Forensic team to testify in Koh Tao murder trial

[IslandLover]

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 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?

Excellent post by someone who knows what they're talking about

[StealthEnergiser]

I have sent a request to see if we can open a thread in support of hannah and david and the b2 we should be able to discuss much more without problems .

Any thoughts ideas about this ? good idea ?

[fab99]

I have sent a request to see if we can open a thread in support of hannah and david and the b2 we should be able to discuss much more without problems .

Any thoughts ideas about this ? good idea ?

Completely agree with that, hope that will be possible, something more permanent not necessarily linked with the latest news.

[AleG]

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?

I don't know if the UK autopsy report has or will be considered as admissible as evidence in deciding the verdict, as you point out there is a big problem with it in that the prosecution doesn't have the ability to cross examine the coroner, all that is offered is a report as relayed by the defense.

I have no reasons to doubt the work of the UK coroner, but just as the defense had the opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses it should be able for the prosecution to do the same, for example the question could be asked whether the results of the examination explicitly rule out the possibility of sexual assault or if there is simply no way to tell one way or the other based on the conditions at the time of the second autopsy.

Like when the prosecution asked the defense witness that examined the hoe if the partial DNA profile found on it did not, in fact, rule out the possibility that it belonged to one of the accused, and the answer was that it didn't rule out that possibility but neither could the partial profile be used for a positive identification.

One thing though, "Muang Muang" and "Mao Mao" are two different persons; the first one is the friend of the defendants that was arrested with them back in October, the second one is someone they met during detention. I don't know if Muang Muang had any contact with the defendants after their arrests, and as far as I know he went back to Myanmar and hasn't been heard of again.

As for why he was allowed to go and the other two not, obviously if the premise is that the police would do anything and everything to frame people for a crime then it stands to reason that making a confession or not wouldn't be a problem. Just declare that DNA matches and the suspect is not cooperating, done and done.

Under that framework the same could be said about any of the many other suspects that came and went, why would they embarrass themselves by going "We got a suspect!... oh, hang on, nope, sorry." multiple times?

But that didn't happen with these two, and from witness testimony the police were not the only ones with suspicions about them, after all the friend they gave the phone to declared that he decided to smash it because he became suspicious about it's origin, of course worth noting that this became known after they were arrested.

Between that, their flimsy (or non existent) alibi and the fact that they were in close proximity to the crime scene there is obviously more to it than simply the police pointing a finger and saying "those two" and torturing those circumstances into existence.

[StealthEnergiser]

It doesn't sound like my idea is what people want but thats fine we just need to completley ignore posters that are baiting us, unfortunately it doesn't and we keep losing our threads.

As there is always someone that will get angry with that small group of 5 posters and bang the thread closed.

[catsanddogs]

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 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?

A very good post perfectly explaining the reason why the police may not be handing over a report on DNA evidence is "they don't have anything to handover ." And I am sure the expert would have been very sure about this before taking it on.

Now they have until the 11th October, the prosecution might instigate a massive document hunt and employ some cleaners (20/20 vision only) and hey presto they might turn up down the back of a filing cabinet with some dusty old buttons. I include the buttons because I have been mesmerised somewhat for the past year by the way the RTP seem to like their shirts as tight as possible!

[thailandchilli]

Clarification ie Muang Muang from a post a couple above

Aung Soe, a Burmese embassy official who interviewed the friend of the accused, Muang Muang, when he was finally released from police custody, said he complained of similar beatings and kickings: “He described one interrogation session, where he was made to sit on the floor with his legs crossed and his hands on his knees and then they stamped on his hands.”

The Burmese embassy sent Muang Muang back to Myanmar. He has not testified at the trial. The prosecution told the court that they did not know where he was now. http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/court_hears_of_police_brutality_as_hannah_witheridge_s_family_returns_to_thailand_1_4247106

[thailandchilli]

It doesn't sound like my idea is what people want but thats fine we just need to completley ignore posters that are baiting us, unfortunately it doesn't and we keep losing our threads.

As there is always someone that will get angry with that small group of 5 posters and bang the thread closed.

I think all registered posters have the permissions necessary to open their own thread so I say go for it. Just a little thought needs to be taken on the actual topic headline so that off topic posts that may be brought in to disrupt it can be dealt with swiftly.

