Forensic team to testify in Koh Tao murder trial

[AleG]

^^ what do you mean by partial match AleG?

From an article a couple days ago:

The prosecution asked Mr Waiyawuth if the third, incomplete, profile could belong to one of the suspects. He replied that only a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile.

The prosecution said: “So his participation cannot be ruled out.”

Mr Waiyawith replied: “No, but he cannot be included either.”

A partial result like that is no good to identify a person with any degree of certainty, at best it could be used to rule out people; if a person has no markers matching those found on the analysis then obviously that person is not a match.

[AGareth2]

I see

the fact there is no evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence!

Is that right AleG?

[fireplay]

I'm thinking if the prosecution is going to keep dickin around and not release full documentation for a clear and open analysis by the defense...it might be about time to reveal that coroner's report from the UK. It seems like the prosecution are in the final 10 seconds of a basketball game...they have the ball and are passing it around to run out the clock.

[Wifflewaffle]

I have always been of the opinion that "running man" was wearing Davids shorts, possibly the only clean clothing not stained with blood that he could wear running up the street, they looked wet and far to big for the person wearing them, a dna test would be quite interesting

So who do you think would be wearing them ? maybe someone who went for a swim and then lost there clothes by any chance ?

[Thaidream]

Any DNA samples from anyone or from anywhere are tainted because there is no chain of custody- hence all of this needs to be excluded. In addition, the confessions are tainted because of coercion-they should be excluded. There is no ;ogical motive for the killing that has been presented by the prosecution. The bottom line is that the prosecution has no case, no evidence and no motive. I have no idea who actually may have murdered the two young people. I am confident that the missing piece involves what happened in the AC bar and the interaction of several people with the deceased. Whether this ever comes out in the trial only time will tell. Eventually, it will be known- but will it be in time.

[ronwparker]

I don't know the RTP trying to keep framing these 2 small Burmese guys when there is no credible DNA match-do they hate the Burmese so much or is this a cover up for the 'Mafia' on the island?

[fab99]

I have always been of the opinion that "running man" was wearing Davids shorts, possibly the only clean clothing not stained with blood that he could wear running up the street, they looked wet and far to big for the person wearing them, a dna test would be quite interesting

So who do you think would be wearing them ? maybe someone who went for a swim and then lost there clothes by any chance ?

Or someone whose own clothes are too covered in blood...

By the way you try to imply that the running man is one of the B2 but as discussed before it is very unlikely :

they don't look the same, they are shorter than the one on the CCTV and they don't walk the same way (every one has a distinct way of walking, making it a quite efficient way to identify people on CCTV, but it wasn't done here, other that by amateurs on social medias)

[ronwparker]

It is making Thailand and Thai "Justice" look like the farce we farang who live in Thailand know it is around the world!

[stephenterry]

If the court decides not to consider ANY DNA testimony (by either the prosecution or the defence) as evidence, owing to possible contamination and conflicting statements (which is a possibility) and that the confession was not obtained under duress (which is a possibility) the B2 could be convicted on the initial confession and the re-enactment, plus the phone.

Such a scenario is not to be ignored, as it would appear the defence cannot produce witnesses from that night, and cannot substantiate the B2 alibi. And remember, this is Thailand - nothing surprises me.

[stephenterry]

I don't know the RTP trying to keep framing these 2 small Burmese guys when there is no credible DNA match-do they hate the Burmese so much or is this a cover up for the 'Mafia' on the island?

Yes, and yes.

[aslimversgwm]

I feel the same too DM07. It's all quite sickening and feel so sorry for the 4 sets of parents as you rightly mention.

[oldsailor35]

What mystifies me is where on earth did they expect the blond hair to come from. Everybody concerned except for David have black hair. However the local cop , a mate of the island mafia, NS & Mon did use a blond wig ?

[oldsailor35]

I don't know the RTP trying to keep framing these 2 small Burmese guys when there is no credible DNA match-do they hate the Burmese so much or is this a cover up for the 'Mafia' on the island?

