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

[AleG]

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

Good thing the prosecution didn't base their case on that then.

Now riddle me this, why no DNA from the owner of the hoe neither?

The answer is because touch DNA is sketchy at best.

- no witnesses to the crime

So? The prosecution case is not based on witnesses for the crime itself. (besides the confessions)

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

According to the defense, and they would say that, wouldn't they? It's the only thing they have, imply that the DNA results are wrong; they passed on the offer to do a retest though, after asking for months for it, too risky to have the results verified I suppose.

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

Again according to the defense and online speculation (that they have encouraged since the beginning)

This is the defense case in a nutshell: the evidence could be wrong. No positive proof that would clear their clients, no witnesses, no physical evidence, nothing, zip, zero.

I'm not the judge to decide on their guilt, he has all the relevant information, not me or you do; but the DNA linking them to the crime has not been disproved by the defense, as I said they just tried to imply it may be wrong; that and repeating ad nauseam the allegations of torture, that's the best they could muster and all things considered, in my opinion, the defense case is threadbare.

Now, any comments on using the services of a company that doesn't list gait analysis to "prove" something by gait analysis? (a method not accepted in the UK courts, which may be the reason the company doesn't list it) Can you give me any examples of other gait analysis done by that same company? Any used on any trial in the UK? Anywhere else in the world?

A few points for you to consider in those replies,

Gait Analysis not accepted in the UK courts: Unless there's been a new law passed recently then as far as I can make out it certainly is allowed in UK courts. A murderer who said he was unfairly convicted because of the way he walks failed in an Appeal Court bid to clear his name. Elroy Otway was jailed in 2009 for the murder of Mark Daniels, 25, who was shot dead in Wythenshawe in August 2006. My testimony was instrumental in bringing Otway to justice. At London’s Appeal Court, Otway’s legal team argued that I ‘could not be considered an expert’ and that podiatry is ‘not sufficiently recognized or advanced’ as a forensic science to justify its use in court. http://www.expertwitnessjournal.co.uk/forensics/591-what-is-forensic-gait-analysis

Touch DNA is sketchy at best: Can you give me an expert opinion and citation that states it is sketchy at best? Are you saying the the identification of Hannah's and Davids DNA on the hoe handle is sketchy? You see logically if they are able to obtain enough to make a full test then it is permissible in court. So do courts take into account this sketchy evidence?

Again according to the defense and online speculation [serious doubts raised on RTP's version of events (rape, attack from behind etc) ] It was the UK coroner not online speculation regards the rape.

DNA result are wrong they passed on an offer to retest. Lets face it, if you have been asking for the chain of custody documents numerous times and they were never given, then whats the point of doing a DNA test when its not verifiable samples?

Allegations of torture thats the best they can muster: Thats pretty damning from most peoples perspective and deserves to be fully investigated and until that is done the evidence of the confessions should not be admissible, do you not agree? Internationa experts that are not connected to the defense do such as the International Commission of Jurists

EDIT

You yourself mentioned you were a gait expert, instead of questioning credible forensic companies would you care to list your own credentials?

The document I linked to is from 2015, by the UK National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Forensic science regulator... you cited a podiatrist for a case in 2009, I hope they had other credible evidence on that case or there's every chance an innocent person is in jail.

Yes, it's sketchy at best, this scientific paper cites a 36% chance of detecting DNA under ideal conditions for people holding a wooden object for 60 seconds: Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions

The UK coroner didn't detect sign of rape weeks after the murders and after the body was embalmed and had already undergone a post mortem. Of course there are going to be discrepancies, and I don't want to go into details on why some signs of rape would not be present by the time of the second autopsy. Apparently bite marks can fade after death too, but I'm no expert, my guess is that there's difference of opinion among experts on a technical point, one thinks is a bite mark, other thinks not. It would hold significance if that would be a key element on the prosecution, but it wasn't.

Chain of custody documents never given? Then how come Dr. Pornthip testified about their content and alleged irregularities? A Crystal ball? This meme is not based on reality.

The torture allegations have nothing to do on the whether they are guilty or not of the murders, I said it before, that is a separate case to be had.

As for your last question, did you miss the warning by a moderator about not discussing the posters?

[z42]

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

Errrr they were horny, remember..................

[HUH]

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

Good thing the prosecution didn't base their case on that then.

Now riddle me this, why no DNA from the owner of the hoe neither?

The answer is because touch DNA is sketchy at best.

- no witnesses to the crime

So? The prosecution case is not based on witnesses for the crime itself. (besides the confessions)

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

According to the defense, and they would say that, wouldn't they? It's the only thing they have, imply that the DNA results are wrong; they passed on the offer to do a retest though, after asking for months for it, too risky to have the results verified I suppose.

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

Again according to the defense and online speculation (that they have encouraged since the beginning)

This is the defense case in a nutshell: the evidence could be wrong. No positive proof that would clear their clients, no witnesses, no physical evidence, nothing, zip, zero.

I'm not the judge to decide on their guilt, he has all the relevant information, not me or you do; but the DNA linking them to the crime has not been disproved by the defense, as I said they just tried to imply it may be wrong; that and repeating ad nauseam the allegations of torture, that's the best they could muster and all things considered, in my opinion, the defense case is threadbare.

Now, any comments on using the services of a company that doesn't list gait analysis to "prove" something by gait analysis? (a method not accepted in the UK courts, which may be the reason the company doesn't list it) Can you give me any examples of other gait analysis done by that same company? Any used on any trial in the UK? Anywhere else in the world?

A few points for you to consider in those replies,

Gait Analysis not accepted in the UK courts: Unless there's been a new law passed recently then as far as I can make out it certainly is allowed in UK courts. A murderer who said he was unfairly convicted because of the way he walks failed in an Appeal Court bid to clear his name. Elroy Otway was jailed in 2009 for the murder of Mark Daniels, 25, who was shot dead in Wythenshawe in August 2006. My testimony was instrumental in bringing Otway to justice. At London’s Appeal Court, Otway’s legal team argued that I ‘could not be considered an expert’ and that podiatry is ‘not sufficiently recognized or advanced’ as a forensic science to justify its use in court. http://www.expertwitnessjournal.co.uk/forensics/591-what-is-forensic-gait-analysis

Touch DNA is sketchy at best: Can you give me an expert opinion and citation that states it is sketchy at best? Are you saying the the identification of Hannah's and Davids DNA on the hoe handle is sketchy? You see logically if they are able to obtain enough to make a full test then it is permissible in court. So do courts take into account this sketchy evidence?

Again according to the defense and online speculation [serious doubts raised on RTP's version of events (rape, attack from behind etc) ] It was the UK coroner not online speculation regards the rape.

