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

[AleG]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Just by their own words they halfway to a conviction.

They were near the crime of the scene (opportunity), they were drunk (people do stupid things when drunk), their clothes were stolen (but not the guitar, what a weird thief, anyway a key piece of evidence conveniently lost), they "found" the phone of the victim and tried to destroy it to avoid being incriminated (how would they know it was related to the crime?) and last but not least they never came forward to help in any way with the investigation.

They had a full year to come up with that alibi and it's so flimsy you could knock it over with a feather.

I haven't seen any report on what the prosecution asked them during cross examination, or what their answers were but I can't imagine it going over very well.

[Fat Haggis]

Now your deliberately trying to close the thread cruncher, it's very odd you "turning up " like this as you've been pretty inconspicuous in all the other Koh Tao threads

You're not offering anything new, just stoking the embers, where have you been all through the trial ?

Suspicious indeed.

I am a TV member same like all the others, and are entitled to my opinion, which doesn't need to be the same as your regardless of how much you regret that.

If you try to blame me, why don't you talk to your friend Gweiloman for baiting me?

Nothing wrong with an opinion, just wondering where it has been over the past year and in the various other topics that were locked?

My opinion is moot, I have stated since the trial started its nothing more than a show trial, way too many incosistencies presentedby the prosecution.

Failure to provide crucial documents with regards to chain of custody, failure to provide motive, using up all DNA, not processing DNA, dismissing DNA, producing the worlds fastest DNA results that even surprised their own witnesses.

[HUH]

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

"Dr Pornthip, Thailand’s most famous forensic scientist, told the court that DNA would have been left on the hoe by anyone who handled it for more than 15 seconds."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

So maybe they didn't hold it for more than 15 seconds.

Very true - explains why they didn't find DNA from the perpetrators of the crimes on the hoe!!

Dr Porntip has held a grudge with the RTP for a long long time and just doesn't she love being in the limelight with her 'rainbow hair' - it just say's 'look at me'. She was irked about being left out of the initial investigation (how can they do this to me, snubbing such an important and valuable resource) and so I believe she fabricated her findings to discredit the RTP. I wouldn't trust her with a barge pole and disregard her DNA evidence as being falsified just to undermine the police investigation.

You'll find if Dr Pornthip wanted to take the recommendations by the book she would have said 1 minute, but she took a professional opinion based on the circumstances, sorry if the truth hurts Touch DNA time to have enough on object for testing "wood held for 60 secs" http://www.ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Touch_DNA_article.59101908.pdf

[oldsailor35]

I may have missed it, but was there any DNA evidence on the phone to indicate who had handled it. Davids in particular ?

[TheCruncher]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Just by their own words they halfway to a conviction.

They were near the crime of the scene (opportunity), they were drunk (people do stupid things when drunk), their clothes were stolen (but not the guitar, what a weird thief, anyway a key piece of evidence conveniently lost), they "found" the phone of the victim and tried to destroy it to avoid being incriminated (how would they know it was related to the crime?) and last but not least they never came forward to help in any way with the investigation.

They had a full year to come up with that alibi and it's so flimsy you could knock it over with a feather.

I haven't seen any report on what the prosecution asked them during cross examination, or what their answers were but I can't imagine it going over very well.

Doesn't there many times already circulate a picture in this and other Koh Tao threads, which many posters claim is of someone wearing David's shorts?

Now who would want to wear the shorts of a murder victim?

Hmm, maybe someone who's clothes were stolen?

[Nigeone]

I'm going to keep repeating this. Neither of the b2 DNA was found on the hoe, the weapon that was used to murder Hannah. Her blood was on the blade. Anything else is circumstantial.

LOADS OF DNA ON THE MURDER WEAPON BUT NOT FROM THE B2..

IS THAT CLEAR..............?

Feeeeeeerk the phone, the hotdog wrapper, a zillion fags on the beach, but wait.....a coke bottle had the B2's DNA on it found in BKK....Must be them......

Gawd.....................

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

"Dr Pornthip, Thailands most famous forensic scientist, told the court that DNA would have been left on the hoe by anyone who handled it for more than 15 seconds."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

So maybe they didn't hold it for more than 15 seconds.

So, in your wisdom...that would mean that Hannah and David would have had to hold it for more than 15 seconds...I wait with baited breath for you to explain that one !! The B 2 DNA was not on said Hoe though ..15 seconds or 15 hours..they didn't hold the Hoe !!