How about 50/50

[AGareth2]

Interested to read what AH has to say in his tweets later

[bander]

Not many updates out yet from today hopefully more reports will pop up.

I still cannot believe they did not test the hoe after they believed it to be one of or the murder weapon. Seriously how in gods name is that even possible ?

The police got a confession so let's assume this was a true representation of what happened. Then they get the B2 to do a re enactment, clearly no matter if you think the B2 are innocent or guilty, unless you are a delusional blind man/woman neither confession or re enactment fits with the evidence that has been shown in court.

With the DNA on the hoe it shows us that both Hannah and David handled this but only ( from what I have read ) Hannah appears to have been attacked with it, why have we not heard/seen in any rtp reports / b2 confessions a legitimate scenario on how David was attacked?

The only reason I can see the B2 being guilty but lying in parts of the confession/re enactment is if they were protecting people who were also involved. I can see no other plausible reason for them to lie though I welcome any theories on the matter.

I still think the defence must explain certain points, something is missing that would convince me of their complete innocence, perhaps it will be forthcoming over the next few days, but regardless of that if I was a judge residing over this case I simply could not find them guilty based on what we have seen in the media.

A question for those who think we have seen a fair trial and sound evidence that points towards guilty - if this was NS/Mon or any of those guys / Sean Mcanna, that were on trial with this evidence presented and the discrepancies/mistakes by the RTP, can you honestly say you would still lean towards a guilty verdict ?

The prosecution have not presented independent DNA evidence we have not seen one credible report, if they had it it would have been their opening and strongest evidence. They would have shoved it straight out there basically say g to the defence ok you may have things to contest but contest this independent undeniable evidence of your clients DNA been found inside one of the victims which places your clients at the scene of the crime involved without doubt with one of the deceased.

If they had done that this case would been much simpler, why they didn't I can only speculate on but I'll save that for another post.

"I still cannot believe they did not test the hoe after they believed it to be one of or the murder weapon. Seriously how in gods name is that even possible ?"

Anything is possible when the RTP want to cover up a murder committed by the village chief and/or his son.

[metisdead]

Trolling posts, off topic posts and inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

[catsanddogs]

Island Lover - re your post 247

Yes it was mentioned by officer Somsak that a hammer was also believed to have been used but was never found.

[partington]

Trial resumes in Thailand of two men accused of murdering Norfolk woman Hannah Witheridge

The prosecution presented evidence that DNA from both the accused men was found on Ms Witheridge’s body. However the defence lawyers insist their clients are innocent, and say they will put forward testimony this week which will prove the two Burmese men did not kill Ms Witheridge or Mr Miller.

The trial continues.

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/trial_resumes_in_thailand_of_two_men_accused_of_murdering_norfolk_woman_hannah_witheridge_1_4242304?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Can somebody on this forum who knows something about DNA kindly explain this?

Mr Waiyawuth said that a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile but that did not mean he could be included as a suspect. DNA experts agree that DNA profiling demands a 99.9999% accurate match.

What is meant by "a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile"? Does this mean that the partial profile was from someone of the same ethnicity, i.e. Asian, as one of the suspects?

No it does not.

A DNA profile can be thought of in simple terms as a set of 20- 30 different numbers, depending on whether the UK system (10 pairs of markers) or the US system (13 pairs of markers) is being used.

At each marker you read two numbers. In every person these numbers at each marker can vary between say 5 and 20. It's like a combination lock of 30 numbers long with each of the 30 values having at least 10 possibilities. Finding the combination by chance would have a probability less than one in 50 billion.

In exactly the same way, a DNA profile with all 30 numbers identifies a person absolutely: it is just impossible for two people to have the same set of 30 numbers by chance, so this is a perfect identification system.

BUT if you can only read 20 out of the 30 numbers , or 15 out of the 20, how good is the identification? Only being able to read some of the numbers from a DNA profile is very common indeed: when the DNA is in low amounts, when the DNA is a mix of many people, when the sample is very old and cells are degraded, when the sample is from a rape kit where the swab was taken a long period after the crime and the suspect's sample has been degraded by body enzymes, and so on.