[sweatalot]

I agree with that, the Ignore function sure helps a lot and makes the thread easier to read and it probably will prevent being banned for reacting emotionally to baits and reduce the chances for this thread to be closed again (though it will probably be closed tomorrow anyway).

I still sometimes can't help but answer, trying to stay factual, but I guess it is even better to ignore, it just reduces the visibility of these posts.

you can answer without replicating their post. Just post like ... if somebody says this ... it cannot be true because of....

[sweatalot]

It saddens me because a system as broken and corrupt as this - that allows such a farce to occur .....

is the same system that allows for a guilty verdict based soley on the confession and renactment and nothing else.

If it were not for the first world coverage, I would put money on a guilty verdict.

If that does not depress you ... not much will.

Despite the utter shambles of a prosecution we have witnessed, which in any other nation on this planet would have never made it to court. Im of the opinion that there is still a very good chance they will be found guilty.

Someone has to be and we all know the actual culprits will never see the inside of a prison cell.

why so pessimistic?

I still go for them receiving their deserved punishment

[JoopJoop]

Any word on the first investigating RTP officer ever being summoned to court...the one that was then sent here to BKK preceding Somyot's appointment?

I am angered and saddened by the depth of ineptitude re the handling of this case and its effect on the families of the deceased and those of the B2 families.

I've wished for transparency from day 1, and now 12 months later I'm mystified at the sheer incompetence.

I truly hope that foreign governments act accordingly...that's informing their nationals of the potential perils when traveling to this country; more specifically, the islands in the south.

2 young ones taken in the prime of their life. Another 2 very likely to be spared the death penalty due to international intervention.

Individual, group, and international pressure is a must to determine who committed these heinous crimes and hold them accountable. In addition, those responsible for investigative failure to see the full extent of the law and perjury, should it be proven, be held to account by international law. This is an absolute disgrace.

[StealthEnergiser]

let them post what they want to post

don't respond to drivel

the problem is not everybody abides by those rules and thats why we keep getting closed down and as transam said they post so careful.

[catsanddogs]

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.

Like button not working...like. Now that would change the goalposts somewhat.

[catsanddogs]

Clarification ie Muang Muang from a post a couple above

Aung Soe, a Burmese embassy official who interviewed the friend of the accused, Muang Muang, when he was finally released from police custody, said he complained of similar beatings and kickings: “He described one interrogation session, where he was made to sit on the floor with his legs crossed and his hands on his knees and then they stamped on his hands.”

The Burmese embassy sent Muang Muang back to Myanmar. He has not testified at the trial. The prosecution told the court that they did not know where he was now. http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/court_hears_of_police_brutality_as_hannah_witheridge_s_family_returns_to_thailand_1_4247106

I am a stuck record. Where is Maung Maung NOW? Do they defence know if he is alive?

[thailandchilli]

Clarification ie Muang Muang from a post a couple above

Aung Soe, a Burmese embassy official who interviewed the friend of the accused, Muang Muang, when he was finally released from police custody, said he complained of similar beatings and kickings: “He described one interrogation session, where he was made to sit on the floor with his legs crossed and his hands on his knees and then they stamped on his hands.”

The Burmese embassy sent Muang Muang back to Myanmar. He has not testified at the trial. The prosecution told the court that they did not know where he was now. http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/court_hears_of_police_brutality_as_hannah_witheridge_s_family_returns_to_thailand_1_4247106

I am a stuck record. Where is Maung Maung NOW? Do they defence know if he is alive?

I can't be sure but Islandlover said he made a radio interview from Burma and if the Embassy sent him back then I'm sure the defense team know where he is.

The same as they also know where the very first person to find the bodies is, the female beach cleaner who is alive and well in Burma.

[Patsycat]

I also want to avoid the tradgedy of those young men being done for something which is apparent they didn't do.

But, i would just like the posters not to go into graphic details too much.

I have been trying to unsee those photos too.

How you can try to un see something you must have deliberately searched for? I'm really sorry but you really don't deserve to be treated with kid gloves here.

You knowingly knew that both were brutally murdered, it's been in pretty much every western news paper last year about the extent of the injuries and yet you still felt compelled to seek out the photos of the victims for whatever reason?

Morbid curiosity got the better of you perhaps and yet you come over all sensitive to a coroners reports graphic details? Something doesn't quite add up here, I make no apologies unlike stealth energiser whom, had you been following all the threads up until now, has been nothing but professional in his/her approach, unlike a few of the "baiters" here.