[stephenterry]

I'm going to keep repeating this. Neither of the b2 DNA was found on the hoe, the weapon that was used to murder Hannah. Her blood was on the blade. Anything else is circumstantial.

LOADS OF DNA ON THE MURDER WEAPON BUT NOT FROM THE B2..

IS THAT CLEAR..............?

Feeeeeeerk the phone, the hotdog wrapper, a zillion fags on the beach, but wait.....a coke bottle had the B2's DNA on it found in BKK....Must be them......

Gawd.....................

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

"Dr Pornthip, Thailand’s most famous forensic scientist, told the court that DNA would have been left on the hoe by anyone who handled it for more than 15 seconds."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

So maybe they didn't hold it for more than 15 seconds.

Very true - explains why they didn't find DNA from the perpetrators of the crimes on the hoe!!

Dr Porntip has held a grudge with the RTP for a long long time and just doesn't she love being in the limelight with her 'rainbow hair' - it just say's 'look at me'. She was irked about being left out of the initial investigation (how can they do this to me, snubbing such an important and valuable resource) and so I believe she fabricated her findings to discredit the RTP. I wouldn't trust her with a barge pole and disregard her DNA evidence as being falsified just to undermine the police investigation.

Prove it. You realise that defamation laws could land you in big trouble if she decides to go after you. Be careful brother. It's all very well contradicting others on here but accusing her of malpractice is not recommended and your post should be inadmissible.

[Gweiloman]

LOADS OF DNA ON THE MURDER WEAPON BUT NOT FROM THE B2..

IS THAT CLEAR..............?

Feeeeeeerk the phone, the hotdog wrapper, a zillion fags on the beach, but wait.....a coke bottle had the B2's DNA on it found in BKK....Must be them......

Gawd.....................

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

"Dr Pornthip, Thailand’s most famous forensic scientist, told the court that DNA would have been left on the hoe by anyone who handled it for more than 15 seconds."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

So maybe they didn't hold it for more than 15 seconds.

Very true - explains why they didn't find DNA from the perpetrators of the crimes on the hoe!!

Dr Porntip has held a grudge with the RTP for a long long time and just doesn't she love being in the limelight with her 'rainbow hair' - it just say's 'look at me'. She was irked about being left out of the initial investigation (how can they do this to me, snubbing such an important and valuable resource) and so I believe she fabricated her findings to discredit the RTP. I wouldn't trust her with a barge pole and disregard her DNA evidence as being falsified just to undermine the police investigation.

" I believe she fabricated her findings to discredit the RTP"

You do realise that Thailand has rather draconian laws regarding defamation don't you? It is irrelevant as to whether what you say is true or not, as long as the statement can be shown to be defamatory.

I'll keep a cached copy just in case I'm called up to be a witness.

[TheCruncher]

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

"Dr Pornthip, Thailand’s most famous forensic scientist, told the court that DNA would have been left on the hoe by anyone who handled it for more than 15 seconds."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

So maybe they didn't hold it for more than 15 seconds.

Very true - explains why they didn't find DNA from the perpetrators of the crimes on the hoe!!

Dr Porntip has held a grudge with the RTP for a long long time and just doesn't she love being in the limelight with her 'rainbow hair' - it just say's 'look at me'. She was irked about being left out of the initial investigation (how can they do this to me, snubbing such an important and valuable resource) and so I believe she fabricated her findings to discredit the RTP. I wouldn't trust her with a barge pole and disregard her DNA evidence as being falsified just to undermine the police investigation.

You'll find if Dr Pornthip wanted to take the recommendations by the book she would have said 1 minute, but she took a professional opinion based on the circumstances, sorry if the truth hurts Touch DNA time to have enough on object for testing "wood held for 60 secs" http://www.ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Touch_DNA_article.59101908.pdf

You'll find if Dr Pornthip wanted to take the recommendations by the book she would have said 1 minute, but she took a professional opinion based on the circumstances but she instead exaggerated it to 15 seconds to make the RTP even more foolish.

[Nigeone]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Just by their own words they halfway to a conviction.

They were near the crime of the scene (opportunity), they were drunk (people do stupid things when drunk), their clothes were stolen (but not the guitar, what a weird thief, anyway a key piece of evidence conveniently lost), they "found" the phone of the victim and tried to destroy it to avoid being incriminated (how would they know it was related to the crime?) and last but not least they never came forward to help in any way with the investigation.