So this is what, in general terms, is meant by a "partial profile".

The situation is even more uncertain here because they are talking about Y-chromosome profiling. This is often done when the DNA is in very low amounts, or is contaminated with huge amounts of victim DNA (as is often the case in sexual assaults), and you can't do a 'proper' 30-marker identification profile.

Because only men have the Y-chromosome, testing for a Y-chromosome profile eliminates all female DNA without having to do complicated chemical separations on the sample that can destroy much of it if the quality or amount is low.

BUT Y-chromosome typing is NOT good enough for identification purposes, because the Y-chromosome, unlike the markers used in the 13 marker profling above, does not change enough over time to be useful. All male relatives: fathers, brother, sons, paternal uncles, will have identical Y-chromosome markers, Also in some populations, especially where there is not much migration, it is possible for the same Y-chromosome profile to be present in as many as 1 in a 1000 unrelated people. So even a complete Y-chromosome profile is not good enough to prove identity.

Its main use is to exclude suspects. If a marker is present with, say, value 20 in a suspect, but the crime scene DNA has the value 11 at this place, this proves beyond argument that the DNA is not the suspect's.

A Y-chromosome match of 25%, which is being discussed here, means that only one quarter of the markers were the same. This means nothing at all about identification, as the witness said. No markers were readable that excluded the suspect, and a match of one quarter of the markers with the suspect gives no indication at all about whether it is his DNA, because this same match could have been obtained from any random man off the street.

Edited September 23, 2015 by partington

[fab99]

Trial resumes in Thailand of two men accused of murdering Norfolk woman Hannah Witheridge

The prosecution presented evidence that DNA from both the accused men was found on Ms Witheridge’s body. However the defence lawyers insist their clients are innocent, and say they will put forward testimony this week which will prove the two Burmese men did not kill Ms Witheridge or Mr Miller.

The trial continues.

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/trial_resumes_in_thailand_of_two_men_accused_of_murdering_norfolk_woman_hannah_witheridge_1_4242304?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Can somebody on this forum who knows something about DNA kindly explain this?

Mr Waiyawuth said that a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile but that did not mean he could be included as a suspect. DNA experts agree that DNA profiling demands a 99.9999% accurate match.

What is meant by "a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile"? Does this mean that the partial profile was from someone of the same ethnicity, i.e. Asian, as one of the suspects?

No it does not.

A DNA profile can be thought of in simple terms as a set of 20- 30 different numbers, depending on whether the UK system (10 pairs of markers) or the US system (13 pairs of markers) is being used.

At each marker you read two numbers. In every person these numbers at each marker can vary between say 5 and 20. It's like a combination lock of 30 numbers long with each of the 30 values having at least 10 possibilities. Finding the combination by chance would have a probability less than one in 50 billion.

In exactly the same way, a DNA profile with all 30 numbers identifies a person absolutely: it is just impossible for two people to have the same set of 30 numbers by chance, so this is a perfect identification system.

BUT if you can only read 20 out of the 30 numbers , or 15 out of the 20, how good is the identification? Only being able to read some of the numbers from a DNA profile is very common indeed: when the DNA is in low amounts, when the DNA is a mix of many people, when the sample is very old and cells are degraded, when the sample is from a rape kit where the swab was taken a long period after the crime and the suspect's sample has been degraded by body enzymes, and so on.

So this is what, in general terms, is meant by a "partial profile".

The situation is even more uncertain here because they are talking about Y-chromosome profiling. This is often done when the DNA is in very low amounts, or is contaminated with huge amounts of victim DNA (as is often the case in sexual assaults), and you can't do a 'proper' 30-marker identification profile.

Because only men have the Y-chromosome, testing for a Y-chromosome profile eliminates all female DNA without having to do complicated chemical separations on the sample that can destroy much of it if the quality or amount is low.