I didn't search for those photos, they were there on every Thai Fora, including this one, for everyone to see. Until they were taken down. Thankfully, due to respect for the families.

And yes, i have read an autopsy report before - that of my dead husbands. Knowing how he died was atrocious. But, i still stand by my comment that the details of Hannah's autopsy should have perhaps been put on a link - so those other "morbid" people could read it. Or not. I don't need to.

Don't get at me because i am a sensitive person. I am, and i hope others here are too.

I have nothing against Stealth, and agree he has been consistent in his posts. But that one just pushed a button, sorry Stealth.

[BeautifulPain]

We can all debate the fine points which can lead to some clarity.

For me it's rather simple - the prosecution stated we have DNA which PROVES the B2 committed this crime

Now if I say I have the Crown Jewels and challenge anybody to prove me wrong, somebody asks me ok show me and let's have that verified, I simply produce the Crown Jewels and say verify what you like.

If I don't produce the Crown Jewels quite rightly I will be lambasted and be called a liar.

The prosecution have never once produced clear and unadulterated DNA evidence.

Why is this ?

[StealthEnergiser]

I also want to avoid the tradgedy of those young men being done for something which is apparent they didn't do.

But, i would just like the posters not to go into graphic details too much.

I have been trying to unsee those photos too.

How you can try to un see something you must have deliberately searched for? I'm really sorry but you really don't deserve to be treated with kid gloves here.

You knowingly knew that both were brutally murdered, it's been in pretty much every western news paper last year about the extent of the injuries and yet you still felt compelled to seek out the photos of the victims for whatever reason?

Morbid curiosity got the better of you perhaps and yet you come over all sensitive to a coroners reports graphic details? Something doesn't quite add up here, I make no apologies unlike stealth energiser whom, had you been following all the threads up until now, has been nothing but professional in his/her approach, unlike a few of the "baiters" here.

I didn't search for those photos, they were there on every Thai Fora, including this one, for everyone to see. Until they were taken down. Thankfully, due to respect for the families.

And yes, i have read an autopsy report before - that of my dead husbands. Knowing how he died was atrocious. But, i still stand by my comment that the details of Hannah's autopsy should have perhaps been put on a link - so those other "morbid" people could read it. Or not. I don't need to.

Don't get at me because i am a sensitive person. I am, and i hope others here are too.

I have nothing against Stealth, and agree he has been consistent in his posts. But that one just pushed a button, sorry Stealth.

That's ok and as I explained to the mods I only copied from another thread that has been on thaivisa for 12 months and I don't like to upset anybody but felt it was important as chilli had mentioned the autopsy there was info on there that was conflicting with police statements.

I also don't like to see people being upset I understand.

And it would have been better to have a link with a warning so you didn't have to see it.

[thailandchilli]

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.

Thankfully we do have one resident expert on this forum as I can see the usual suspects are again referring to the partial match mentioned in court. The above should clarify this for them. If not then I'm happy to re-post this on a regular basis

Edited September 25, 2015 by thailandchilli

[thailandchilli]

We can all debate the fine points which can lead to some clarity.

For me it's rather simple - the prosecution stated we have DNA which PROVES the B2 committed this crime

Now if I say I have the Crown Jewels and challenge anybody to prove me wrong, somebody asks me ok show me and let's have that verified, I simply produce the Crown Jewels and say verify what you like.

If I don't produce the Crown Jewels quite rightly I will be lambasted and be called a liar.

The prosecution have never once produced clear and unadulterated DNA evidence.

Why is this ?

That is what the whole world is asking apart from about 4 or 5 posters on here. The answer is simple. They are colluding to hide the truth. There can be no other reasonable reason

[fab99]

We can all debate the fine points which can lead to some clarity.

For me it's rather simple - the prosecution stated we have DNA which PROVES the B2 committed this crime

Now if I say I have the Crown Jewels and challenge anybody to prove me wrong, somebody asks me ok show me and let's have that verified, I simply produce the Crown Jewels and say verify what you like.

If I don't produce the Crown Jewels quite rightly I will be lambasted and be called a liar.

The prosecution have never once produced clear and unadulterated DNA evidence.

Why is this ?

Yes, call me suspicious but a lack of transparency is always associated with something to hide...

We can all agree that transparency hasn't been the best word to describe this trial.

If the case was so rock solid, the prosecution would provide everything asked by the defense, wouldn't it?