They had a full year to come up with that alibi and it's so flimsy you could knock it over with a feather.

I haven't seen any report on what the prosecution asked them during cross examination, or what their answers were but I can't imagine it going over very well.

Doesn't there many times already circulate a picture in this and other Koh Tao threads, which many posters claim is of someone wearing David's shorts?

Now who would want to wear the shorts of a murder victim?

Hmm, maybe someone who's clothes were stolen?

Or someone who's clothes were covered in blood from the horrific attack on Hannah !! That guy with the alleged David's clothes was not one of the B2... Who could it have been then !? Ask the police guy removed from the case..He knew !

[RWA]

It is pretty shocking to see what David Miller's family did yesterday.

It would be interesting to know exactly what their motivations are and exactly what they were told about the investigation and supposed evidence against the B2. Surely they can't believe the RTP's version 100%, anybody with even a smidgen of intelligence can see it makes zero sense.

The development about the phone does however shed some light on what time he supposedly went home. Surely some cctv could show his to be a lie or not. But as the trial is done i think that particular loose end will be used to finish him sadly.

A disgusting, shambolic excuse for a trial just got worse. Lord help us if we ever get in a similar situation here.

Give the family a little bit of credit...as they are more clued in than you will ever be. You're speculation is just that...speculation...some would call your speculation "arm chair quarterbacking".

I tell you what ... I'm sure that Hannah and (especially) David wouldn't be all that crazy proud about their families attitudes ... if that was me who might be watching this aftermath from above, I would be kicking their ass, yelling at them: "thank you for all your love and care, but for god's sake stop crying out loud and DI something !!! You can - you are there - I am NOT anymore. Rise another money for a decent private investigator and DO investigate AT LAST and least! It's not that late still not yet! DO ask all the right questions - Do go to get an answers. DO give us ALL that relief and rest that we won't get from any authorities involved...! Please do this last thing for us. Thank you and love you"

now, go ahead ... beat me, curse me, ban me, crucify me .... but I can't help it.

I'm glad I'm not Hannah or David and I'm glad I don't need to see my relatives acting like this ...

sorry ...

[Fat Haggis]

I'm going to keep repeating this. Neither of the b2 DNA was found on the hoe, the weapon that was used to murder Hannah. Her blood was on the blade. Anything else is circumstantial.

LOADS OF DNA ON THE MURDER WEAPON BUT NOT FROM THE B2..

IS THAT CLEAR..............?

Feeeeeeerk the phone, the hotdog wrapper, a zillion fags on the beach, but wait.....a coke bottle had the B2's DNA on it found in BKK....Must be them......

Gawd.....................

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

"Dr Pornthip, Thailands most famous forensic scientist, told the court that DNA would have been left on the hoe by anyone who handled it for more than 15 seconds."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

So maybe they didn't hold it for more than 15 seconds.

Very true - explains why they didn't find DNA from the perpetrators of the crimes on the hoe!!

Dr Porntip has held a grudge with the RTP for a long long time and just doesn't she love being in the limelight with her 'rainbow hair' - it just say's 'look at me'. She was irked about being left out of the initial investigation (how can they do this to me, snubbing such an important and valuable resource) and so I believe she fabricated her findings to discredit the RTP. I wouldn't trust her with a barge pole and disregard her DNA evidence as being falsified just to undermine the police investigation.

And the British coroners report over the Thai coroners inconsistencies? Not to be trusted either?

What makes the Thai version correct and the UK one wrong then? You must be some sort of expert to be able to stand fast over one version and not the other?

UK pathologist states no evidence of rape, but you have repeated there was one, and you know this to be true how?

Confessions made under duress? I can guarantee you that within 30 minutes of torture I could make you claim to be Elvis Pressley, these two know they're going to the rope, the powers that be have seen to this. So why did they not just go for a plea bargain ?

Your comments about an eccentric experts smacks of, well smacks of your own agenda to be honest.

[HUH]

Very true - explains why they didn't find DNA from the perpetrators of the crimes on the hoe!!

Dr Porntip has held a grudge with the RTP for a long long time and just doesn't she love being in the limelight with her 'rainbow hair' - it just say's 'look at me'. She was irked about being left out of the initial investigation (how can they do this to me, snubbing such an important and valuable resource) and so I believe she fabricated her findings to discredit the RTP. I wouldn't trust her with a barge pole and disregard her DNA evidence as being falsified just to undermine the police investigation.