BUT Y-chromosome typing is NOT good enough for identification purposes, because the Y-chromosome, unlike the markers used in the 13 marker profling above, does not change enough over time to be useful. All male relatives: fathers, brother, sons, paternal uncles, will have identical Y-chromosome markers, Also in some populations, especially where there is not much migration, it is possible for the same Y-chromosome profile to be present in as many as 1 in a 1000 unrelated people. So even a complete Y-chromosome profile is not good enough to prove identity.

It's main use is to exclude suspects. If a marker is present with, say, value 20 in a suspect, but the crime scene DNA has the value 11 at this place, this proves beyond argument that the DNA is not the suspect's.

A Y-chromosome match of 25%, which is being discussed here, means that only one quarter of the markers were the same. This means nothing at all about identification, as the witness said. No markers were readable that excluded the suspect, and a match of one quarter of the markers with the suspect gives no indication at all about whether it is his DNA, because this same match could have been obtained from any random man off the street.

Thank you very much for clarifying this matter, posts like these pop once in a while that make this thread (otherwise quite polluted) informative.

Filtering some posters (with the o so useful "ignore" functionality) helps too.

[joebrown]

To : - AleG, Goldbuggy and their TVF 'friends'

If anyone cares to read my earlier posts it's clear I could be convinced the B2 took part in the rape and murders, but only in a peripheral way, as emplyees acting under instructions from their boss(es). I made one qualification that the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' would have to be displayed in a fair and open trial. IMHO, the possibility of such a trial all but disappeared a long time ago, eg when a policeman perjured himself, CCTVs were not checked at the pier and clothing not submitted for DNA analysis, etc, etc, etc.

However, given the supposed righteous and judicious qualities of the police and the Thai legal system pronounced by yourselves, I still have some faith that a just verdict will be announced by the judges next month, and the B2 will be found not guilty.

I realise this is a hypothetical question, but if the B2 walk free, do you, AleG, Goldbuggy et al support the immediate re-opening of the investigation, in persuit of the real perpetrators of these horrific crimes?

[StealthEnergiser]

Trial resumes in Thailand of two men accused of murdering Norfolk woman Hannah Witheridge

The prosecution presented evidence that DNA from both the accused men was found on Ms Witheridge’s body. However the defence lawyers insist their clients are innocent, and say they will put forward testimony this week which will prove the two Burmese men did not kill Ms Witheridge or Mr Miller.

The trial continues.

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/trial_resumes_in_thailand_of_two_men_accused_of_murdering_norfolk_woman_hannah_witheridge_1_4242304?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Can somebody on this forum who knows something about DNA kindly explain this?

Mr Waiyawuth said that a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile but that did not mean he could be included as a suspect. DNA experts agree that DNA profiling demands a 99.9999% accurate match.

What is meant by "a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile"? Does this mean that the partial profile was from someone of the same ethnicity, i.e. Asian, as one of the suspects?

No it does not.

A DNA profile can be thought of in simple terms as a set of 20- 30 different numbers, depending on whether the UK system (10 pairs of markers) or the US system (13 pairs of markers) is being used.

At each marker you read two numbers. In every person these numbers at each marker can vary between say 5 and 20. It's like a combination lock of 30 numbers long with each of the 30 values having at least 10 possibilities. Finding the combination by chance would have a probability less than one in 50 billion.

In exactly the same way, a DNA profile with all 30 numbers identifies a person absolutely: it is just impossible for two people to have the same set of 30 numbers by chance, so this is a perfect identification system.

BUT if you can only read 20 out of the 30 numbers , or 15 out of the 20, how good is the identification? Only being able to read some of the numbers from a DNA profile is very common indeed: when the DNA is in low amounts, when the DNA is a mix of many people, when the sample is very old and cells are degraded, when the sample is from a rape kit where the swab was taken a long period after the crime and the suspect's sample has been degraded by body enzymes, and so on.

So this is what, in general terms, is meant by a "partial profile".

