Forensic team to testify in Koh Tao murder trial

[balo]

So when is the next day in court ? Is it a break now or will it continue next week ?

[StealthEnergiser]

So when is the next day in court ? Is it a break now or will it continue next week ?

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

As final hearing accused testimony Koh Tao trial schedule 10/11 October, need time 4 closing statements. So judgement likely late Nov or Dec

[glenmohr]

So we have no B2 DNA on the weapon and no semen

How do you match something to something that does not exist?

The mind continues to boggle... a couple of Burmese midgets were deprived of their hoe, because the victims had first use of it, what then did they use to perform the crime of the century and then go off calmly to bed?

[AleG]

It is impossible to tell what the current position about the status of the DNA evidence actually is from newspaper reports of statements by "spokesmen" who do not know anything about what DNA evidence is, or how it is gathered , or how it is interpreted, made to reporters who are even more ignorant, and who are usually translating very badly and inaccurately into English.

I would say objectively at present there is no way of telling what DNA evidence there is, how it has been presented in the case, and what the future status of any presentation is going to be. I do not trust social media accounts, and I do not trust newspapers except in as far as they are directly reporting what has been said in court, not at second hand, but because the reporter has been present in court, and understands the language.

I think I believe at the very minimum that the defence has engaged one of the best known forensic DNA experts in the world, Jane Taupin, and that she has not testified, although she is ready to. I cannot believe that this has been made up, as this person is too well known to be the subject of false rumours.

The explanation given for her lack of testimony by Andy Hall is that the report on which the DNA evidence was based has not been made available, so she cannot give testimony on it. This also seems unlikely to have been made up, as it would be too easy to find out and report that it isn't true. In addition I remember reading that when the police forensic witness was on the stand giving testimony it was reported that she said the police refuse to make the DNA report available, citing a Thai law that prevents private information on individuals being circulated (!). This may well be false reporting however.

Now the verifiable fact that the defence have a world expert on DNA ready to testify and she has not been able to seems to require a LOT of explanation. If the police will not make available the report on which their entire case is based, that tells you something fairly significant. I have always thought that, even if the Thai police have fabricated every other item of evidence out of an arrogant and stupid desire to make their case better, then if this DNA evidence is true, they are probably on a safe and justified conviction.

It now seems to me more and more likely that this DNA evidence either doesn't exist at all, or is so compromised and inadequate that it doesn't even prove identity. What possible reason could there be to hide the only evidence directly linking the accused to the crime?

"I would say objectively at present there is no way of telling what DNA evidence there is, how it has been presented in the case, and what the future status of any presentation is going to be. I do not trust social media accounts, and I do not trust newspapers except in as far as they are directly reporting what has been said in court, not at second hand, but because the reporter has been present in court, and understands the language."

I think this is a very significant point, the information regarding the court proceedings has been not just very one sided (since the prosecution has not engaged in a systematic PR program as the defense has) but also wildly inaccurate at times, either from the problems of translation or lack of technical knowledge by either the translators or journalists or both. I remember for example one report describing the examination of the hoe as simply "using a magnifier glass to look for fingerprints", that to me, paints a picture of a translator struggling to keep up with an expert witness testimony.

Then again not long ago the skies were falling when "All DNA evidence gone!" made the headlines. Then it was shown not to be the case.

The whole picture, drawn by both sides, will only be known when the verdict is read and I think that people that take the word of the defense as representing the whole picture may be setting themselves up for disappointment.

As for the DNA evidence, there are a couple other possibilities, one that the defense was requesting documentation that wasn't available at the court on that day, and the other that the police are being uncooperative with the defense, which wouldn't surprise me seeing how hostile they have been against their work not just specifically regarding this case and those who have worked on it, but in general.

[BritTim]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Samui court judges & lawyers discussed today Koh Tao case judgement will be sent to director general region 8 for checking prior to release

An interesting tidbit. Some have been saying the Thai authorities do not care what the world at large cares about this case. However, the Pubic Relations Department is going to have a say in the verdict. That makes me more hopeful the verdict will be the correct one.

[bamukloy]

And what's he going to check? He's not been at the trial so knows sod all.

If i had to take a guess id say this guy is the intermediary, so he will be checking with a certain ..ahem...head honcho, before signing off on it

[Oziex1]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Samui court judges & lawyers discussed today Koh Tao case judgement will be sent to director general region 8 for checking prior to release

An interesting tidbit. Some have been saying the Thai authorities do not care what the world at large cares about this case. However, the Pubic Relations Department is going to have a say in the verdict. That makes me more hopeful the verdict will be the correct one.

Sounds like a disaster to me. Whoever gets to this guy gets the verdict they want end of story!

[KamalaRider]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Reuters - British backpackers murder trial extended in Thailand until 10/11 Oct, verdict delayed http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKCN0RP0U720150925?irpc=932 …

Could the delays really be that the prosecutors, RTP and justice system believe people engaged in this case will be tired and lose interest and forget about this travesty in justice?

