violent range, with adrenaline at its peak, their bodies would be oozing with perspiration. This was supposed to be the alleged weapon, so why doesn't it have the DNA of the two Burmese on it. After all, they re-enacted that "farce" where they waived around a white dust pan on a stick, and this HAD to be true, because the RTP cast it in the script.......

[catsanddogs]

Pol.Lt.Col. Kewalee, who conducted police’s original testing of the garden hoe, told the court today that only Witheridge’s blood was found on the weapon. No other DNA was found on the tool, she said.

When pressed by the defense about why there was no DNA found on the hoe that matched the suspects, who presumably had to grip its handle tightly, Pol.Lt.Col. Kewalee said that skin cells from the hand are not as likely to adhere to an object as blood.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437662245&section=00

Kewalee needs to be sacked, issued with an orange suit, shackled, imprisoned and forced to return any money she received for lying and withholding the truth - along with the other scum bags within the RTP that are yet to be exposed.

[Lancashireman]

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

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

She has done this many times before so I doubt she's easily scared. The RTP already hate her and have done so for many years for exposing their incompetence.

And as for those that said she wouldn't reveal the truth because she's on the side of the Pro Monarchy Yellows/Coup Makers and against the Reds, well what have you to say now?

My knowledge of Dr. Porntip is that she is a shining light amidst a dark world here.

If you get chance to read some of her books, you'll realise she is an uncompromising professional in an area of work which requires up such. Courageous lady under these circumstances...

[Misterwhisper]

Can we please go back and get the Mafioso family that runs the island DNA tested now?

And instead of them "supplying samples" (i.e. cotton swabs allegedly taken from the insides of their own mouths) to police during a hoopla-palooza media circus event, let them have their samples taken under controlled conditions by qualified forensic personnel. Take two samples from each, sending them for analysis to two different forensics labs abroad. And then we'll see what the comparison with the DNS results from the samples taken from the crime scene really yields.

It's never going to happen, of course, and we all know why.

[gandalf12]

Very convincing they did not do it, as if any of us had any doubts before I am sure we dont now. Now it is up to the police to do some real police work and not defend someone who has influence.

This is a good test for the determination of the RTP to gain international credability

[catsanddogs]

I just stated the obvious, this is not positive proof of the innocence of the two Burmese; clutching at straws is, IMO, declaring that the case is over based on DNA results from a source that has been known to be contaminated since day one.

Once again, the case was not built upon a DNA match between the hoe and the defendants.

This is just common sense.

I hope I have a neutral point of view about this case, but clearly if the police testified that they never looked for DNA on the hoe, then saying the suspects' DNA was on the hoe can never have been part of the prosecution's case. This is just simple fact.

That the suspect's DNA was not found on the hoe is a very telling suggestion that the police's reconstruction of what happened may be wrong, and the fact that they didn't look for DNA on the hoe suggests deep problems and probable bias in the investigation.

Nevertheless as a matter of fact it would be possible for an object to be handled by an individual, then handled by several other individuals and the traces of DNA from the first to be undetectable or swamped out by the contaminating DNA, so while this is yet another piece of circumstantial evidence that completely fails to support the police's version of events it does not destroy the case.

DNA from the rape kit samples not matching the suspects destroys the police case beyond reasonable doubt.

I admit to being very wrong about Pornthip - I was convinced she would subtly undermine the defence to facilitate the establishment's desire to end the case with a conviction of the suspects. Good for her that she seems not to be doing this.

I would expect DNA from the person(s) laboring with the hoe day in and day out to overwhelm any traces from people supposedly using it only once.

In my opinion the police wrapped up their case based mainly on the DNA from inside the victim's body, very little chance of contamination or false results there; I think it quite possible that armed with very definitive evidence as that that they would neglect other areas of the investigation.

After all the hoe was known to have been contaminated, during the search for the perpetrators they wouldn't had bothered to use unreliable DNA results from it while there were other much less ambiguous sources.

very little chance of contamination or false results there;

Wrong. There is every chance of false results, as I'm sure you are really aware of, like everyone else who has been following this investigation over the past 12 months.

[LivinLOS]

Could someone please answer this factually.. I have asked before but any possible replies get blown away in the many pages thats posted before I return. I have followed the case in detail but reporting is so incosistent and online is so full of chatter and opionion.

The police maintain they have a DNA match for the 2.

Precisely where and what was that DNA sourced from ?? Semen inside or what other source ??

Is that DNA still available for retesting or is it 'used up' and has to be on a 'just trust us' basis ??

For months they have been saying they had the DNA.. But I have yet to hear anything covering the precise nature of the DNA testimony presented by the prosecution.

[Rykbanlor]

He added, "I have already requested this information, but they won't give us. That is why I am suspicious."

According to Nakhon, the defense has not received a number of requested documents from the prosecution, including photographs taken during the post-mortem examinations, and required paper trails – known as a ‘chains of custody’ – that document the collection, movement, and current location of all physical evidence.

"We haven’t received any of this," he said.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437662245&section=00

Ah yes, the DAMNING DNA EVIDENCE.

If this is on what rests their case, we'll need a little more confirmation please.

And to AleG who says, well, if they have this DAMNING evidence, then sure they would forget about all the other details. W?? Not very comprehensive is it?

