Forensic team to testify in Koh Tao murder trial

[BritTim]

This has always interested me and again does not fit the scenario and the whole case that has been created by the RTP

Hannah Witheridge shared cigarette with someone before attack, say police

Traces of Miss Witheridge's DNA and that of one other person were found on a cigarette butt some 50 yards from where her body was found, suggesting the 23-year-old shared it with her attackers and even had a conversation with them before being killed.

So one of the key pieces of evidence that the prosecution has, ie the DNA on the cigarette butts is of course vanished and not available for retesting:

This is in the daily mail not available in Thailand but you can still view through Google translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2762055%2FThai-divers-hunt-missing-murder-weapon-tourists-flock-spot-British-duo-murdered.html&edit-text=&act=url

The defense was very keen to have the butts tested however:

Interview with Dr Pornthip

There were previous reports that DNA found on the butt of a cigarette shared by the two suspects matched that found on the female victim’s body. Were you able to consider that evidence?

No. Because the police said that all that evidence was destroyed already. The police said there was no evidence left to send to our institute.

http://www.irrawaddy.org/interview/dr-pornthip-victims-or-suspects-have-the-right-to-ask-for-a-second-opinion.html

Interesting topic the cigarette butt, because it was reported somewhere last year that Hannah was a non smoker!?!?

That was one of the sillier errors in the stitch up process. They claimed lipstick and Hannah's DNA on cigarettes also smoked by the Burmese. I guess the idea was to place Hannah and the Burmese together at the same time. Whoever had that bright idea is even more of an idiot than the rest of them. (I hope you are reading this you moron.) Although the evidence could be "used up" after scribbling a document, it conflicts directly with the picture the prosecution was trying to paint of a sneak attack by people the victims never knew were there.

[sambum]

At an early trial date Dr. Pornthip said they had the Chain of Custody of the Prosecution's DNA, so I am wondering which documents are the Defense asking for now before they put their Star Witness on the Stand.

"She said pools of blood found on the sand on Sairee beach in Koh Tao last September had not been gathered for DNA testing, nor had any of Ms Witheridge’s clothing which was still on her body at the time of her death. Insufficient photographs had been taken of the scene to be useful to a forensic examination, and the chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete, she said.“The documents have been edited. The dates are not right,” Dr Pornthip, who has decades of experience in forensic science, told the three sitting judges."

I just can't see how she can say the "chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete" if she did not have them to look at and even know this. So I don't see how or why everyone is claiming they don't have them now when she testified in court already saying they do.

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/dna_found_on_murder_weapon_does_not_match_with_two_men_on_trial_for_killing_hannah_witheridge_1_4228734

That's how spin works, doesn't it? From DNA chain of evidence incomplete to No DNA evidence at all in one simple twirl.

I will try to remember the article I read this on, but from memory one mentioned that there was an error on the date for the results on the DNA tests of the two defendants, they were a day of; the article mentioned that the error was caused by using the date of the mail parcel delivery instead of the date of the results inside the envelope or something like that.

Also, apparently, the date on David Miller's death certificate was wrong, again, obviously an innocent mistake.

In any case it would show how easy is to cast grave doubts by pointing at a fact that does not actually prove anything beyond a simple clerical error.

I find this answer to be beyond belief and absolutely has to shatter any semblance of what one might consider this poster had in the way of intelligence or reasonable and rational thinking.

This was a brutal murder and investigators have to be absolutely spot-on in their collection of evidence and the detailing of any of it, so to blithely dismiss this as "simple clerical errors" is a nonsense, and Doctor Pornthip was pointing to this very fact.............how can you trust the evidence of a team of corrupt, untrained, and non-forensic people when they cannot even get the very basics right?

Unbelievable that this should happen and unbelievable that the poster has dismissed it so lightly.

Very good post, and as you say, "simple clerical errors" and "innocent mistakes" should not happen in a case such as this.

How on earth could someone, presumably in a fairly responsible position, put the wrong date on David's death certificate? It is just another example of slipshod work by the RTP/Prosecution, and couldn't put it better than Dr Pornthip has already stated.

And to dismiss these mistakes so lightly shows that the poster isn't at all interested in justice, only in trying to trivialise all the mistakes that have been made by the " team of corrupt, untrained, and non-forensic people"

[AleG]

That's how spin works, doesn't it? From DNA chain of evidence incomplete to No DNA evidence at all in one simple twirl.

I will try to remember the article I read this on, but from memory one mentioned that there was an error on the date for the results on the DNA tests of the two defendants, they were a day of; the article mentioned that the error was caused by using the date of the mail parcel delivery instead of the date of the results inside the envelope or something like that.

Also, apparently, the date on David Miller's death certificate was wrong, again, obviously an innocent mistake.

In any case it would show how easy is to cast grave doubts by pointing at a fact that does not actually prove anything beyond a simple clerical error.

I find this answer to be beyond belief and absolutely has to shatter any semblance of what one might consider this poster had in the way of intelligence or reasonable and rational thinking.

This was a brutal murder and investigators have to be absolutely spot-on in their collection of evidence and the detailing of any of it, so to blithely dismiss this as "simple clerical errors" is a nonsense, and Doctor Pornthip was pointing to this very fact.............how can you trust the evidence of a team of corrupt, untrained, and non-forensic people when they cannot even get the very basics right?