[T_Dog]

The two men will be held in prison until 2016 from what this article says. Hopefully a good decision rather than one that is paid for.

http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKCN0RP0U720150925?irpc=932

[BritTim]

"I would say objectively at present there is no way of telling what DNA evidence there is, how it has been presented in the case, and what the future status of any presentation is going to be. I do not trust social media accounts, and I do not trust newspapers except in as far as they are directly reporting what has been said in court, not at second hand, but because the reporter has been present in court, and understands the language."

I think this is a very significant point, the information regarding the court proceedings has been not just very one sided (since the prosecution has not engaged in a systematic PR program as the defense has) but also wildly inaccurate at times, either from the problems of translation or lack of technical knowledge by either the translators or journalists or both. I remember for example one report describing the examination of the hoe as simply "using a magnifier glass to look for fingerprints", that to me, paints a picture of a translator struggling to keep up with an expert witness testimony.

Then again not long ago the skies were falling when "All DNA evidence gone!" made the headlines. Then it was shown not to be the case.

The whole picture, drawn by both sides, will only be known when the verdict is read and I think that people that take the word of the defense as representing the whole picture may be setting themselves up for disappointment.

As for the DNA evidence, there are a couple other possibilities, one that the defense was requesting documentation that wasn't available at the court on that day, and the other that the police are being uncooperative with the defense, which wouldn't surprise me seeing how hostile they have been against their work not just specifically regarding this case and those who have worked on it, but in general.

Early on in the court proceedings, the prosecution did make the mistake of talking to the media outside the courtroom. Their confirmation that the most important DNA samples were "used up" was important to our understanding of what the prosecution had to offer in the way of DNA evidence.

As for the documentation, the defense has been complaining for months that things like the autopsy report with supporting photographs, and DNA chain of custody were being withheld. These are things that ought anyway to be produced promptly without even being requested. No doubt, when the courtroom proceeding are over and critical appraisal no longer possible, the prosecution will drop some papers on the judges' desks and say "there is the proof". That is not good enough.

[Fat Haggis]

"The whole picture, drawn by both sides, will only be known when the verdict is read and I think that people that take the word of the defense as representing the whole picture may be setting themselves up for disappointment."

The whole picture as you call it should be known to BOTH the prosecution and the defence, there was a horrific murder, and two other lives are at stake, and I think that people that take the word of the prosecution as representing the whole picture may be setting themselves a up for a disappointment.

The whole trial has been a shambles from start to finish both sides claiming they were presenting more witnesses that appeared, and that's understandable if there's a stupid time frame on all of this, the trial should continue until all witnesses presented have had their say, and not a simple 5 minutes on the stand which seems to be the case here.

[fab99]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Reuters - British backpackers murder trial extended in Thailand until 10/11 Oct, verdict delayed http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKCN0RP0U720150925?irpc=932 …

Could the delays really be that the prosecutors, RTP and justice system believe people engaged in this case will be tired and lose interest and forget about this travesty in justice?

And we have seen nothing in terms of delays... there are still the appeals after that, because in Thailand even a non-guilty verdict can be appealled by the prosecution, and bail denied...

the B2 could spend a lot more time in prison for something I now am almost completely sure they didn't do.

Just put yourself in their place, what a shame...

I guess compassion is far from being a universal quality.

Edited September 25, 2015 by fab99

[BritTim]

An interesting tidbit. Some have been saying the Thai authorities do not care what the world at large cares about this case. However, the Pubic Relations Department is going to have a say in the verdict. That makes me more hopeful the verdict will be the correct one.

Sounds like a disaster to me. Whoever gets to this guy gets the verdict they want end of story!

I am not so sure of that. This is the guy that gets a good portion of the blame for any s_t-storm that follows the verdict. No doubt, others will also influence the decision, but I certainly cannot see the PR Dept lobbying to turn a not guilty verdict into a guilty one.

The only real negative I see is that it is an excuse for further delay.

[metisdead]

Comments on moderation have been removed.

[glenmohr]

And what's he going to check? He's not been at the trial so knows sod all.

If i had to take a guess id say this guy is the intermediary, so he will be checking with a certain ..ahem...head honcho, before signing off on it

If Bamukloy is right, and I think he is, it would illustrate the whole problem with this case and many others that Thailand's institutions are not run independently from power and money!

[GOLDBUGGY]

Very strange nothing is mentioned of all the stab wounds to David's neck, throat, arm and the defensive wounds to his hands. Is this something that the defense wanted to bring up when it got the photos from the prosecution. Has the focus only been on Hannah's autopsy?

The focus is on that because the defense wants to cast doubt on the rape, because the UK autopsy didn't reveal rape related lesions. The Thai report doesn't mention lesions, only mentions evidence of rape and specifies semen traces, which are of course evidence of rape.

I agree AleG that the Defense Team are trying to cast doubt on this rape, even when Andy admitted to this sexual assault, but it is how they are doing this which I find disturbing.

From some Autopsy Report, which none of us have been allowed to see or hear about, gone over by some person, who has been working for the Defense Team for long time (possibly on the Pay Role), who claims some Forensic Expert, who's name has never been revealed in a court of law that I know of, but most certainly has not taken the stand to testify as to there qualifications and findings, alleged to be saying that rape in this case can't be determined.