DNA result are wrong they passed on an offer to retest. Lets face it, if you have been asking for the chain of custody documents numerous times and they were never given, then whats the point of doing a DNA test when its not verifiable samples?

Allegations of torture thats the best they can muster: Thats pretty damning from most peoples perspective and deserves to be fully investigated and until that is done the evidence of the confessions should not be admissible, do you not agree? Internationa experts that are not connected to the defense do such as the International Commission of Jurists

EDIT

You yourself mentioned you were a gait expert, instead of questioning credible forensic companies would you care to list your own credentials?

The document I linked to is from 2015, by the UK National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Forensic science regulator... you cited a podiatrist for a case in 2009, I hope they had other credible evidence on that case or there's every chance an innocent person is in jail.

Yes, it's sketchy at best, this scientific paper cites a 36% chance of detecting DNA under ideal conditions for people holding a wooden object for 60 seconds: Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions

The UK coroner didn't detect sign of rape weeks after the murders and after the body was embalmed and had already undergone a post mortem. Of course there are going to be discrepancies, and I don't want to go into details on why some signs of rape would not be present by the time of the second autopsy. Apparently bite marks can fade after death too, but I'm no expert, my guess is that there's difference of opinion among experts on a technical point, one thinks is a bite mark, other thinks not. It would hold significance if that would be a key element on the prosecution, but it wasn't.

Chain of custody documents never given? Then how come Dr. Pornthip testified about their content and alleged irregularities? A Crystal ball? This meme is not based on reality.

The torture allegations have nothing to do on the whether they are guilty or not of the murders, I said it before, that is a separate case to be had.

As for your last question, did you miss the warning by a moderator about not discussing the posters?

I'm not discussing posters but responding to a claim that you made ie you said you were "gait expert" after all we are on the subject of gait analysis? But I guess you'd like to gloss over that one?

The same as I'm asking you about your replies that you've responded to which by the way I do not agree with but will stop at debating further with you.

[catsanddogs]

9

A clue maybe? Guy in number 9 tee shirt hi fiving David Miller?

[catsanddogs]

Apologies for mentioning the phone again but how do we know that the phone identified by the Millers is the one the accused found on the beach? Just because the RTP said so?

I must say I have joined those who think the B2 either know more or are involved although clearly not the murderers. I also agree with those who have said having them testify was a major blunder by the defense. My knowledge of these things is almost entirely from watching Law & Order and my recollection is the accused never testifies unless absolutely necessary and the defense is certain what they are going to say.

As has been said, I now believe the phone and WP's presence on the beach at 4 am after saying they were asleep will be seized upon by the judges to justify the preordained verdict.

Christmas Eve announcement - disgusting and Thainess at its purest.

Thailand doesn't celebrate Christmas so there is no Christmas eve in Thailand.

The families of the deceased will be celebrating Christmas (as best they can). A time of good will to all men, and a time when families get together to share time and love (whether they are believers or not). I wouldn't image either the Witheridge or Miller family cracking open a bottle and celebrating whatever the verdict.

[fitzcaraldo]

Follow that lead. So far i dont see any evidences around here

[catsanddogs]

Follow that lead. So far i dont see any evidences around here

You mean 9? Number 9 tee shirt guy?

[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?

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

Good thing the prosecution didn't base their case on that then.

Now riddle me this, why no DNA from the owner of the hoe neither?

The answer is because touch DNA is sketchy at best.

- no witnesses to the crime

So? The prosecution case is not based on witnesses for the crime itself. (besides the confessions)

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

According to the defense, and they would say that, wouldn't they? It's the only thing they have, imply that the DNA results are wrong; they passed on the offer to do a retest though, after asking for months for it, too risky to have the results verified I suppose.

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

Again according to the defense and online speculation (that they have encouraged since the beginning)

This is the defense case in a nutshell: the evidence could be wrong. No positive proof that would clear their clients, no witnesses, no physical evidence, nothing, zip, zero.

I'm not the judge to decide on their guilt, he has all the relevant information, not me or you do; but the DNA linking them to the crime has not been disproved by the defense, as I said they just tried to imply it may be wrong; that and repeating ad nauseam the allegations of torture, that's the best they could muster and all things considered, in my opinion, the defense case is threadbare.

Now, any comments on using the services of a company that doesn't list gait analysis to "prove" something by gait analysis? (a method not accepted in the UK courts, which may be the reason the company doesn't list it) Can you give me any examples of other gait analysis done by that same company? Any used on any trial in the UK? Anywhere else in the world?

Still.... nothing about proof beyond reasonable doubt

[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.

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.

Sadly none of us on here need to prove this as the RTP, the supposed law enforcement agency and upholders of all that right and good have proved it by there performance, or lack of it by there witnesses , in this trial.. I have posted maybe 5 times in the various topics throughout this trial and still my statement remains the same.. At no point in this extended trial have the prosecution in anyway ,shape or form remotely shown that the B2 are guilty or even involved..Even with this alleged phone business that's come to light in the last !! few hours of the trial still don't change the dynamics of this case...My opinion is that there will be a appeal.. Against all laws of justice sadly I feel the powers that be will make sure a guilty verdict...Then I'm afraid this will all be repeated with human rights playing a bigger part....I really really hope I'm wrong...And too all these people trying to derail this thread and have it shut down may you all be one day too faced with injustice, and preferably by Thai police or justice systems. You can rest assured unlike so many trying to see justice for the B2 you will not have any support from the good people in here...sad but true !.

[AleG]

The document I linked to is from 2015, by the UK National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Forensic science regulator... you cited a podiatrist for a case in 2009, I hope they had other credible evidence on that case or there's every chance an innocent person is in jail.

Yes, it's sketchy at best, this scientific paper cites a 36% chance of detecting DNA under ideal conditions for people holding a wooden object for 60 seconds: Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions

The UK coroner didn't detect sign of rape weeks after the murders and after the body was embalmed and had already undergone a post mortem. Of course there are going to be discrepancies, and I don't want to go into details on why some signs of rape would not be present by the time of the second autopsy. Apparently bite marks can fade after death too, but I'm no expert, my guess is that there's difference of opinion among experts on a technical point, one thinks is a bite mark, other thinks not. It would hold significance if that would be a key element on the prosecution, but it wasn't.

Chain of custody documents never given? Then how come Dr. Pornthip testified about their content and alleged irregularities? A Crystal ball? This meme is not based on reality.

The torture allegations have nothing to do on the whether they are guilty or not of the murders, I said it before, that is a separate case to be had.

As for your last question, did you miss the warning by a moderator about not discussing the posters?