The situation is even more uncertain here because they are talking about Y-chromosome profiling. This is often done when the DNA is in very low amounts, or is contaminated with huge amounts of victim DNA (as is often the case in sexual assaults), and you can't do a 'proper' 30-marker identification profile.

Because only men have the Y-chromosome, testing for a Y-chromosome profile eliminates all female DNA without having to do complicated chemical separations on the sample that can destroy much of it if the quality or amount is low.

BUT Y-chromosome typing is NOT good enough for identification purposes, because the Y-chromosome, unlike the markers used in the 13 marker profling above, does not change enough over time to be useful. All male relatives: fathers, brother, sons, paternal uncles, will have identical Y-chromosome markers, Also in some populations, especially where there is not much migration, it is possible for the same Y-chromosome profile to be present in as many as 1 in a 1000 unrelated people. So even a complete Y-chromosome profile is not good enough to prove identity.

It's main use is to exclude suspects. If a marker is present with, say, value 20 in a suspect, but the crime scene DNA has the value 11 at this place, this proves beyond argument that the DNA is not the suspect's.

A Y-chromosome match of 25%, which is being discussed here, means that only one quarter of the markers were the same. This means nothing at all about identification, as the witness said. No markers were readable that excluded the suspect, and a match of one quarter of the markers with the suspect gives no indication at all about whether it is his DNA, because this same match could have been obtained from any random man off the street.

Thank you well explained, other posters suggesting that b2 partial DNA exists should take note.

[AGareth2]

mmmm are we saying the DNA profile could have matched a large population?

[JoopJoop]

Looking further ahead, may I ask; what will people on this forum do should the B2 be convicted or acquitted?

I genuinely think it's brilliant that so many here are involved in the case (at arms length shall I say), but what will you really do?

I'm guessing many here contributing have retired here and many others are following from abroad.

To those that reside here like myself, what will you do?

Petition the Thai government from afar?

For the British, petition your government?

We all know there is insufficient evidence to hold the B2 accountable, so what of the real perpetrators if its not the B2?

It seems a miscarriage of justice is inevitable.

So what will you do as your keyboard cools following the verdict? No offense intended.

As I've previously written, I'm seething on the inside, which has had me previously banned.

I, as all here, wish for people to be held accountable...the perps and the RTP.

[BritTim]

I read this paper to inform myself on the matter, from that study the probability of DNA detection under controlled circumstances, no handling by other people, item immediately bagged for protection, was 36%.

From what I know about DNA analysis trace amounts of DNA from one person can be swamped out by larger quantities of other person's DNA also present in larger quantities.

The police had previously said they had only found DNA from Hannah Witheridge on the hoe, the last analysis added DNA from the other victim and a partial DNA from a third man that only partially matches that of one of the defendants so it's quite useless to establish an actual match.

That is a good, well written paper. The degree to which in can be applied to the current case is debatable. Here are some points that strike me:

... we asked volunteers to hold an object firmly (without moving it) in their fist for 60 s

In getting skin cells to adhere to the handle, I would argue that swinging the implement around vigorously, rather than just holding it, would be more likely to result in usable touch DNA. One reason, besides friction, is that the person doing this would likely be sweating and this would assist in the adhesion process.

The concept of good shedder and bad shedder has had some attention. One study [6] states that individuals differ in their tendency to deposit DNA when in contact with an object and another study [7] found no evidence of a distinct difference between good and bad shedders ...

I want to be fair, and this extract does point up the uncertainties involved with touch DNA. It would definitely be feasible for Hannah and David to be "good shedders", leaving clear DNA profiles behind, and the Burmese kids "bad shedders", especially if they had just come out of the sea, who failed to leave traces.

That said, I find it really difficult to believe that Hannah and David would leave non blood DNA traces on the handle without them having been holding the hoe. It could be true (though I personally do not consider it likely) that the Burmese kids also handled the hoe without leaving traces. Even were this to be the case, the prosecution version of events does not make sense.

[GAZZPA]

the scene is looking different

No, it's exactly the same as before; the prosecution never claimed DNA from the defendants was found on the hoe. The only thing that has come from the independent testing of it is that it was, indeed, the murder weapon; so nothing new.