What kind of a Forensic Expert are you if you can't even determine if someone had been raped or not? I would think this is one of the first things they would learn and what they would teach you in Forensics Training. If there is a good reason for this and why, like you can't determine why a raped did or did not occur because perhaps the body was chemically cleaned or the DNA decomposed, or whatever, then lets hear that to. Why do you keep people guessing and misleading the truth unless you are hiding something?

I know one of my first questions to this alleged person would be why can't you determine if a rape did or didn't occur? But Hey! They can't do that can they? I mean the Prosecutor doesn't have that witness on the Stand, or ever did, to cross-exam do they? They may not even know who wrote this autopsy and what there qualifications are? All they have is some guy working for the Defense Team who claims he studied this report handed to the Defense Team only. So if they ask him all he has to say is "I Don't Know Why". So I would class his evidence he presented in court so far as Hearsay Evidence at best. I won't say at worst.

But then they even tried to cover this point up as well. Someone posted awhile back that a well known Media Reporter claimed that Hearsay Evidence is admissible in a Thai Court. I don't want to post his name as I am not sure he did actually say this. But what I am sure of is that a poster claimed he did. But if he did post that this would not make him a liar. He would just be misleading the truth, which in my opinion is what the Media has done from day one, excluding perhaps BP, which lately I haven't seen them reporting. It also seems that all the Media Reports is almost exact word for word to. Like someone is handing out a written statement for them to copy. Go Figure?

But what was failed to be mentioned here is that Hearsay Evidence is admissible in a Thai Court, but only under special circumstances. As in a case where a witness has given sworn testimony in court to the Prosecution or Defense, but dies before the Court Hearing, Or in the case of Muang Muang, Mao Mao, or what ever his name is now, is from out of country. He gave he testimony in Court a long time ago, where he could be cross-examined by the Defense, as he was from out of country. Hearsay Evidence is also at the discretion of the judge if it can be admitted or not.

Which brings up another interesting point about Muang Muang, and his testimony in court. Under the protection of his own embassy he says nothing about the 2 accused being tortured and showing him their wounds. Even back home in Myanmar he doesn't mention this in his Newspaper Interview except he admitted to be treated roughly. But all of a sudden some person from Amnesty International, or similar group, swears he said this to them a year ago.

I for one would sure like to ask him why he did not come forward with this earlier and under the protection of his own embassy. But then we will never know as he is not their now is he? He is not on the Stand now, is he? So the Prosecution can't cross-exam this either. He just suddenly disappears where nobody claims they know where he is at. So you just end up with someone who says he says this or that to them, or he saw this or that to them. But then Muang Muang is obviously good friend of the accused anyway. Even out drinking and partying together in the night in question. But regardless if he would make a good witness for the Prosecution or not, you still just end up with just more Hearsay Evidence.

You know AleG another thing I always found strange in the case about Muang Muang, and in which I never mentioned before, actually comes from Lin's own testimony in court. He said he was awakened in his sleep around midnight by police. Then moved to a private hotel room which I believe he said the Ocean View Hotel. At which point he said he was stripped naked in a cold room and the Interrogation started, which I would guess within and hour so around 1 am. Somewhere in this alleged torture he is given a mobile phone and allowed to talk to Win. Win said to him he can't take anymore of this and by 4 am Lin and Win both Confessed. Now the odd part.

Muang Muang was also brought in the same night as Lin and was also considered a suspect. There was originally 3 of them. He had what appears to be a flimsy alibi, from his girlfriend no less, which obviously the police didn't believe either, as he was held for another 2 days. Which I gather was the time taken for his DNA Test Results to come back, and when they did not match. So cleared of rape anyway.

What I find odd and strange is that since Muang Muang was also considered a suspect, and since he allegedly claimed he was subject to the same torture as what the 2 accused were given, how is it that Muang Muang suffered 2 days of this torture and never confessed, when the 2 accused lasted less than 3 hours and both confessed? Is Muang Muang really that much more stronger then the accused? Is he that much more braver? If so why didn't he speak up in a court of law about these torture allegations when he had his chance and was under the protection of his own embassy?

But instead allegedly tells some human watch person who comes to court a year later to state his claim. One who stated that the police where ask 5 times to attend an inquest but never showed up. One in which the Media reported that the reason they did not show up was because a higher ranking police officer was asked to do that instead. Which he did show and answered all their questions. Which is why the Prosecution asked her this question. Which is why her answer was she did not know that to be true. So I wonder that if you can forget such an important event like this, what else did she forget that happen before this time and a year ago?

I am also waiting to hear more about the UK pressing Thailand about David Miller's Mobile Phone. We know the reason claimed as why. Did you hear who is going to make this contact, or when? I surely didn't. Odd to say in court someone is going to do this but not give out his name and when. Or at least I think so. Especially with all these people here claiming a statement made like this in court should be backed with some proof?

Oh Well. It will be interesting to see how the court handles all this Hearsay Evidence the Defense Team has put together, Who knows?