I'm not discussing posters but responding to a claim that you made ie you said you were gait expert? But I guess you'd like to deflect that?

The same as I'm asking you about your replies that you've responded to which by the way I do not agree with but will stop at debating further with you.

My professional credentials are none of your business.

But regarding the supposed gait analysis presented in court, to begin with they are basing themselves in poor quality footage, obtaining the correct vector for the feet movement out of that involves more guesswork than actual accurate tracking; it's just not possible, the feet look like blobs most of the time, there is no way to produce any consistently accurate angles to within, let's say +- 10 degrees (being generous) of the actual direction of the feet; then on top of that they would be compounding the errors when relating both feet together and the overall direction of motion.

This is the kind of setup used for accurate motion capture:

Do you imagine that if just using one crappy CCTV camera is enough to measure things accurately they would bother with any of that? Even with all that gear it is usually necessary to fix things afterwards.

Getting any accurate measurements from poor CCTV footage to derive an analysis on subtle differences in the kinematics of locomotion is a fools errand.

Secondly, they were comparing different gaits, walking versus running; people are not cars, they don't just go faster by increasing the rate of motion, the kinematics (everything to do with position, angle, rotation of the limbs and body and center of gravity adjustment) are quite different. So it's just guesswork on top of guesswork to extrapolate from one gait to the other.

Then there's the issue that people some times just walk a little differently than normal, that's why there are words like stroll, amble, sneaking, swagger, etc, etc.. The way a person walks at any moment can be affected by their emotional or mental state, for example by being drunk as the defendants said they were at the time of the "Running man" video.

The "gait analysis" presented by Andy Hall consisted (as far as I've seen) of lines aligned (poorly) to the feet and overall body directions, it compared the gait of one of the suspects walking into a 7/11 (wearing flip flops) with the barefoot running gait of the "running man". That comparison holds no weight whatsoever as "proof" that those two people are different individuals.

My take on this is that company doesn't advertise that service because they either don't provide it at all as such or they know it's not reliable or even credible and prefer not to advertise it openly.

That it was taken to court as a forensic analysis to prove things one way or another just makes me think of the quote "If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.".

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think the company doing that analysis was misrepresenting results or making false claims, as far as I know they could just had been asked to produce a visual representation and all "analysis" and conclusions are the work of the defense or at least tarted up for impact. If those people at Acume have a minimum of professional integrity they would never make the claim that their work proves things to any degree of certainty.

At most you can get a good approximation of body height and proportions by a detailed analysis aimed at that (again I don't know if that company did it and it's absent on what I've seen), but in the end one is left with little more than "well, the two persons have about the same build and height, so they could be the same person, maybe".

You know, like the guidelines I linked to before say "Therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements."

[HUH]

The document I linked to is from 2015, by the UK National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Forensic science regulator... you cited a podiatrist for a case in 2009, I hope they had other credible evidence on that case or there's every chance an innocent person is in jail.

Yes, it's sketchy at best, this scientific paper cites a 36% chance of detecting DNA under ideal conditions for people holding a wooden object for 60 seconds: Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions

The UK coroner didn't detect sign of rape weeks after the murders and after the body was embalmed and had already undergone a post mortem. Of course there are going to be discrepancies, and I don't want to go into details on why some signs of rape would not be present by the time of the second autopsy. Apparently bite marks can fade after death too, but I'm no expert, my guess is that there's difference of opinion among experts on a technical point, one thinks is a bite mark, other thinks not. It would hold significance if that would be a key element on the prosecution, but it wasn't.

Chain of custody documents never given? Then how come Dr. Pornthip testified about their content and alleged irregularities? A Crystal ball? This meme is not based on reality.

The torture allegations have nothing to do on the whether they are guilty or not of the murders, I said it before, that is a separate case to be had.

As for your last question, did you miss the warning by a moderator about not discussing the posters?

I'm not discussing posters but responding to a claim that you made ie you said you were gait expert? But I guess you'd like to deflect that?

The same as I'm asking you about your replies that you've responded to which by the way I do not agree with but will stop at debating further with you.

My professional credentials are none of your business.

But regarding the supposed gait analysis presented in court, to begin with they are basing themselves in poor quality footage, obtaining the correct vector for the feet movement out of that involves more guesswork than actual accurate tracking; it's just not possible, the feet look like blobs most of the time, there is no way to produce any consistently accurate angles to within, let's say +- 10 degrees (being generous) of the actual direction of the feet; then on top of that they would be compounding the errors when relating both feet together and the overall direction of motion.

This is the kind of setup used for accurate motion capture:

Do you imagine that if just using one crappy CCTV camera is enough to measure things accurately they would bother with any of that? Even with all that gear it is usually necessary to fix things afterwards.

Getting any accurate measurements from poor CCTV footage to derive an analysis on subtle differences in the kinematics of locomotion is a fools errand.

Secondly, they were comparing different gaits, walking versus running; people are not cars, they don't just go faster by increasing the rate of motion, the kinematics (everything to do with position, angle, rotation of the limbs and body and center of gravity adjustment) are quite different. So it's just guesswork on top of guesswork to extrapolate from one gait to the other.

Then there's the issue that people some times just walk a little differently than normal, that's why there are words like stroll, amble, sneaking, swagger, etc, etc.. The way a person walks at any moment can be affected by their emotional or mental state, for example by being drunk as the defendants said they were at the time of the "Running man" video.

The "gait analysis" presented by Andy Hall consisted (as far as I've seen) of lines aligned (poorly) to the feet and overall body directions, it compared the gait of one of the suspects walking into a 7/11 (wearing flip flops) with the barefoot running gait of the "running man". That comparison holds no weight whatsoever as "proof" that those two people are different individuals.

My take on this is that company doesn't advertise that service because they either don't provide it at all as such or they know it's not reliable or even credible and prefer not to advertise it openly.

That it was taken to court as a forensic analysis to prove things one way or another just makes me think of the quote "If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.".

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think the company doing that analysis was misrepresenting results or making false claims, as far as I know they could just had been asked to produce a visual representation and all "analysis" and conclusions are the work of the defense or at least tarted up for impact. If those people at Acume have a minimum of professional integrity they would never make the claim that their work proves things to any degree of certainty.

At most you can get a good approximation of body height and proportions by a detailed analysis aimed at that (again I don't know if that company did it and it's absent on what I've seen), but in the end one is left with little more than "well, the two persons have about the same build and height, so they could be the same person, maybe".

You know, like the guidelines I linked to before say "Therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements."

Well as I said in my post, its for the judge to decide not anonymous internet gait experts.