You'll find if Dr Pornthip wanted to take the recommendations by the book she would have said 1 minute, but she took a professional opinion based on the circumstances, sorry if the truth hurts Touch DNA time to have enough on object for testing "wood held for 60 secs" http://www.ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Touch_DNA_article.59101908.pdf

You'll find if Dr Pornthip wanted to take the recommendations by the book she would have said 1 minute, but she took a professional opinion based on the circumstances but she instead exaggerated it to 15 seconds to make the RTP even more foolish.

Exaggerated

"represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is"

[Gweiloman]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Just by their own words they halfway to a conviction.

They were near the crime of the scene (opportunity), they were drunk (people do stupid things when drunk), their clothes were stolen (but not the guitar, what a weird thief, anyway a key piece of evidence conveniently lost), they "found" the phone of the victim and tried to destroy it to avoid being incriminated (how would they know it was related to the crime?) and last but not least they never came forward to help in any way with the investigation.

They had a full year to come up with that alibi and it's so flimsy you could knock it over with a feather.

I haven't seen any report on what the prosecution asked them during cross examination, or what their answers were but I can't imagine it going over very well.

near the crime scene of the scene crime

people do stupid things when drunk

etc etc

So that's your evidence of their guilt?

Tetragrammaton help us

[TheCruncher]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Just by their own words they halfway to a conviction.

They were near the crime of the scene (opportunity), they were drunk (people do stupid things when drunk), their clothes were stolen (but not the guitar, what a weird thief, anyway a key piece of evidence conveniently lost), they "found" the phone of the victim and tried to destroy it to avoid being incriminated (how would they know it was related to the crime?) and last but not least they never came forward to help in any way with the investigation.

They had a full year to come up with that alibi and it's so flimsy you could knock it over with a feather.

I haven't seen any report on what the prosecution asked them during cross examination, or what their answers were but I can't imagine it going over very well.

Doesn't there many times already circulate a picture in this and other Koh Tao threads, which many posters claim is of someone wearing David's shorts?

Now who would want to wear the shorts of a murder victim?

Hmm, maybe someone who's clothes were stolen?

Or someone who's clothes were covered in blood from the horrific attack on Hannah !! That guy with the alleged David's clothes was not one of the B2... Who could it have been then !? Ask the police guy removed from the case..He knew !

Nothing to do with me, but I suggest you report to the court with your evidence before it's too late, because you clearly insinuate that you know who it is in that CCTV screenshot.

[TheCruncher]

Very true - explains why they didn't find DNA from the perpetrators of the crimes on the hoe!!

Dr Porntip has held a grudge with the RTP for a long long time and just doesn't she love being in the limelight with her 'rainbow hair' - it just say's 'look at me'. She was irked about being left out of the initial investigation (how can they do this to me, snubbing such an important and valuable resource) and so I believe she fabricated her findings to discredit the RTP. I wouldn't trust her with a barge pole and disregard her DNA evidence as being falsified just to undermine the police investigation.

You'll find if Dr Pornthip wanted to take the recommendations by the book she would have said 1 minute, but she took a professional opinion based on the circumstances, sorry if the truth hurts Touch DNA time to have enough on object for testing "wood held for 60 secs" http://www.ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Touch_DNA_article.59101908.pdf

You'll find if Dr Pornthip wanted to take the recommendations by the book she would have said 1 minute, but she took a professional opinion based on the circumstances but she instead exaggerated it to 15 seconds to make the RTP even more foolish.

Exaggerated

"represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is"

I'm glad you clearly understand the definition of exaggerated.

[sweatalot]

So now the phone that the accused found belonged allegedly to David.

And now it seems like many posters here feel overwhelmed with doubt - "may be they really did it?"

Even new trolls (at least new names) appear triumphantly

I do not understand this confusion.

Has anything changed? I do not think so.

First of all is the claim believable? Is there any chain of custody?

The RTP claims it is so. Are they in any way credible after all their claims that have been proven as lies?

The IMEI number prooves that it was David's? IMEI numbers can be manipulated.

The defendant says he found it.

Does this mean he was on the crime scene?

Is it not possible that the phone was lost or disposed of by somebody else? Or that he found it on the original crime scene - while the bodies had been moved to the other place?