To name just a few :

> the chain of custody and all the documents concerning the supposed damning DNA evidence have been requested for month, the refusal has prevented an renowned expert to give a testimony

> the pictures of the scene and of the autopsy that couldn't be printed for... lack of budget (they supposedly made hundreds of costly DNA tests but can't find a few hundreds of baht to print), they refused to provide them on CD either

> Hannah's clothes that are nowhere to be found

> only part of the CCTV footage has been used, the rest is not available and was seen as not relevant

I would go even further that that, it seems totally wrong that they actually are not FORCED to do so by the judges.

How can people not have any doubt about the culpability of the B2?

They are facing the death penalty for god's sake, even a slight chance of them being innocent is supposed to be enough to find them not-guilty, and there is more than a slight chance of that...

I guess the truth will eventualy come out, they are probably counting on time to make people forget about this case, it may be the way it works in Thailand (the news is hot for a few days, but there is usually no followup) but globally nowadays it is different and I have a strong feeling that people are not ready to give up and just forget about this case.

Edited September 25, 2015 by fab99

[Darkknight666]

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

Mods just said, discuss the topic not the members. Let's do that.

[evadgib]

What is the significance of the yellow/blue arrows in the 'gait' photos, given most haven't seen the accused walking without chains or entourage & therefore are unable to understand the comparison?

Edited September 25, 2015 by evadgib

[JoopJoop]

I'm guessing mate that the yellow lines are the line of respective leg/hand and arm/foot movement and the blue line represents the direction the body as a whole takes. Others will correct me or elaborate further.

Edited September 25, 2015 by JoopJoop

[Fat Haggis]

What is the significance of the yellow/blue arrows in the 'gait' photos, given most haven't seen the B2 walking therefore are unable to understand the comparison?

No flames please, I haven't been able to work it out.

I think it's possibly the direction the toes are pointing after each step, as in outwards

[Exsexyman]

People, this thread has only just been reopned after being closed for bikering between posters. Please think about what you are posting before hitting the post button, a lot of us are keen to keep up to date with the case especially at this critical point.

Most here are keen to keep it open, rising to baiting posts and bikering will only see the thread closed again and the couple of people trying to derail it suceed once again.

Keep the thread alive! Getting it closed is a win for the rtp supporters!

But again trotting out the tired old line that because "the couple of people" have the temerity to have a different opinion from you they are RTP supporters, whose purpose on here is to get the thread closed, is, of course, not 'baiting'! Are you familiar with the term, 'self righteous hypocrisy'?

[IslandLover]

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?

A wine bottle?

Sorry, couldn't resist that

Edited September 25, 2015 by IslandLover

[Fat Haggis]

There's having a difference of opinion, and then there's blatant posting calling into question the qualifications and expertise of highly qualified experts, who have far more experience with real life, than the vast majority of posters here.

When there are conflicting reports done by alleged professionals within their respective fields, when that expert analysis is immediately dismissed by no qualified persons, as it doesn't suit their "opinions or agendas" isn't the way anyone who allegedly respects others opinions is it?

When you have the same, if not better qualifications as those professionals, then your opinions may have some sway, but to be critical, to the point of being downright disrespectful, that sir is an even bigger Hypocrisy.

If you've also followed these threads over the past year, and you are coming across as a pretty smart guy, then you should be noticing common denominators too.

There are also experts in certain fields, and former Law Enforcement officials here, who know this shit inside out, but it matters no to a particular side of the debate, because their "opinions" have much greater credence than bona fide professionals ? Nah don't think so mate.

An opinion that is something that can be changed, and agenda on the other hand

[thailandchilli]

What is the significance of the yellow/blue arrows in the 'gait' photos, given most haven't seen the B2 walking therefore are unable to understand the comparison?

No flames please, I haven't been able to work it out.

I think it's possibly the direction the toes are pointing after each step, as in outwards

Apparently there is a resident expert on here in Gait analysis so no doubt he'll be along soon to give his expert opinion, after all this would be an ideal opportunity.

Edited September 25, 2015 by thailandchilli

[oldsailor35]

To further add, why was the lab technician who processed the DNA samples not a witness for the prosecution?

Going on the stand and explaining the whole process from the minute a sample is handed to them, processed through documentation, analysed and then the results printed off?

Without any supporting documentation it really is only hearsay that any such procedure in this case ever took place.

looks as though the defence have slipped up on this one .