I wonder which is the best course to take on gait analysis, the Masters http://www.salford.ac.uk/health-sciences/research/research-programmes/gait-biomechanics/gait-analysis-courses or the online course for $40 http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/running-mechanics-and-gait-analysis-ceu-quiz

[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 !

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.

I would be happy to share a taxi with many on here as there quite clearly honest, upstanding people with a ability to see what's right or wrong... I would however would not be waiting for you. And yes I would be very happy to stand up in court and say that the running man is not in any shape or form one of the B 2. I notice you also say it's nothing to do with you.. Well you ceartainly have a lot to say if that's the case... Maybe you could meet me in said court and put your case forward ! Or maybe again it wouldn't be anything to do with you again....I'm not hiding !! I'm happy to tell you my business interests , address etc in Thailand. Tell you what, we can swop information and maybe meet up for a quiet drink and discuss the merits of this case !

[Gweiloman]

The document I linked to is from 2015, by the UK National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Forensic science regulator... you cited a podiatrist for a case in 2009, I hope they had other credible evidence on that case or there's every chance an innocent person is in jail.

Yes, it's sketchy at best, this scientific paper cites a 36% chance of detecting DNA under ideal conditions for people holding a wooden object for 60 seconds: Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions

The UK coroner didn't detect sign of rape weeks after the murders and after the body was embalmed and had already undergone a post mortem. Of course there are going to be discrepancies, and I don't want to go into details on why some signs of rape would not be present by the time of the second autopsy. Apparently bite marks can fade after death too, but I'm no expert, my guess is that there's difference of opinion among experts on a technical point, one thinks is a bite mark, other thinks not. It would hold significance if that would be a key element on the prosecution, but it wasn't.

Chain of custody documents never given? Then how come Dr. Pornthip testified about their content and alleged irregularities? A Crystal ball? This meme is not based on reality.

The torture allegations have nothing to do on the whether they are guilty or not of the murders, I said it before, that is a separate case to be had.

As for your last question, did you miss the warning by a moderator about not discussing the posters?

I'm not discussing posters but responding to a claim that you made ie you said you were gait expert? But I guess you'd like to deflect that?

The same as I'm asking you about your replies that you've responded to which by the way I do not agree with but will stop at debating further with you.

My professional credentials are none of your business.

But regarding the supposed gait analysis presented in court, to begin with they are basing themselves in poor quality footage, obtaining the correct vector for the feet movement out of that involves more guesswork than actual accurate tracking; it's just not possible, the feet look like blobs most of the time, there is no way to produce any consistently accurate angles to within, let's say +- 10 degrees (being generous) of the actual direction of the feet; then on top of that they would be compounding the errors when relating both feet together and the overall direction of motion.

This is the kind of setup used for accurate motion capture:

Do you imagine that if just using one crappy CCTV camera is enough to measure things accurately they would bother with any of that? Even with all that gear it is usually necessary to fix things afterwards.

Getting any accurate measurements from poor CCTV footage to derive an analysis on subtle differences in the kinematics of locomotion is a fools errand.

Secondly, they were comparing different gaits, walking versus running; people are not cars, they don't just go faster by increasing the rate of motion, the kinematics (everything to do with position, angle, rotation of the limbs and body and center of gravity adjustment) are quite different. So it's just guesswork on top of guesswork to extrapolate from one gait to the other.

Then there's the issue that people some times just walk a little differently than normal, that's why there are words like stroll, amble, sneaking, swagger, etc, etc.. The way a person walks at any moment can be affected by their emotional or mental state, for example by being drunk as the defendants said they were at the time of the "Running man" video.

The "gait analysis" presented by Andy Hall consisted (as far as I've seen) of lines aligned (poorly) to the feet and overall body directions, it compared the gait of one of the suspects walking into a 7/11 (wearing flip flops) with the barefoot running gait of the "running man". That comparison holds no weight whatsoever as "proof" that those two people are different individuals.

My take on this is that company doesn't advertise that service because they either don't provide it at all as such or they know it's not reliable or even credible and prefer not to advertise it openly.

That it was taken to court as a forensic analysis to prove things one way or another just makes me think of the quote "If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.".

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think the company doing that analysis was misrepresenting results or making false claims, as far as I know they could just had been asked to produce a visual representation and all "analysis" and conclusions are the work of the defense or at least tarted up for impact. If those people at Acume have a minimum of professional integrity they would never make the claim that their work proves things to any degree of certainty.

At most you can get a good approximation of body height and proportions by a detailed analysis aimed at that (again I don't know if that company did it and it's absent on what I've seen), but in the end one is left with little more than "well, the two persons have about the same build and height, so they could be the same person, maybe".

You know, like the guidelines I linked to before say "Therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements."

Yawn. Rather than trawl through the internet, can you share with us why you think the B2 are guilty?

On what do you base their guilt?

Their prints and/or DNA on the murder weapon? Nope, none found.

Witnesses to them committing the crime? Nope, none found.

CCTV footage? Nope, not available.

Confessions? Taken under claimed duress, subsequently retracted.

Possession of phone supposedly belong to one of the victims? Circumstantial and tangential (citing AH)

DNA of sperm match? Highly questionable due to doubts as to actual existence, chain of custody etc etc

CCTV footage? Even a half blind Burmese cleaner can see that the footage of the running man does not match either of the B2

Do you truly, truly, truly believe that, regardless of your personal opinion / interests, the prosecution has proven the case beyond any reasonable doubt? Try not to discredit the defense's case - I'm not sure how the law works in countries like Bolivia, Venezuala, Uruguay etc - but in most of the Western world such as USA, UK, Europe, Australia, the onus of proof is upon the prosecution. To prove the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of whether that is the case here in Thailand, this is the standard that posters on TV adhere to. If you do not adhere to the same standard, then say so, so that we have a better understanding of your stance on this case.

Also, try to understand this. You are on the side of the prosecution, not the defense. On this thread, you have been defending the prosecution's case with deflections and misdirections. Why don't you put the evidence on the table and get the rest of the board to discredit it? That would be the natural course of action.

[AleG]

Well as I said in my post, its for the judge to decide not anonymous internet gait experts.

I wonder which is the best course to take on gait analysis, the Masters http://www.salford.ac.uk/health-sciences/research/research-programmes/gait-biomechanics/gait-analysis-courses or the online course for $40 http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/running-mechanics-and-gait-analysis-ceu-quiz

Before you make a choice try to get a better understanding on the difference between clinical gait analysis used to identify and treat pathologies and lesions, and gait analysis used for identifying people.

Because typing "Gait analysis" in Google just doesn't cut it

[RWA]

If Wei was at the scene and observed the murder , wouldnt it work in his favor to tell the court who he saw that night on the beach ?