Even if he passed by the crime scene when looking for his clothes - does that proof he had anything to do with the crime?

He said his clothes were stolen when he was swimming. Could it be that somebody took them who desperatley needed fresh clothes because his clothes where spoiled with blood all over?

This claim being made at a time that makes i impossible for the defense to deal with it makes it highly suspicious to be a new vicious trick of the RTP and for sure not a try to help find the truth

[Fat Haggis]

Not one of you RTP sycophants have come up with the biggest mystery of all....... MOTIVE!!!

[catsanddogs]

This sham trial has been an exercise in cynicism.

Bangkok decided long ago that the B2 must be found guilty.

Therefore the date of Dec 24 has been selected to show the world what a horrible country Thailand can be at times and they are hoping on that date western countries will be too busy to notice. Shame on you Thailand.

And seemingly to make it as painful as possible for the families of the deceased. Rotten decision.

[Gweiloman]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Just by their own words they halfway to a conviction.

They were near the crime of the scene (opportunity), they were drunk (people do stupid things when drunk), their clothes were stolen (but not the guitar, what a weird thief, anyway a key piece of evidence conveniently lost), they "found" the phone of the victim and tried to destroy it to avoid being incriminated (how would they know it was related to the crime?) and last but not least they never came forward to help in any way with the investigation.

They had a full year to come up with that alibi and it's so flimsy you could knock it over with a feather.

I haven't seen any report on what the prosecution asked them during cross examination, or what their answers were but I can't imagine it going over very well.

Doesn't there many times already circulate a picture in this and other Koh Tao threads, which many posters claim is of someone wearing David's shorts?

Now who would want to wear the shorts of a murder victim?

Hmm, maybe someone who's clothes were stolen?

Excellent point! I presume you are referring to the running man cctv?

A gait expert analysis (no, not one of our resident poster) has testified that this running man is not one of the B2. I'm glad you're beginning to see the light of day.

[Fat Haggis]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Just by their own words they halfway to a conviction.

They were near the crime of the scene (opportunity), they were drunk (people do stupid things when drunk), their clothes were stolen (but not the guitar, what a weird thief, anyway a key piece of evidence conveniently lost), they "found" the phone of the victim and tried to destroy it to avoid being incriminated (how would they know it was related to the crime?) and last but not least they never came forward to help in any way with the investigation.

They had a full year to come up with that alibi and it's so flimsy you could knock it over with a feather.

I haven't seen any report on what the prosecution asked them during cross examination, or what their answers were but I can't imagine it going over very well.

Doesn't there many times already circulate a picture in this and other Koh Tao threads, which many posters claim is of someone wearing David's shorts?

Now who would want to wear the shorts of a murder victim?

Hmm, maybe someone who's clothes were stolen?

Or someone who's clothes were covered in blood from the horrific attack on Hannah !! That guy with the alleged David's clothes was not one of the B2... Who could it have been then !? Ask the police guy removed from the case..He knew !

Nothing to do with me, but I suggest you report to the court with your evidence before it's too late, because you clearly insinuate that you know who it is in that CCTV screenshot.

Try the opposite, most know who it isn't and it isn't either of the B2

[Nigeone]

This sham trial has been an exercise in cynicism.

Bangkok decided long ago that the B2 must be found guilty.

Therefore the date of Dec 24 has been selected to show the world what a horrible country Thailand can be at times and they are hoping on that date western countries will be too busy to notice. Shame on you Thailand.

And seemingly to make it as painful as possible for the families of the deceased. Rotten decision.

Call me cynical if you want...But next day, Christmas Day is the only day of the year that papers in the UK and maybe elsewhere are not printed..coincidence ...I don't think so....

[Gweiloman]

Have you ever heard a lawyer, be it defence or prosecution, say before the verdict that his confrater has a stronger case than himself?

Wow! Thanks for teaching me a new word - confrater.

In return, I'll teach you a new one - proves, not proofs - as in "What it definitely proofs proves is that the accused were in the possession of the phone of the murder victim.":

CONFRATER : defintion : member of a fraternity, an associate of a monastery or monastic group who receive privileges ( as a share in prayers ) without corresponding responsibilities ( such as rigorous life or restrictive vows)

But I am not exactly sure who are the confraters in this subject case, some one help me please. I do not want to be one if it involves a vow of celibacy. Aside from that it could be a job worth applying for.