[Rykbanlor]

http://bangkok.coconuts.co/2015/07/10/police-chief-splits-hairs-status-koh-tao-dna-evidence

So no, apparently DNA is not available for re-examination, only the dirtied Police results. That was the point.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Rykbanlor

[stephenterry]

Ok sorry, let me put it slightly differently, The fact that the DNA of the suspects was not found on the hoe means in evidentiary terms:

the defence can't prove the suspects did NOT handle the hoe

the prosecution can't prove that the suspects DID handle the hoe

So far from being a crucial blow to anyone's case , despite the headlines in newspapers, it actually doesn't represent any change at all in the actual court case.

Which brings us back to the issues we feel there are concerning the DNA which was found in the victim.

Why the defence eventually refused an independent retest is as of now still anyone's guess, perhaps we will discover more in the coming days.

Response to Partington.

I think it does change the actual court case. If the prosecution can't prove the B2 did handle the hoe, then their re-enactment showing the B2 wielding the hoe can't be proven (in an absolute sense), which was again based on their confession.

Also, the FACT that 2 unknown male DNA was found on the hoe would indicate to any reasonable person that DNA from the perp, who would be gripping the hoe, was not that of the B2. Based on probabilities, it could cast reasonable doubt without absolute proof being critical.

It is my assumption that the defence don't require an independent test because they have evidence to disprove the prosecution's assertions. Why do you think the B2 provided DNA samples in court, thus establishing a chain of custody, plus providing evidence of a true B2 profile? I feel this revelation today is just the first strike.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Really no big surprises here. The RTP already gave testimony in court that they moved the body (David) for fear it might be washed away but the tide. Whether that was the right thing to do or not I don't know. But it does sound like a plausible reason to do so. It was never claimed the Hannah's Body was moved.

As to the garden hoe it is also known that the hoe was moved after the murders. The partially blind gardener (Beach Cleaner) already admitted he did in court. It then would not be considered unusual that his finger prints may have been on the hoe, although that was never proved by either side as far as I know. Since the hoe was moved I suppose anyone could have touched it.

This would have had much more significance if the hoe was found at the murder scene untouched, but it wasn't. Anyone could have touched it after that and the gardener already admitted he did. It is more likely that the hoe was thrown in the ocean and was washed. Based on that only a trace amount of Hannah' s Blood was found on the hoe. When you consider that if this was the murder weapon, and the blood splatter on the nearby rocks, there should have been more blood on it, that is unless it was washed off first.

The most damning evidence has been the DNA linking the accused to Hannah. To my knowledge this hasn't been disproved yet. If the Defense Team can do that, than fine. If they cannot then, but show reasonable doubt, then I am not sure.

This damning DNA evidence of yours that links the accused to the victim, is this the same lot that has only been confirmed verbally by a cop, and not actually available to examine?

Also as far as I heard, the washing of the hoe is a moot point, as it has been claimed it was both washed and not washed. It still had blood on it though, so it can't have been washed very well.

First of all this damning DNA Evidence is not mine. It belongs to the Prosecutor. I hold no DNA Evidence on anyone whatsoever.

If you chose to believe that this DNA Evidence is only a verbal statement in court, then go ahead, as this would be wrong. But you are entitled to believe whatever you want to.

The hoe in itself is a moot point even with someones else's DNA on it. If you could prove through Ballistics that the murder weapon was a gun, but yet several people afterwards handled this gun and their finger prints were on it even if the accused wasn't, does it prove one of them others killed this person? Or does it open the possibility that someone wiped his finger prints off, who actually did the crime?

If you read this full article you would have seen that the Prosecution does not agree with you.That they do in fact believe they have evidence that links the accused to Hannah and it was presented. If you have a beef about that then I suggest you contact them for a correction.

[silent]

Is it just me, or is this somewhat confusing?

The DNA on the hoe would most likely be the victims,no?

The article seems to insinuate there is unknown DNA on it,

yet it doesnt go as far as to say the DNA doesnt belong to the victims either.

It also doesnt state that the DNA was sourced from blood or otherwise

Logic would have it, if the DNA wasnt blood based, it could be DNA from the gardener or anyone that used the hoe for gardening or whatever innocent purpose.

But surely they would already have taken the DNA of the gardener to exclude from the evidence pool?

WOWSER:

I like the previous semi-graphic detail on the bloody hoe almost as much this speculation on what the source of DNA might be, while hoping to hell that nobody actually knowing the victims, or friends there of, might be reading what's become little more than a cyber-rag for juvenile delinquents, sociopaths and wannabe's at times. Quick hand me the shoe phone 99.

[catsanddogs]

Oh HAPPY DAY! !!! Almost one year since Hannah and David lost their lives. Hope they are chinking glasses if there is a Heaven.

One step closer to the truth. Now re-test all previous suspects with new samples including the British friends.

My like button not working, but am liking all the posts with very few exceptions.

Much as I'd like to agree with you, while we may be closer to the hoped for acquittal of the B2, I fear we are not one step closer to the most important truth - who actually committed these heinous murders. They are still out there being protected and could well kill again.

Absolutely, I agree with you. Despite reading so many posts that say the real perpetrators of the crimes will never be caught, I continue to hang onto my belief that they will - in time. Maybe I'm a naive airhead, but to settle for any other outcome and bury the belief that true justice will one day be done is not an option I can choose. If there was only one psychotic perpetrator involved in the crimes then I would feel less confident.