If he is innocent and set free he will go back to Burma anyway so he shouldnt worry about his life will be in danger if he talks.

This is exactly what I said. Why are they not saying their side of the story? Just saying he found it on the beach at 4am doesn't make sense to me.

errr finding something on the beach doesn't have to make sense, unless it's a mermaid !!

yes! yes! right, hahahaaaaaa

[AleG]

My professional credentials are none of your business.

But regarding the supposed gait analysis presented in court, to begin with they are basing themselves in poor quality footage, obtaining the correct vector for the feet movement out of that involves more guesswork than actual accurate tracking; it's just not possible, the feet look like blobs most of the time, there is no way to produce any consistently accurate angles to within, let's say +- 10 degrees (being generous) of the actual direction of the feet; then on top of that they would be compounding the errors when relating both feet together and the overall direction of motion.

This is the kind of setup used for accurate motion capture:

Do you imagine that if just using one crappy CCTV camera is enough to measure things accurately they would bother with any of that? Even with all that gear it is usually necessary to fix things afterwards.

Getting any accurate measurements from poor CCTV footage to derive an analysis on subtle differences in the kinematics of locomotion is a fools errand.

Secondly, they were comparing different gaits, walking versus running; people are not cars, they don't just go faster by increasing the rate of motion, the kinematics (everything to do with position, angle, rotation of the limbs and body and center of gravity adjustment) are quite different. So it's just guesswork on top of guesswork to extrapolate from one gait to the other.

Then there's the issue that people some times just walk a little differently than normal, that's why there are words like stroll, amble, sneaking, swagger, etc, etc.. The way a person walks at any moment can be affected by their emotional or mental state, for example by being drunk as the defendants said they were at the time of the "Running man" video.

The "gait analysis" presented by Andy Hall consisted (as far as I've seen) of lines aligned (poorly) to the feet and overall body directions, it compared the gait of one of the suspects walking into a 7/11 (wearing flip flops) with the barefoot running gait of the "running man". That comparison holds no weight whatsoever as "proof" that those two people are different individuals.

My take on this is that company doesn't advertise that service because they either don't provide it at all as such or they know it's not reliable or even credible and prefer not to advertise it openly.

That it was taken to court as a forensic analysis to prove things one way or another just makes me think of the quote "If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.".

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think the company doing that analysis was misrepresenting results or making false claims, as far as I know they could just had been asked to produce a visual representation and all "analysis" and conclusions are the work of the defense or at least tarted up for impact. If those people at Acume have a minimum of professional integrity they would never make the claim that their work proves things to any degree of certainty.

At most you can get a good approximation of body height and proportions by a detailed analysis aimed at that (again I don't know if that company did it and it's absent on what I've seen), but in the end one is left with little more than "well, the two persons have about the same build and height, so they could be the same person, maybe".

You know, like the guidelines I linked to before say "Therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements."

Yawn. Rather than trawl through the internet, can you share with us why you think the B2 are guilty?

On what do you base their guilt?

Their prints and/or DNA on the murder weapon? Nope, none found.

Witnesses to them committing the crime? Nope, none found.

CCTV footage? Nope, not available.

Confessions? Taken under claimed duress, subsequently retracted.

Possession of phone supposedly belong to one of the victims? Circumstantial and tangential (citing AH)

DNA of sperm match? Highly questionable due to doubts as to actual existence, chain of custody etc etc

CCTV footage? Even a half blind Burmese cleaner can see that the footage of the running man does not match either of the B2

Do you truly, truly, truly believe that, regardless of your personal opinion / interests, the prosecution has proven the case beyond any reasonable doubt? Try not to discredit the defense's case - I'm not sure how the law works in countries like Bolivia, Venezuala, Uruguay etc - but in most of the Western world such as USA, UK, Europe, Australia, the onus of proof is upon the prosecution. To prove the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of whether that is the case here in Thailand, this is the standard that posters on TV adhere to. If you do not adhere to the same standard, then say so, so that we have a better understanding of your stance on this case.

Also, try to understand this. You are on the side of the prosecution, not the defense. On this thread, you have been defending the prosecution's case with deflections and misdirections. Why don't you put the evidence on the table and get the rest of the board to discredit it? That would be the natural course of action.

You dismissed a long, detailed post with a "Yawn".

Besides, I already answered most of your questions, you are not paying attention, you are not interested. Why bother?

[rockingrobin]

The document I linked to is from 2015, by the UK National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Forensic science regulator... you cited a podiatrist for a case in 2009, I hope they had other credible evidence on that case or there's every chance an innocent person is in jail.

Yes, it's sketchy at best, this scientific paper cites a 36% chance of detecting DNA under ideal conditions for people holding a wooden object for 60 seconds: Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions

The UK coroner didn't detect sign of rape weeks after the murders and after the body was embalmed and had already undergone a post mortem. Of course there are going to be discrepancies, and I don't want to go into details on why some signs of rape would not be present by the time of the second autopsy. Apparently bite marks can fade after death too, but I'm no expert, my guess is that there's difference of opinion among experts on a technical point, one thinks is a bite mark, other thinks not. It would hold significance if that would be a key element on the prosecution, but it wasn't.

Chain of custody documents never given? Then how come Dr. Pornthip testified about their content and alleged irregularities? A Crystal ball? This meme is not based on reality.

The torture allegations have nothing to do on the whether they are guilty or not of the murders, I said it before, that is a separate case to be had.

As for your last question, did you miss the warning by a moderator about not discussing the posters?

I'm not discussing posters but responding to a claim that you made ie you said you were gait expert? But I guess you'd like to deflect that?

The same as I'm asking you about your replies that you've responded to which by the way I do not agree with but will stop at debating further with you.

My professional credentials are none of your business.

But regarding the supposed gait analysis presented in court, to begin with they are basing themselves in poor quality footage, obtaining the correct vector for the feet movement out of that involves more guesswork than actual accurate tracking; it's just not possible, the feet look like blobs most of the time, there is no way to produce any consistently accurate angles to within, let's say +- 10 degrees (being generous) of the actual direction of the feet; then on top of that they would be compounding the errors when relating both feet together and the overall direction of motion.

This is the kind of setup used for accurate motion capture:

Do you imagine that if just using one crappy CCTV camera is enough to measure things accurately they would bother with any of that? Even with all that gear it is usually necessary to fix things afterwards.

Getting any accurate measurements from poor CCTV footage to derive an analysis on subtle differences in the kinematics of locomotion is a fools errand.