[bamukloy]

It is impossible to tell what the current position about the status of the DNA evidence actually is from newspaper reports of statements by "spokesmen" who do not know anything about what DNA evidence is, or how it is gathered , or how it is interpreted, made to reporters who are even more ignorant, and who are usually translating very badly and inaccurately into English.

I would say objectively at present there is no way of telling what DNA evidence there is, how it has been presented in the case, and what the future status of any presentation is going to be. I do not trust social media accounts, and I do not trust newspapers except in as far as they are directly reporting what has been said in court, not at second hand, but because the reporter has been present in court, and understands the language.

I think I believe at the very minimum that the defence has engaged one of the best known forensic DNA experts in the world, Jane Taupin, and that she has not testified, although she is ready to. I cannot believe that this has been made up, as this person is too well known to be the subject of false rumours.

The explanation given for her lack of testimony by Andy Hall is that the report on which the DNA evidence was based has not been made available, so she cannot give testimony on it. This also seems unlikely to have been made up, as it would be too easy to find out and report that it isn't true. In addition I remember reading that when the police forensic witness was on the stand giving testimony it was reported that she said the police refuse to make the DNA report available, citing a Thai law that prevents private information on individuals being circulated (!). This may well be false reporting however.

Now the verifiable fact that the defence have a world expert on DNA ready to testify and she has not been able to seems to require a LOT of explanation. If the police will not make available the report on which their entire case is based, that tells you something fairly significant. I have always thought that, even if the Thai police have fabricated every other item of evidence out of an arrogant and stupid desire to make their case better, then if this DNA evidence is true, they are probably on a safe and justified conviction.

It now seems to me more and more likely that this DNA evidence either doesn't exist at all, or is so compromised and inadequate that it doesn't even prove identity. What possible reason could there be to hide the only evidence directly linking the accused to the crime?

"I would say objectively at present there is no way of telling what DNA evidence there is, how it has been presented in the case, and what the future status of any presentation is going to be. I do not trust social media accounts, and I do not trust newspapers except in as far as they are directly reporting what has been said in court, not at second hand, but because the reporter has been present in court, and understands the language."

I think this is a very significant point, the information regarding the court proceedings has been not just very one sided (since the prosecution has not engaged in a systematic PR program as the defense has) but also wildly inaccurate at times, either from the problems of translation or lack of technical knowledge by either the translators or journalists or both. I remember for example one report describing the examination of the hoe as simply "using a magnifier glass to look for fingerprints", that to me, paints a picture of a translator struggling to keep up with an expert witness testimony.

Then again not long ago the skies were falling when "All DNA evidence gone!" made the headlines. Then it was shown not to be the case.

The whole picture, drawn by both sides, will only be known when the verdict is read and I think that people that take the word of the defense as representing the whole picture may be setting themselves up for disappointment.

As for the DNA evidence, there are a couple other possibilities, one that the defense was requesting documentation that wasn't available at the court on that day, and the other that the police are being uncooperative with the defense, which wouldn't surprise me seeing how hostile they have been against their work not just specifically regarding this case and those who have worked on it, but in general.

Im guessing that the defense having the Australian DNA expert on hand might have been a bit of a cadgey tactic.

Maybe she was intended to question the veracity of the chain of custody documents for the semen DNA collection evidence, that the RTP had claimed to have had and was all legit.

This put the pressure on the RTP to pony up and produce the documents, or once again appear grossly incompetent in front of the judge.

But as usual they couldnt deliver, and so after all thats transpired previously, one could be forgiven for suspecting the documents and the whole semen evidence never existed in the first place.

I hope someone can correct me, but so far there has been 3 discrepancies reported regarding the Thai and Brit autopsies:

- An incorrect date on one of the entries. (Thai version)

- A false claim of bite marks on Hannah. (Thai version)

- The Brit coroner disputing the Thai versions claim of sexual assualt

[bamukloy]

It is impossible to tell what the current position about the status of the DNA evidence actually is from newspaper reports of statements by "spokesmen" who do not know anything about what DNA evidence is, or how it is gathered , or how it is interpreted, made to reporters who are even more ignorant, and who are usually translating very badly and inaccurately into English.

I would say objectively at present there is no way of telling what DNA evidence there is, how it has been presented in the case, and what the future status of any presentation is going to be. I do not trust social media accounts, and I do not trust newspapers except in as far as they are directly reporting what has been said in court, not at second hand, but because the reporter has been present in court, and understands the language.

I think I believe at the very minimum that the defence has engaged one of the best known forensic DNA experts in the world, Jane Taupin, and that she has not testified, although she is ready to. I cannot believe that this has been made up, as this person is too well known to be the subject of false rumours.

The explanation given for her lack of testimony by Andy Hall is that the report on which the DNA evidence was based has not been made available, so she cannot give testimony on it. This also seems unlikely to have been made up, as it would be too easy to find out and report that it isn't true. In addition I remember reading that when the police forensic witness was on the stand giving testimony it was reported that she said the police refuse to make the DNA report available, citing a Thai law that prevents private information on individuals being circulated (!). This may well be false reporting however.