Also ambtsbroeder, medebroeder and kameraad

[lucky11]

I'm going to keep repeating this. Neither of the b2 DNA was found on the hoe, the weapon that was used to murder Hannah. Her blood was on the blade. Anything else is circumstantial.

LOADS OF DNA ON THE MURDER WEAPON BUT NOT FROM THE B2..

IS THAT CLEAR..............?

Feeeeeeerk the phone, the hotdog wrapper, a zillion fags on the beach, but wait.....a coke bottle had the B2's DNA on it found in BKK....Must be them......

Gawd.....................

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

"Dr Pornthip, Thailand’s most famous forensic scientist, told the court that DNA would have been left on the hoe by anyone who handled it for more than 15 seconds."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

So maybe they didn't hold it for more than 15 seconds.

Very true - explains why they didn't find DNA from the perpetrators of the crimes on the hoe!!

Dr Porntip has held a grudge with the RTP for a long long time and just doesn't she love being in the limelight with her 'rainbow hair' - it just say's 'look at me'. She was irked about being left out of the initial investigation (how can they do this to me, snubbing such an important and valuable resource) and so I believe she fabricated her findings to discredit the RTP. I wouldn't trust her with a barge pole and disregard her DNA evidence as being falsified just to undermine the police investigation.

Prove it. You realise that defamation laws could land you in big trouble if she decides to go after you. Be careful brother. It's all very well contradicting others on here but accusing her of malpractice is not recommended and your post should be inadmissible.

Why don't you prove to me that the RTP have lied and falsified evidence as so many of you are claiming - just where is the proof? Be very careful, the RTP have more clout than 'miss pretty hair' - the last bit of my previous post was sarcasm BTW.

[catsanddogs]

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

"Dr Pornthip, Thailand’s most famous forensic scientist, told the court that DNA would have been left on the hoe by anyone who handled it for more than 15 seconds."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

So maybe they didn't hold it for more than 15 seconds.

Very true - explains why they didn't find DNA from the perpetrators of the crimes on the hoe!!

Dr Porntip has held a grudge with the RTP for a long long time and just doesn't she love being in the limelight with her 'rainbow hair' - it just say's 'look at me'. She was irked about being left out of the initial investigation (how can they do this to me, snubbing such an important and valuable resource) and so I believe she fabricated her findings to discredit the RTP. I wouldn't trust her with a barge pole and disregard her DNA evidence as being falsified just to undermine the police investigation.

You'll find if Dr Pornthip wanted to take the recommendations by the book she would have said 1 minute, but she took a professional opinion based on the circumstances, sorry if the truth hurts Touch DNA time to have enough on object for testing "wood held for 60 secs" http://www.ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Touch_DNA_article.59101908.pdf

I wouldn't advise disregarding her evidence as there isn't much else to go by supplied by the prosecution.

[TheCruncher]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Just by their own words they halfway to a conviction.

They were near the crime of the scene (opportunity), they were drunk (people do stupid things when drunk), their clothes were stolen (but not the guitar, what a weird thief, anyway a key piece of evidence conveniently lost), they "found" the phone of the victim and tried to destroy it to avoid being incriminated (how would they know it was related to the crime?) and last but not least they never came forward to help in any way with the investigation.

They had a full year to come up with that alibi and it's so flimsy you could knock it over with a feather.

I haven't seen any report on what the prosecution asked them during cross examination, or what their answers were but I can't imagine it going over very well.

Doesn't there many times already circulate a picture in this and other Koh Tao threads, which many posters claim is of someone wearing David's shorts?

Now who would want to wear the shorts of a murder victim?

Hmm, maybe someone who's clothes were stolen?

Or someone who's clothes were covered in blood from the horrific attack on Hannah !! That guy with the alleged David's clothes was not one of the B2... Who could it have been then !? Ask the police guy removed from the case..He knew !

Nothing to do with me, but I suggest you report to the court with your evidence before it's too late, because you clearly insinuate that you know who it is in that CCTV screenshot.

Try the opposite, most know who it isn't and it isn't either of the B2

Since you alll know who it is, so I assume you must have evidence, I suggest you get to the court before it's too late.

Maybe you can share a taxi with Nigeone, who also seem to have sufficient evidence.

[AleG]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Just by their own words they halfway to a conviction.