Secondly, they were comparing different gaits, walking versus running; people are not cars, they don't just go faster by increasing the rate of motion, the kinematics (everything to do with position, angle, rotation of the limbs and body and center of gravity adjustment) are quite different. So it's just guesswork on top of guesswork to extrapolate from one gait to the other.

Then there's the issue that people some times just walk a little differently than normal, that's why there are words like stroll, amble, sneaking, swagger, etc, etc.. The way a person walks at any moment can be affected by their emotional or mental state, for example by being drunk as the defendants said they were at the time of the "Running man" video.

The "gait analysis" presented by Andy Hall consisted (as far as I've seen) of lines aligned (poorly) to the feet and overall body directions, it compared the gait of one of the suspects walking into a 7/11 (wearing flip flops) with the barefoot running gait of the "running man". That comparison holds no weight whatsoever as "proof" that those two people are different individuals.

My take on this is that company doesn't advertise that service because they either don't provide it at all as such or they know it's not reliable or even credible and prefer not to advertise it openly.

That it was taken to court as a forensic analysis to prove things one way or another just makes me think of the quote "If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.".

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think the company doing that analysis was misrepresenting results or making false claims, as far as I know they could just had been asked to produce a visual representation and all "analysis" and conclusions are the work of the defense or at least tarted up for impact. If those people at Acume have a minimum of professional integrity they would never make the claim that their work proves things to any degree of certainty.

At most you can get a good approximation of body height and proportions by a detailed analysis aimed at that (again I don't know if that company did it and it's absent on what I've seen), but in the end one is left with little more than "well, the two persons have about the same build and height, so they could be the same person, maybe".

You know, like the guidelines I linked to before say "Therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements."

Aleg

so in essence what you are saying is because you have not privy to all the details of the forensic analysis done by Stephen Cole, and thus don't understand how they could have reached a conclusion or offered any professional opinion , then it should be dismissed because it does not meet your expectation

[HUH]

Well as I said in my post, its for the judge to decide not anonymous internet gait experts.

I wonder which is the best course to take on gait analysis, the Masters http://www.salford.ac.uk/health-sciences/research/research-programmes/gait-biomechanics/gait-analysis-courses or the online course for $40 http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/running-mechanics-and-gait-analysis-ceu-quiz

Before you make a choice try to get a better understanding on the difference between clinical gait analysis used to identify and treat pathologies and lesions, and gait analysis used for identifying people.

Because typing "Gait analysis" in Google just doesn't cut it

I think you'll find that many of the skills are transferable but unlike some I have no aspirations to become an expert, I'll leave that to people who are qualified already, you know, REAL experts. I can think of nothing more tiresome then wading through video stills to analysis peoples gait, be that medical or criminal. Some people obviously enjoy its but not for me.

[RWA]

Lack of Evidence, Local Media Coverage Adds to Mystery of Koh Tao Murder

Last week, a partially blind Burmese beach cleaner told the court he spotted the garden hoe at the scene before police arrived, and returned the tool to its normal spot nearby. Upon police's request, he later retrieved the hoe, which he said he was unaware was covered in blood.

“The garden hoe yielded no DNA traces and no fingerprints, according to police,” said the defendants’ lawyer, Nakhon Chompuchat. “But we think there should be something left.”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1436774626&typecate=06&section=

You have mixed up two testimonies here.

The Burmese beach cleaner found the bodies and told O, an employee of Mon, about it.

He called Mon who came down to the beach.

0 then walked back to the resort and saw his hoe against a tree some way from the murder scene - at least 50 metres - maybe more like 75 - 100, he said.

He said he recognised it as his hoe and wondered why it was against the tree so he picked it up, didn't see the blood on it in the dawn light, and took it back to his small vegetable plot at the top of the beach. he then decided to do some painting as he didn't think he could be useful with the bodies.

He then said Mon and a policeman came to him and asked him where his hoe was.

He said it was in his vegetable patch as he had found it by the tree.

O says the police gave him a ruber glove - in court he demonstrated putting it on - and told him to put the hoe back by the tree.

When the hoe was found in the vegetable plot the police took pictures and the picture showed it wasn;t just placed in the plot but the end of it - the bloodied end - had been hidden among garbage bags.

He said he always kept his hoe among his garbage bags.

This is a transcript from the court procedure.

and I have to ask this same question yet again:

How the heck Mon and a policeman knew about some bloody hoe?!!!

What gets them to go to look for the half blind gardener to ASK HIM about some HOE whereabouts?!!!!

Why a HOE?!!!

why to search for some?

imagine to be called up to this scene (being a resort owner or manager or something),

look around

and go to find your gardener

to ask him where is the HOE ... ?!!!

I don't get it ...

do you?

[Gweiloman]

My professional credentials are none of your business.

But regarding the supposed gait analysis presented in court, to begin with they are basing themselves in poor quality footage, obtaining the correct vector for the feet movement out of that involves more guesswork than actual accurate tracking; it's just not possible, the feet look like blobs most of the time, there is no way to produce any consistently accurate angles to within, let's say +- 10 degrees (being generous) of the actual direction of the feet; then on top of that they would be compounding the errors when relating both feet together and the overall direction of motion.

This is the kind of setup used for accurate motion capture:

Do you imagine that if just using one crappy CCTV camera is enough to measure things accurately they would bother with any of that? Even with all that gear it is usually necessary to fix things afterwards.

Getting any accurate measurements from poor CCTV footage to derive an analysis on subtle differences in the kinematics of locomotion is a fools errand.

Secondly, they were comparing different gaits, walking versus running; people are not cars, they don't just go faster by increasing the rate of motion, the kinematics (everything to do with position, angle, rotation of the limbs and body and center of gravity adjustment) are quite different. So it's just guesswork on top of guesswork to extrapolate from one gait to the other.

Then there's the issue that people some times just walk a little differently than normal, that's why there are words like stroll, amble, sneaking, swagger, etc, etc.. The way a person walks at any moment can be affected by their emotional or mental state, for example by being drunk as the defendants said they were at the time of the "Running man" video.

The "gait analysis" presented by Andy Hall consisted (as far as I've seen) of lines aligned (poorly) to the feet and overall body directions, it compared the gait of one of the suspects walking into a 7/11 (wearing flip flops) with the barefoot running gait of the "running man". That comparison holds no weight whatsoever as "proof" that those two people are different individuals.

My take on this is that company doesn't advertise that service because they either don't provide it at all as such or they know it's not reliable or even credible and prefer not to advertise it openly.

That it was taken to court as a forensic analysis to prove things one way or another just makes me think of the quote "If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.".

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think the company doing that analysis was misrepresenting results or making false claims, as far as I know they could just had been asked to produce a visual representation and all "analysis" and conclusions are the work of the defense or at least tarted up for impact. If those people at Acume have a minimum of professional integrity they would never make the claim that their work proves things to any degree of certainty.