Now the verifiable fact that the defence have a world expert on DNA ready to testify and she has not been able to seems to require a LOT of explanation. If the police will not make available the report on which their entire case is based, that tells you something fairly significant. I have always thought that, even if the Thai police have fabricated every other item of evidence out of an arrogant and stupid desire to make their case better, then if this DNA evidence is true, they are probably on a safe and justified conviction.

It now seems to me more and more likely that this DNA evidence either doesn't exist at all, or is so compromised and inadequate that it doesn't even prove identity. What possible reason could there be to hide the only evidence directly linking the accused to the crime?

"I would say objectively at present there is no way of telling what DNA evidence there is, how it has been presented in the case, and what the future status of any presentation is going to be. I do not trust social media accounts, and I do not trust newspapers except in as far as they are directly reporting what has been said in court, not at second hand, but because the reporter has been present in court, and understands the language."

I think this is a very significant point, the information regarding the court proceedings has been not just very one sided (since the prosecution has not engaged in a systematic PR program as the defense has) but also wildly inaccurate at times, either from the problems of translation or lack of technical knowledge by either the translators or journalists or both. I remember for example one report describing the examination of the hoe as simply "using a magnifier glass to look for fingerprints", that to me, paints a picture of a translator struggling to keep up with an expert witness testimony.

Then again not long ago the skies were falling when "All DNA evidence gone!" made the headlines. Then it was shown not to be the case.

The whole picture, drawn by both sides, will only be known when the verdict is read and I think that people that take the word of the defense as representing the whole picture may be setting themselves up for disappointment.

As for the DNA evidence, there are a couple other possibilities, one that the defense was requesting documentation that wasn't available at the court on that day, and the other that the police are being uncooperative with the defense, which wouldn't surprise me seeing how hostile they have been against their work not just specifically regarding this case and those who have worked on it, but in general.

Im guessing that the defense having the Australian DNA expert on hand might have been a bit of a cadgey tactic.

Maybe she was intended to question the veracity of the chain of custody documents for the semen DNA collection evidence, that the RTP had claimed to have had and was all legit.

This put the pressure on the RTP to pony up and produce the documents, or once again appear grossly incompetent in front of the judge.

But as usual they couldnt deliver, and so after all thats transpired previously, one could be forgiven for suspecting the documents and the whole semen evidence never existed in the first place.

I hope someone can correct me, but so far there has been 3 discrepancies reported regarding the Thai and Brit autopsies:

- An incorrect date on one of the entries. (Thai version)

- A false claim of bite marks on Hannah. (Thai version)

- The Brit coroner disputing the Thai versions claim of sexual assualt

[RWA]

Very strange nothing is mentioned of all the stab wounds to David's neck, throat, arm and the defensive wounds to his hands. Is this something that the defense wanted to bring up when it got the photos from the prosecution. Has the focus only been on Hannah's autopsy?

The focus is on that because the defense wants to cast doubt on the rape, because the UK autopsy didn't reveal rape related lesions. The Thai report doesn't mention lesions, only mentions evidence of rape and specifies semen traces, which are of course evidence of rape.

I agree AleG that the Defense Team are trying to cast doubt on this rape, even when Andy admitted to this sexual assault, but it is how they are doing this which I find disturbing.

From some Autopsy Report, which none of us have been allowed to see or hear about, gone over by some person, who has been working for the Defense Team for long time (possibly on the Pay Role), who claims some Forensic Expert, who's name has never been revealed in a court of law that I know of, but most certainly has not taken the stand to testify as to there qualifications and findings, alleged to be saying that rape in this case can't be determined.

What kind of a Forensic Expert are you if you can't even determine if someone had been raped or not? I would think this is one of the first things they would learn and what they would teach you in Forensics Training. If there is a good reason for this and why, like you can't determine why a raped did or did not occur because perhaps the body was chemically cleaned or the DNA decomposed, or whatever, then lets hear that to. Why do you keep people guessing and misleading the truth unless you are hiding something?

I know one of my first questions to this alleged person would be why can't you determine if a rape did or didn't occur? But Hey! They can't do that can they? I mean the Prosecutor doesn't have that witness on the Stand, or ever did, to cross-exam do they? They may not even know who wrote this autopsy and what there qualifications are? All they have is some guy working for the Defense Team who claims he studied this report handed to the Defense Team only. So if they ask him all he has to say is "I Don't Know Why". So I would class his evidence he presented in court so far as Hearsay Evidence at best. I won't say at worst.

But then they even tried to cover this point up as well. Someone posted awhile back that a well known Media Reporter claimed that Hearsay Evidence is admissible in a Thai Court. I don't want to post his name as I am not sure he did actually say this. But what I am sure of is that a poster claimed he did. But if he did post that this would not make him a liar. He would just be misleading the truth, which in my opinion is what the Media has done from day one, excluding perhaps BP, which lately I haven't seen them reporting. It also seems that all the Media Reports is almost exact word for word to. Like someone is handing out a written statement for them to copy. Go Figure?