Meanwhile the actual DNA evidence the prosecution is basing their case on is being contested only indirectly by trying to discredit the process that yielded the results, instead of the actual results themselves; which I don't think carries much weight because it's not possible to by mistake or accident arrive at two DNA profiles matching the defendants.

The only thing that would produce a match is a deliberate faking of the results after the two defendants were arrested, and until they can provide any sort of evidence for such thing, IMO, the DNA evidence still stands.

It's a very interesting point you make and on the surface it sounds correct. But not linking the murder weapon to the accused is a serious blow for the persecution for sure. Even if they can prove without doubt that the men had sex with Hannah that does not mean that they killed her, I know how that sounds but it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Also, although I know nothing about the UK pathologist report as it is not allowed to be made public I do know from the press releases that in the UK that they have sent a report back to Thailand as they have "serious concerns" over the pathologist report from Thailand. It is inferred that the information will help the defence, again no now knows what that is but it does create doubt.

It is possible that the DNA tests were not conducted correctly for the samples allegedly found. If this proves to be the case what evidence is left that these b2 actually committed the crime? I assume you at least acknowledge this as a possibility.

All we can hope for is the outcome is the right one and that whoever is truly responsible is brought to justice, if it turns out to be the B2 then so be it but I have to say from the limited information we all have there are some very serious doubts and the prosecution will have a tough time proving their guilt.

Of course I acknowledge the possibility that the tests were not done according to whatever standards one may want to establish; but as I have said repeatedly there's no mishandling of the evidence or errors in the analysis that would yield not one but two matching DNA profiles. The only way that would be possible would be by deliberate malfeasance so that is what the defense needs to do to, IMO, dismiss the evidence.

I'm not going to feel satisfied with what amounts to "Well it could had been wrong, so there".

As for that evidence only proving they had sex with Witheridge, no, it also proves that they lied when they claimed they had nothing to do with anything, and if they lied about that what else did they lie about?

If they did when did that happen and why didn't they tell anyone at any time about it?

Mind you they have also already admitted of having a phone identical to the one that was taken from Miller since the night of the murders, so they just happened to have consensual sex with one of the victims and just happened to "find" the phone of the other?

I was waiting to hear an explanation to the extremely suspicious beheaviour and circumstances of the two defendants but so far I haven't seen anything in that regard, some people have been accused of being involved in the murders on much less grounds than these two.

i agree with some of the points you make, for sure they need to answer to a case against them and we should not accept "it could be wrong so there". But it seems to me the defense are trying to discredit the DNA test and you criticise them for it, you cannot have it both ways, they should have the opportunity.

Also, you do not mention the recent news about the Australian Doctor unable to testify as she needs to see the DNA documentation but as yet she has not seen it, is that not suspicious to you? Why is it not available to the defence immediately?

So as many questions need answering about the B2 behaviour there are at least as many questions raised about the prosecutions case.

I did not say it was likely that they had sex with her and then innocently walked away but it still has to be proved that they killed her. You cannot just say, well we believe they had sex with her so they must be the murderers, again evidence is needed not speculation.

So, if the defense discredit the DNA evidence and find it to be false or unreliable then there is no evidence against the b2, at least not as far as I can see.

Question - If the RTP believed they had a good case building against them why did they only run finger print checks on the hoe and not run DNA tests at the time? Surely this was a must right? Unless of course they knew there would be no DNA match. Doesn't that make you think that either something is wrong or the RTP acted with gross incompetence?

We all want the same (at least I think so), the guilty to be punished, but I dont want to see 2 people who are innocent being locked up whilst the guilty get away with it. You have to look at both sides of the argument and there are some very suspicious claims coming from the prosecution.

Lastly, is it really so unbelievable to you that something is suspicious, here in Thailand? There was so much pressure to arrest someone quickly that perhaps arrests were made in hast. Of course I do not know that but I could not put my hand on my heart and say it is impossible, could you?