At most you can get a good approximation of body height and proportions by a detailed analysis aimed at that (again I don't know if that company did it and it's absent on what I've seen), but in the end one is left with little more than "well, the two persons have about the same build and height, so they could be the same person, maybe".

You know, like the guidelines I linked to before say "Therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements."

Yawn. Rather than trawl through the internet, can you share with us why you think the B2 are guilty?

On what do you base their guilt?

Their prints and/or DNA on the murder weapon? Nope, none found.

Witnesses to them committing the crime? Nope, none found.

CCTV footage? Nope, not available.

Confessions? Taken under claimed duress, subsequently retracted.

Possession of phone supposedly belong to one of the victims? Circumstantial and tangential (citing AH)

DNA of sperm match? Highly questionable due to doubts as to actual existence, chain of custody etc etc

CCTV footage? Even a half blind Burmese cleaner can see that the footage of the running man does not match either of the B2

Do you truly, truly, truly believe that, regardless of your personal opinion / interests, the prosecution has proven the case beyond any reasonable doubt? Try not to discredit the defense's case - I'm not sure how the law works in countries like Bolivia, Venezuala, Uruguay etc - but in most of the Western world such as USA, UK, Europe, Australia, the onus of proof is upon the prosecution. To prove the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of whether that is the case here in Thailand, this is the standard that posters on TV adhere to. If you do not adhere to the same standard, then say so, so that we have a better understanding of your stance on this case.

Also, try to understand this. You are on the side of the prosecution, not the defense. On this thread, you have been defending the prosecution's case with deflections and misdirections. Why don't you put the evidence on the table and get the rest of the board to discredit it? That would be the natural course of action.

You dismissed a long, detailed post with a "Yawn".

Besides, I already answered most of your questions, you are not paying attention, you are not interested. Why bother?

Your long, detailed post proves... what? That it's not possible to disprove either of the B2 as the person identified on the video? If so, then it's equally not possible to prove that it's one of the B2 - unless you're on the side of the RTP of course

[Gweiloman]

Lack of Evidence, Local Media Coverage Adds to Mystery of Koh Tao Murder

Last week, a partially blind Burmese beach cleaner told the court he spotted the garden hoe at the scene before police arrived, and returned the tool to its normal spot nearby. Upon police's request, he later retrieved the hoe, which he said he was unaware was covered in blood.

“The garden hoe yielded no DNA traces and no fingerprints, according to police,” said the defendants’ lawyer, Nakhon Chompuchat. “But we think there should be something left.”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1436774626&typecate=06&section=

You have mixed up two testimonies here.

The Burmese beach cleaner found the bodies and told O, an employee of Mon, about it.

He called Mon who came down to the beach.

0 then walked back to the resort and saw his hoe against a tree some way from the murder scene - at least 50 metres - maybe more like 75 - 100, he said.

He said he recognised it as his hoe and wondered why it was against the tree so he picked it up, didn't see the blood on it in the dawn light, and took it back to his small vegetable plot at the top of the beach. he then decided to do some painting as he didn't think he could be useful with the bodies.

He then said Mon and a policeman came to him and asked him where his hoe was.

He said it was in his vegetable patch as he had found it by the tree.

O says the police gave him a ruber glove - in court he demonstrated putting it on - and told him to put the hoe back by the tree.

When the hoe was found in the vegetable plot the police took pictures and the picture showed it wasn;t just placed in the plot but the end of it - the bloodied end - had been hidden among garbage bags.

He said he always kept his hoe among his garbage bags.

This is a transcript from the court procedure.

and I have to ask this same question yet again:

How the heck Mon and a policeman knew about some bloody hoe?!!!

What gets them to go to look for the half blind gardener to ASK HIM about some HOE whereabouts?!!!!

Why a HOE?!!!

why to search for some?

imagine to be called up to this scene (being a resort owner or manager or something),

look around

and go to find your gardener

to ask him where is the HOE ... ?!!!

I don't get it ...

do you?

Yes, I do. It's called Occam's razor

[RWA]

Nothing coming out of court regards last movements of deceased from all their friends who were with them before they were butchered. Not even one of the female friends to reveal why Hannah left her phone in her care when she went off somewhere. What a twisted unbelievable trial to not include such pertinent information. I can only conclude that they are so fearful because of what they know/witnessed that they have no intentions whatsoever of assisting in the pursuit of justice. Truly sickening.

yes, yes and YESSS!!!

no ONE, NONE of the friends and witnesses - last people to have seen them alive, would utter a word

not even one of them has got nothing to say to clear this incredible mess up even one tinny bit

not during more than a year time

what has HAPPENED to ALL of these people?!!!

how is that possible?!

absolute silence ... (whilst thousand of strangers all over the world screaming FOUL ...)

[balo]

It's very very obvious that there is a clear and deliberate attempt to have this thread locked, the baiting posts are coming thick and fast, and yet not one single person who believes the RTP version of events has come up with a motive?

How odd? .... Not !!

I think we have discussed motives several times in the past

And I do not think anyone, not even dedicated "trolls" believe the RTP version of the events 100%.

Personally I don't think you need much of a motive to kill , compare it with a wild animal if you like with a small brain. Evil people who are capable of doing these evil acts of rape and murder, possibly under the influence of drugs and god knows what else. I will never understand how anyone are capable of being so brutal to another human being. But unfortunately it's not the first time and it will happen again .

[RWA]

I don't think Dr. Pornthip lied about the results, but I think it very likely that she has been quoted out of context.

What makes you think that?

I dont expect an answer as you have avoided many questions asked of you. Especially those of Mr Transam

That if she actually said that it takes at least 15 seconds to transfer DNA she is completely wrong.

As for Transam, he is not asking a question (that has already been answered many times), he is simply trolling.

Once again, the answer is no, I don't have any interests of any kind in Koh Tao. Which of course it's not going to settle the matter (again) because I will be called a liar (again).

now that the trial is over, whether you 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.

If not, then the board's opinion of you remain unchanged.

[rockingrobin]

My professional credentials are none of your business.

But regarding the supposed gait analysis presented in court, to begin with they are basing themselves in poor quality footage, obtaining the correct vector for the feet movement out of that involves more guesswork than actual accurate tracking; it's just not possible, the feet look like blobs most of the time, there is no way to produce any consistently accurate angles to within, let's say +- 10 degrees (being generous) of the actual direction of the feet; then on top of that they would be compounding the errors when relating both feet together and the overall direction of motion.