But what was failed to be mentioned here is that Hearsay Evidence is admissible in a Thai Court, but only under special circumstances. As in a case where a witness has given sworn testimony in court to the Prosecution or Defense, but dies before the Court Hearing, Or in the case of Muang Muang, Mao Mao, or what ever his name is now, is from out of country. He gave he testimony in Court a long time ago, where he could be cross-examined by the Defense, as he was from out of country. Hearsay Evidence is also at the discretion of the judge if it can be admitted or not.

Which brings up another interesting point about Muang Muang, and his testimony in court. Under the protection of his own embassy he says nothing about the 2 accused being tortured and showing him their wounds. Even back home in Myanmar he doesn't mention this in his Newspaper Interview except he admitted to be treated roughly. But all of a sudden some person from Amnesty International, or similar group, swears he said this to them a year ago.

I for one would sure like to ask him why he did not come forward with this earlier and under the protection of his own embassy. But then we will never know as he is not their now is he? He is not on the Stand now, is he? So the Prosecution can't cross-exam this either. He just suddenly disappears where nobody claims they know where he is at. So you just end up with someone who says he says this or that to them, or he saw this or that to them. But then Muang Muang is obviously good friend of the accused anyway. Even out drinking and partying together in the night in question. But regardless if he would make a good witness for the Prosecution or not, you still just end up with just more Hearsay Evidence.

You know AleG another thing I always found strange in the case about Muang Muang, and in which I never mentioned before, actually comes from Lin's own testimony in court. He said he was awakened in his sleep around midnight by police. Then moved to a private hotel room which I believe he said the Ocean View Hotel. At which point he said he was stripped naked in a cold room and the Interrogation started, which I would guess within and hour so around 1 am. Somewhere in this alleged torture he is given a mobile phone and allowed to talk to Win. Win said to him he can't take anymore of this and by 4 am Lin and Win both Confessed. Now the odd part.

Muang Muang was also brought in the same night as Lin and was also considered a suspect. There was originally 3 of them. He had what appears to be a flimsy alibi, from his girlfriend no less, which obviously the police didn't believe either, as he was held for another 2 days. Which I gather was the time taken for his DNA Test Results to come back, and when they did not match. So cleared of rape anyway.

What I find odd and strange is that since Muang Muang was also considered a suspect, and since he allegedly claimed he was subject to the same torture as what the 2 accused were given, how is it that Muang Muang suffered 2 days of this torture and never confessed, when the 2 accused lasted less than 3 hours and both confessed? Is Muang Muang really that much more stronger then the accused? Is he that much more braver? If so why didn't he speak up in a court of law about these torture allegations when he had his chance and was under the protection of his own embassy?

But instead allegedly tells some human watch person who comes to court a year later to state his claim. One who stated that the police where ask 5 times to attend an inquest but never showed up. One in which the Media reported that the reason they did not show up was because a higher ranking police officer was asked to do that instead. Which he did show and answered all their questions. Which is why the Prosecution asked her this question. Which is why her answer was she did not know that to be true. So I wonder that if you can forget such an important event like this, what else did she forget that happen before this time and a year ago?

I am also waiting to hear more about the UK pressing Thailand about David Miller's Mobile Phone. We know the reason claimed as why. Did you hear who is going to make this contact, or when? I surely didn't. Odd to say in court someone is going to do this but not give out his name and when. Or at least I think so. Especially with all these people here claiming a statement made like this in court should be backed with some proof?

Oh Well. It will be interesting to see how the court handles all this Hearsay Evidence the Defense Team has put together, Who knows?

must but have reported this!

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Some Acume Forensics pictures gait analysis stating running man not Wai Phyo uploaded here https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153235423705677&id=675065676&ref=m_notif&notif_t=tagged_with_story …

Fantastic work... comparing a walk on flip flops with a barefoot run.

I take it your now also an expert on Gait technology and base your comment on a handful of stills without seeing the movie or hearing the testimony from the "real" expert

I was reading on another website today that a request is going to be made for other people to be tested with gait technology.

[StealthEnergiser]

Again we hear a prolific poster hold onto the DNA issue, when there is no chain of custody, results produced faster than even experts have stated, why wasn't the person who conducted these tests able to provide documentation and a schedule of events that took place the moment the DNA was handed over to them?

What were the instructions given as to the priority of those samples, also pretty sure that it was claimed that the samples actually went to Singapore as Thailand didn't have the ability to produce fast results.

Who signed for the samples on receipt of them, and who signed for the results after they were complete?

Far too many discrepancies with regards to simple hearsay that DNA was actually submitted, without any signatures and a chain of custody, these examples are the figment of imaginations, discrepancies in both autopsies should have been enough to make someone go " wait a minute, what's going on here" but nope, the results are dismissed immediately out of hand, that's not an opinion, that's an agenda pure and simple.

It is impossible to tell what the current position about the status of the DNA evidence actually is from newspaper reports of statements by "spokesmen" who do not know anything about what DNA evidence is, or how it is gathered , or how it is interpreted, made to reporters who are even more ignorant, and who are usually translating very badly and inaccurately into English.