Remember innocent until "proven" guilty.

[StealthEnergiser]

more news today but you will need to google this "Defence points to flaws in probe of Koh Tao murders"

[Madaussie]

more news today but you will need to google this "Defence points to flaws in probe of Koh Tao murders"

Reuters Feed

Myanmar national Zaw Lin looks on as he arrives in a prison transport van outside Koh Samui court on the Thai resort island of Koh Samui on July 9, 2015. Photo: AFP Defence points to flaws in probe over Britons' Thai island murder Reuters | Wednesday, Sep 23, 2015 Reuters Wednesday, Sep 23, 2015 KOH SAMUI, Thailand - Lawyers defending two Myanmar migrant workers on trial for the Thai holiday island murders of two British backpackers sought on Wednesday to expose holes in a police investigation they maintain was botched and intended to frame the suspects.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/defence-points-flaws-probe-over-britons-thai-island-murder

[catsanddogs]

Where are the friends of Hannah and David when they need them the most? Maybe the fundraising should have extended to them too so they could have returned to Thailand and testify what they saw and heard in the early hours of September 15th that might have enabled the true scenario of the murders to be bought to light. Such as

whether David was indeed 'smitten' with Hannah as previously reported by one of the friends

whether there was an altercation and if one of them (the friends) was involved or had photographic evidence

whether Hannah and David left by the back door as police testified in court

why Hannah left her phone with her friends when she left the AC bar

whether she also left her purse with friends

Why she left the bar

why David left the bar

whether they left together or alone

whether it is true that David purchased a new pair of sun glasses at around 1.30 in the morning

whether Hannah had spoken to any friends about a man or men pestering her

did one of the female friends have a 'liaison' with a Thai local

whether David had one phone or two phones in his possession on holiday

whether David was carrying in his luggage trousers that were stained at the hems with some substance that was not blood

whether Hannah had had intercourse with someone whilst on Koh Tao

whether they were concerned of the whereabouts of Hannah and David when they left the bar

whether any of them went to look for Hannah and David when they didn't return to the bar

what time the friends left the bar and did they go straight back to the accommodation or elsewhere

did any of them have any interaction with Nomsod, Mon, Big Ears Cop, or any other Kao Tao locals

did they see the Burmese men playing guitar on the beach that morning

did they see a group playing a guitar and singing western songs on the beach that morning

did they see Sean McAnna that evening/morning

was one of the female friends the 'mystery woman seen running on CCTV' that police were trying to trace

did they all make statements following the crimes and did they have faith in the interpreter

were they given copies of any statements they made

do they have any photos on their phones which were taken that morning that could assist the case

did anything happen that concerned them at the beach party that was attended by approx 50 people prior to the crimes

where Hannah and David drunk

did anything lead them to think Hannah could have been drugged? did anyone other than their group buy her drinks

I refuse to believe that the friends have nothing that could assist finding justice for Hannah and David. Sickening!

[Madaussie]

To : - AleG, Goldbuggy and their TVF 'friends'

If anyone cares to read my earlier posts it's clear I could be convinced the B2 took part in the rape and murders, but only in a peripheral way, as emplyees acting under instructions from their boss(es). I made one qualification that the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' would have to be displayed in a fair and open trial. IMHO, the possibility of such a trial all but disappeared a long time ago, eg when a policeman perjured himself, CCTVs were not checked at the pier and clothing not submitted for DNA analysis, etc, etc, etc.

However, given the supposed righteous and judicious qualities of the police and the Thai legal system pronounced by yourselves, I still have some faith that a just verdict will be announced by the judges next month, and the B2 will be found not guilty.

I realise this is a hypothetical question, but if the B2 walk free, do you, AleG, Goldbuggy et al support the immediate re-opening of the investigation, in persuit of the real perpetrators of these horrific crimes?

Come on Joe you know the answer already to that already.

[GAZZPA]

I see

the fact there is no evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence!

Is that right AleG?

What?!

It means there is no evidence,,,,