This is the kind of setup used for accurate motion capture:

Do you imagine that if just using one crappy CCTV camera is enough to measure things accurately they would bother with any of that? Even with all that gear it is usually necessary to fix things afterwards.

Getting any accurate measurements from poor CCTV footage to derive an analysis on subtle differences in the kinematics of locomotion is a fools errand.

Secondly, they were comparing different gaits, walking versus running; people are not cars, they don't just go faster by increasing the rate of motion, the kinematics (everything to do with position, angle, rotation of the limbs and body and center of gravity adjustment) are quite different. So it's just guesswork on top of guesswork to extrapolate from one gait to the other.

Then there's the issue that people some times just walk a little differently than normal, that's why there are words like stroll, amble, sneaking, swagger, etc, etc.. The way a person walks at any moment can be affected by their emotional or mental state, for example by being drunk as the defendants said they were at the time of the "Running man" video.

The "gait analysis" presented by Andy Hall consisted (as far as I've seen) of lines aligned (poorly) to the feet and overall body directions, it compared the gait of one of the suspects walking into a 7/11 (wearing flip flops) with the barefoot running gait of the "running man". That comparison holds no weight whatsoever as "proof" that those two people are different individuals.

My take on this is that company doesn't advertise that service because they either don't provide it at all as such or they know it's not reliable or even credible and prefer not to advertise it openly.

That it was taken to court as a forensic analysis to prove things one way or another just makes me think of the quote "If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.".

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think the company doing that analysis was misrepresenting results or making false claims, as far as I know they could just had been asked to produce a visual representation and all "analysis" and conclusions are the work of the defense or at least tarted up for impact. If those people at Acume have a minimum of professional integrity they would never make the claim that their work proves things to any degree of certainty.

At most you can get a good approximation of body height and proportions by a detailed analysis aimed at that (again I don't know if that company did it and it's absent on what I've seen), but in the end one is left with little more than "well, the two persons have about the same build and height, so they could be the same person, maybe".

You know, like the guidelines I linked to before say "Therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements."

Yawn. Rather than trawl through the internet, can you share with us why you think the B2 are guilty?

On what do you base their guilt?

Their prints and/or DNA on the murder weapon? Nope, none found.

Witnesses to them committing the crime? Nope, none found.

CCTV footage? Nope, not available.

Confessions? Taken under claimed duress, subsequently retracted.

Possession of phone supposedly belong to one of the victims? Circumstantial and tangential (citing AH)

DNA of sperm match? Highly questionable due to doubts as to actual existence, chain of custody etc etc

CCTV footage? Even a half blind Burmese cleaner can see that the footage of the running man does not match either of the B2

Do you truly, truly, truly believe that, regardless of your personal opinion / interests, the prosecution has proven the case beyond any reasonable doubt? Try not to discredit the defense's case - I'm not sure how the law works in countries like Bolivia, Venezuala, Uruguay etc - but in most of the Western world such as USA, UK, Europe, Australia, the onus of proof is upon the prosecution. To prove the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of whether that is the case here in Thailand, this is the standard that posters on TV adhere to. If you do not adhere to the same standard, then say so, so that we have a better understanding of your stance on this case.

Also, try to understand this. You are on the side of the prosecution, not the defense. On this thread, you have been defending the prosecution's case with deflections and misdirections. Why don't you put the evidence on the table and get the rest of the board to discredit it? That would be the natural course of action.

You dismissed a long, detailed post with a "Yawn".

Besides, I already answered most of your questions, you are not paying attention, you are not interested. Why bother?

Your long, detailed post proves... what? That it's not possible to disprove either of the B2 as the person identified on the video? If so, then it's equally not possible to prove that it's one of the B2 - unless you're on the side of the RTP of course

Gweiloman

No , what his long detailed post proves , is that even with poor quality material to work with and simplistic vector values the analyst was still able to give a professional opinion to state that the image was not one of the B2

[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.

I would be happy to share a taxi with many on here as there quite clearly honest, upstanding people with a ability to see what's right or wrong... I would however would not be waiting for you. And yes I would be very happy to stand up in court and say that the running man is not in any shape or form one of the B 2. I notice you also say it's nothing to do with you.. Well you ceartainly have a lot to say if that's the case... Maybe you could meet me in said court and put your case forward ! Or maybe again it wouldn't be anything to do with you again....I'm not hiding !! I'm happy to tell you my business interests , address etc in Thailand. Tell you what, we can swop information and maybe meet up for a quiet drink and discuss the merits of this case !

I think you are twisting my words to make your own claims believable, and I suggest you stop that, because you are confusing me with yourself.

Go through all my posts and you will find that I have never made any claim as to if I consider the accused either guilty or innocent, and neither have i made claims if any evidence presented is real or false.

Something that can't be said from yourself.

So now you're here anyway, where is your evidence that the police officer who was removed from the case knows the identity of the running man in the CCTV picture.

Put up or shut up.

[Gweiloman]

Two suspects are on the stand. Murder weapon in reality can only be wielded by one of the two. Which one? If the prosecution is unable to determine which suspect is the actual murderer and which suspect is an accessory to murder, what would be the sentencing verdict? Both guilty and death penalty on both?

[berybert]

One might wonder why David was out at 5am on the beach. Would it be possible he was looking for something ? A phone that he had dropped earlier ?

Of course this is something we will never know.

[rockingrobin]

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.

I would be happy to share a taxi with many on here as there quite clearly honest, upstanding people with a ability to see what's right or wrong... I would however would not be waiting for you. And yes I would be very happy to stand up in court and say that the running man is not in any shape or form one of the B 2. I notice you also say it's nothing to do with you.. Well you ceartainly have a lot to say if that's the case... Maybe you could meet me in said court and put your case forward ! Or maybe again it wouldn't be anything to do with you again....I'm not hiding !! I'm happy to tell you my business interests , address etc in Thailand. Tell you what, we can swop information and maybe meet up for a quiet drink and discuss the merits of this case !

I think you are twisting my words to make your own claims believable, and I suggest you stop that, because you are confusing me with yourself.

Go through all my posts and you will find that I have never made any claim as to if I consider the accused either guilty or innocent, and neither have i made claims if any evidence presented is real or false.

Something that can't be said from yourself.

So now you're here anyway, where is your evidence that the police officer who was removed from the case knows the identity of the running man in the CCTV picture.

Put up or shut up.

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/koh-tao-murder-suspect-arrested-another-on-the-run.html

photo at bottom of article ?

[catsanddogs]

One might wonder why David was out at 5am on the beach. Would it be possible he was looking for something ? A phone that he had dropped earlier ?

Of course this is something we will never know.

We would if the friends spoke up.