They were near the crime of the scene (opportunity), they were drunk (people do stupid things when drunk), their clothes were stolen (but not the guitar, what a weird thief, anyway a key piece of evidence conveniently lost), they "found" the phone of the victim and tried to destroy it to avoid being incriminated (how would they know it was related to the crime?) and last but not least they never came forward to help in any way with the investigation.

They had a full year to come up with that alibi and it's so flimsy you could knock it over with a feather.

I haven't seen any report on what the prosecution asked them during cross examination, or what their answers were but I can't imagine it going over very well.

Doesn't there many times already circulate a picture in this and other Koh Tao threads, which many posters claim is of someone wearing David's shorts?

Now who would want to wear the shorts of a murder victim?

Hmm, maybe someone who's clothes were stolen?

Excellent point! I presume you are referring to the running man cctv?

A gait expert analysis (no, not one of our resident poster) has testified that this running man is not one of the B2. I'm glad you're beginning to see the light of day.

Did he/she now?

What was the name and when was the testimony given in court?

Because as far as I know it was Andy Hall testifying that the analysis they contracted a company that does not list gait analysis as part of their services said something that anyone with any experience in the subject matter would take with a mountain of salt.

[Fat Haggis]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Just by their own words they halfway to a conviction.

They were near the crime of the scene (opportunity), they were drunk (people do stupid things when drunk), their clothes were stolen (but not the guitar, what a weird thief, anyway a key piece of evidence conveniently lost), they "found" the phone of the victim and tried to destroy it to avoid being incriminated (how would they know it was related to the crime?) and last but not least they never came forward to help in any way with the investigation.

They had a full year to come up with that alibi and it's so flimsy you could knock it over with a feather.

I haven't seen any report on what the prosecution asked them during cross examination, or what their answers were but I can't imagine it going over very well.

Doesn't there many times already circulate a picture in this and other Koh Tao threads, which many posters claim is of someone wearing David's shorts?

Now who would want to wear the shorts of a murder victim?

Hmm, maybe someone who's clothes were stolen?

Or someone who's clothes were covered in blood from the horrific attack on Hannah !! That guy with the alleged David's clothes was not one of the B2... Who could it have been then !? Ask the police guy removed from the case..He knew !

Nothing to do with me, but I suggest you report to the court with your evidence before it's too late, because you clearly insinuate that you know who it is in that CCTV screenshot.

Try the opposite, most know who it isn't and it isn't either of the B2

Since you alll know who it is, so I assume you must have evidence, I suggest you get to the court before it's too late.

Maybe you can share a taxi with Nigeone, who also seem to have sufficient evidence.

Try reading it again, who it isn't you're clearly trolling now and deliberately trying to bait posters in a very blatant attempt to have this thread shut down.

[Gweiloman]

Nothing to do with me, but I suggest you report to the court with your evidence before it's too late, because you clearly insinuate that you know who it is in that CCTV screenshot.

Try the opposite, most know who it isn't and it isn't either of the B2

Since you alll know who it is, so I assume you must have evidence, I suggest you get to the court before it's too late.

Maybe you can share a taxi with Nigeone, who also seem to have sufficient evidence.

You seem a bit confused. Neither Nigeone nor Fat Haggis has said they know who it is. Nigeone said that Khun Panya knew (or maybe suspected). Fat Haggis said that it's not either of the B2.

[Gweiloman]

Did he/she now?

What was the name and when was the testimony given in court?

Because as far as I know it was Andy Hall testifying that the analysis they contracted a company that does not list gait analysis as part of their services said something that anyone with any experience in the subject matter would take with a mountain of salt.

Ah! Welcome back!

I asked you a question earlier

Now that the trial is over, do you still feel that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the B2 are guilty? I consider myself fairly well educated and of reasonable intelligence but...

- neither prints nor DNA of accused found on alleged murder weapon

- no witnesses to the crime

- claimed DNA match on victim's body but unable to substantiate beyond reasonable doubt

- serious doubts raised on RTP's version of events (rape, attack from behind etc)

Undeniable facts are:

- B2 in the vicinity of the crime scene before said crime; unproven that they were present during the crime

- one of the suspects found a phone, presumably belonging to one of the victims - doesn't really prove anything beyond reasonable doubt

There's a whole lot more but I'll spare other readers what has been discussed over and over. Can you enlighten us as to why you are so convinced of the B2's guilt? If you want to be taken seriously and wish to engage in constructive debate, the least you can do is to respond, without deviation or deflection.

Would you care to answer now?