I would say objectively at present there is no way of telling what DNA evidence there is, how it has been presented in the case, and what the future status of any presentation is going to be. I do not trust social media accounts, and I do not trust newspapers except in as far as they are directly reporting what has been said in court, not at second hand, but because the reporter has been present in court, and understands the language.

I think I believe at the very minimum that the defence has engaged one of the best known forensic DNA experts in the world, Jane Taupin, and that she has not testified, although she is ready to. I cannot believe that this has been made up, as this person is too well known to be the subject of false rumours.

The explanation given for her lack of testimony by Andy Hall is that the report on which the DNA evidence was based has not been made available, so she cannot give testimony on it. This also seems unlikely to have been made up, as it would be too easy to find out and report that it isn't true. In addition I remember reading that when the police forensic witness was on the stand giving testimony it was reported that she said the police refuse to make the DNA report available, citing a Thai law that prevents private information on individuals being circulated (!). This may well be false reporting however.

Now the verifiable fact that the defence have a world expert on DNA ready to testify and she has not been able to seems to require a LOT of explanation. If the police will not make available the report on which their entire case is based, that tells you something fairly significant. I have always thought that, even if the Thai police have fabricated every other item of evidence out an arrogant and stupid desire to make their case better, then if this DNA evidence is true, they are probably on a safe and justified conviction.

It now seems to me more and more likely that this DNA evidence either doesn't exist at all, or is so compromised and inadequate that it doesn't even prove identity. What possible reason could there be to hide the only evidence directly linking the accused to the crime?

Andy Hall added 7 new photos — with MW RN and 5 others.

Yesterday at 6:50am ·

The Koh Tao defense team has been assisted for many months now by renowned international DNA and forensics expert Jane Taupin, a resident in Australian but trained extensively in the UK (http://www.expertsdirect.com.au/expert-profile/?id=4100)

An expert on DNA analysis and particularly clothing and substances, Jane has been a crucial and important part of the Koh Tao murder case defense team and another pro bono here seeking to ensure justice for the accused, deceased, their families, friends and all concerned.

Jane's advice has been spot on, accurate and crucial to the defense team

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110?fref=nf&pnref=story

Sorry he is not talking about this lady but another highly qualified expert similar.

Edited September 25, 2015 by StealthEnergiser

[Fat Haggis]

Again we hear a prolific poster hold onto the DNA issue, when there is no chain of custody, results produced faster than even experts have stated, why wasn't the person who conducted these tests able to provide documentation and a schedule of events that took place the moment the DNA was handed over to them?

What were the instructions given as to the priority of those samples, also pretty sure that it was claimed that the samples actually went to Singapore as Thailand didn't have the ability to produce fast results.

Who signed for the samples on receipt of them, and who signed for the results after they were complete?

Far too many discrepancies with regards to simple hearsay that DNA was actually submitted, without any signatures and a chain of custody, these examples are the figment of imaginations, discrepancies in both autopsies should have been enough to make someone go " wait a minute, what's going on here" but nope, the results are dismissed immediately out of hand, that's not an opinion, that's an agenda pure and simple.

It is impossible to tell what the current position about the status of the DNA evidence actually is from newspaper reports of statements by "spokesmen" who do not know anything about what DNA evidence is, or how it is gathered , or how it is interpreted, made to reporters who are even more ignorant, and who are usually translating very badly and inaccurately into English.

I would say objectively at present there is no way of telling what DNA evidence there is, how it has been presented in the case, and what the future status of any presentation is going to be. I do not trust social media accounts, and I do not trust newspapers except in as far as they are directly reporting what has been said in court, not at second hand, but because the reporter has been present in court, and understands the language.

I think I believe at the very minimum that the defence has engaged one of the best known forensic DNA experts in the world, Jane Taupin, and that she has not testified, although she is ready to. I cannot believe that this has been made up, as this person is too well known to be the subject of false rumours.

The explanation given for her lack of testimony by Andy Hall is that the report on which the DNA evidence was based has not been made available, so she cannot give testimony on it. This also seems unlikely to have been made up, as it would be too easy to find out and report that it isn't true. In addition I remember reading that when the police forensic witness was on the stand giving testimony it was reported that she said the police refuse to make the DNA report available, citing a Thai law that prevents private information on individuals being circulated (!). This may well be false reporting however.

Now the verifiable fact that the defence have a world expert on DNA ready to testify and she has not been able to seems to require a LOT of explanation. If the police will not make available the report on which their entire case is based, that tells you something fairly significant. I have always thought that, even if the Thai police have fabricated every other item of evidence out an arrogant and stupid desire to make their case better, then if this DNA evidence is true, they are probably on a safe and justified conviction.

It now seems to me more and more likely that this DNA evidence either doesn't exist at all, or is so compromised and inadequate that it doesn't even prove identity. What possible reason could there be to hide the only evidence directly linking the accused to the crime?

Andy Hall added 7 new photos with MW RN and 5 others.

Yesterday at 6:50am ·

The Koh Tao defense team has been assisted for many months now by renowned international DNA and forensics expert Jane Taupin, a resident in Australian but trained extensively in the UK (http://www.expertsdirect.com.au/expert-profile/?id=4100)

An expert on DNA analysis and particularly clothing and substances, Jane has been a crucial and important part of the Koh Tao murder case defense team and another pro bono here seeking to ensure justice for the accused, deceased, their families, friends and all concerned.

Jane's advice has been spot on, accurate and crucial to the defense team

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110?fref=nf&pnref=story

Very Disappointing to see poster goldbuggy questioning this ladies qualifications

No mate, he's slandering her along with the UK coroner, that's more than disappointing, it's bang out of order!!

[StealthEnergiser]

Very Disappointing to see poster goldbuggy questioning this ladies qualifications

No mate, he's slandering her along with the UK coroner, that's more than disappointing, it's bang out of order!!

I corrected that but he is sill talking about highly skilled and qualified people the same.

[fab99]

Mods!!!!!

What kind of a Forensic Expert are you if you can't even determine if someone had been raped or not? I would think this is one of the first things they would learn and what they would teach you in Forensics Training

Come on for Pete sake, you have a nameless person here slandering a leading coroner and also slandering experts in their field, with proven backgrounds.

This is the sort of shit that is getting posters backs up and it's gone mine up, why are you allowing Thai Visa to be a conduit of such comments, to be honest, I've got a good mind to attempt to contact the people GB is accusing of being nobodies, purely because they're part of the defence team!! These are professional Les in their fields, subject matter experts, and your are allowing their names to be sullied by a troll and antognistic poster who is not an expert.

Shame on you Thai visa, shame on you for allowing such comments to be printed here that are clearly attempts to sully a professional !!!

I completely agree with you and all the previous comments, it is really hard not to react to the long post made by GB and this post is clearly written in a way to make people react strongly, I have hesitated to respond point by point to all the mistakes, lies and even slanders contained in this very long post, but I just chose to ignore it.

I really think that the intention of GB and AleG is obvious again : trying to make us people react and cross the line so that this thread is once more closed.

I my opinion they are breaking the rules the mods reminded when they reopened the thread, but so far people have been more mature and don't take their baits, as tempting as it is.

Let's try keeping it that way...

[sweatalot]

There is a very big difference in having an opinion that differed from others and having an agenda, you can change opinions as facts are presented agendas well....

just want to add that it seems that the most posts in this thread come from those 3 or 4 posters.

Explanation?

obsessive?

agenda?

paid?

and it's not about adding new and so far unknown facts

it is only about saying everything that is said with good common sense is wrong - baiting

I am still wondering why the mods are tolerating them

[FangFerang]

This Is Thailand (TIT). Whoever the Thais say is guilty is guilty, and whoever the Thais say is innocent is innocent (ala' Blue Diamond and Red Bull treaties).

Their word is law here.

Live with it.

[cdnvic]

A reminder that the report button is for serious violations of the rules. It is not an "I disagree" button.

[StealthEnergiser]

Mods!!!!!

What kind of a Forensic Expert are you if you can't even determine if someone had been raped or not? I would think this is one of the first things they would learn and what they would teach you in Forensics Training

Come on for Pete sake, you have a nameless person here slandering a leading coroner and also slandering experts in their field, with proven backgrounds.

This is the sort of shit that is getting posters backs up and it's gone mine up, why are you allowing Thai Visa to be a conduit of such comments, to be honest, I've got a good mind to attempt to contact the people GB is accusing of being nobodies, purely because they're part of the defence team!! These are professional Les in their fields, subject matter experts, and your are allowing their names to be sullied by a troll and antognistic poster who is not an expert.

Shame on you Thai visa, shame on you for allowing such comments to be printed here that are clearly attempts to sully a professional !!!

I completely agree with you and all the previous comments, it is really hard not to react to the long post made by GB and this post is clearly written in a way to make people react strongly, I have hesitated to respond point by point to all the mistakes, lies and even slanders contained in this very long post, but I just chose to ignore it.

I really think that the intention of GB and AleG is obvious again : trying to make us people react and cross the line so that this thread is once more closed.

I my opinion they are breaking the rules the mods reminded when they reopened the thread, but so far people have been more mature and don't take their baits, as tempting as it is.

Let's try keeping it that way...

We really want to keep the thread open and that poster knew what type of reaction he was going to get that's why he done it.

[thailandchilli]

Just to clarify the argument some seem to be having that the defense suddenly asked for the chain of custody documents to be handed over at the last minute so their expert could testify on it as if that was some sort of ploy to surprise them. The defense have been asking for weeks for this. The RTP/Prosecution has refused for weeks to provide. Go figure.......

This is just one of the reports but if you care to Google there are numerous reports out there highlighting the attempts to get this from the prosecution.

23rd July http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437661326

"The prosecutor tried to be evasive by saying that no law supports giving the graphs and tables to the investigative officers, which is true," he said. "But once you testify to the court, you must show them."

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

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

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

[thailandchilli]

TV Rules for me these are clearly breached in that post but

2) You will not use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.

6) You will not post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.