Unbelievable that this should happen and unbelievable that the poster has dismissed it so lightly.

Very good post, and as you say, "simple clerical errors" and "innocent mistakes" should not happen in a case such as this.

How on earth could someone, presumably in a fairly responsible position, put the wrong date on David's death certificate? It is just another example of slipshod work by the RTP/Prosecution, and couldn't put it better than Dr Pornthip has already stated.

And to dismiss these mistakes so lightly shows that the poster isn't at all interested in justice, only in trying to trivialise all the mistakes that have been made by the " team of corrupt, untrained, and non-forensic people"

It means that I'm more interested in getting to the bottom of things than in wasting time making mountains out of molehills.

I am not the one demanding the case to be thrown out under the excuse that some "i"s may not had been dotted or some "t"s not crossed. All investigations like this are complex and errors are made in the process, it doesn't mean that the end results are invalid

[thailandchilli]

Which explains why the rtp have acted to protect Thais. They probably are furious with the defence for not supporting them. No one dare question a Thai authority. It's ingrained in Thai society.

I've posted before about Andy Hall not being a very popular individual in the eyes of the Thai establishment. This was exemplified by him being berated by senior Thai policemen outside the Samui courthouse on the 1st day of the trial. They were annoyed by the fact that he had the sheer audacity to support the B2 and not their corrupted version of justice.

Actually the confrontation was, according to Andy Hall, for "disrespecting the families of the victims", and from what I've hear it has something to do with events described at the end of this article.

No thats completely untrue. The confrontation was outside the court with the lead RTP investigator asking why the defense are putting up such a strong case and that the Human rights lawyers should be working for the prosecution not the defense.

[mcm991]

That's how spin works, doesn't it? From DNA chain of evidence incomplete to No DNA evidence at all in one simple twirl.

I will try to remember the article I read this on, but from memory one mentioned that there was an error on the date for the results on the DNA tests of the two defendants, they were a day of; the article mentioned that the error was caused by using the date of the mail parcel delivery instead of the date of the results inside the envelope or something like that.

Also, apparently, the date on David Miller's death certificate was wrong, again, obviously an innocent mistake.

In any case it would show how easy is to cast grave doubts by pointing at a fact that does not actually prove anything beyond a simple clerical error.

I find this answer to be beyond belief and absolutely has to shatter any semblance of what one might consider this poster had in the way of intelligence or reasonable and rational thinking.

This was a brutal murder and investigators have to be absolutely spot-on in their collection of evidence and the detailing of any of it, so to blithely dismiss this as "simple clerical errors" is a nonsense, and Doctor Pornthip was pointing to this very fact.............how can you trust the evidence of a team of corrupt, untrained, and non-forensic people when they cannot even get the very basics right?

Unbelievable that this should happen and unbelievable that the poster has dismissed it so lightly.

Very good post, and as you say, "simple clerical errors" and "innocent mistakes" should not happen in a case such as this.

How on earth could someone, presumably in a fairly responsible position, put the wrong date on David's death certificate? It is just another example of slipshod work by the RTP/Prosecution, and couldn't put it better than Dr Pornthip has already stated.

And to dismiss these mistakes so lightly shows that the poster isn't at all interested in justice, only in trying to trivialise all the mistakes that have been made by the " team of corrupt, untrained, and non-forensic people"

It means that I'm more interested in getting to the bottom of things than in wasting time making mountains out of molehills.

I am not the one demanding the case to be thrown out under the excuse that some "i"s may not had been dotted or some "t"s not crossed. All investigations like this are complex and errors are made in the process, it doesn't mean that the end results are invalid

Absolutely. Well said.

The total lack of any evidence that points to the guilt of the B2 should never get in the way of a conviction.

Stupid mountains and molehills........

[Fat Haggis]

Clerical errors have got cases thrown out before !!!

[Scott]

Topic closed for clean up.

Suspensions will be given.

[CharlieH]

Various posts removed. Off topic/personal remarks/moderation

Debate /discuss the TOPIC not individual members nor make personal accusations. ANY such post will be removed and the member responsible may be SUSPENDED.

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[Aj Mick]

At an early trial date Dr. Pornthip said they had the Chain of Custody of the Prosecution's DNA, so I am wondering which documents are the Defense asking for now before they put their Star Witness on the Stand.

"She said pools of blood found on the sand on Sairee beach in Koh Tao last September had not been gathered for DNA testing, nor had any of Ms Witheridge’s clothing which was still on her body at the time of her death. Insufficient photographs had been taken of the scene to be useful to a forensic examination, and the chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete, she said.“The documents have been edited. The dates are not right,” Dr Pornthip, who has decades of experience in forensic science, told the three sitting judges."

I just can't see how she can say the "chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete" if she did not have them to look at and even know this. So I don't see how or why everyone is claiming they don't have them now when she testified in court already saying they do.

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/dna_found_on_murder_weapon_does_not_match_with_two_men_on_trial_for_killing_hannah_witheridge_1_4228734

Simple GOLDBUGGY…..

If the RTP cannot produce evidence to verify complete chain of custody, there is no evidence to verify that the chain of custody is complete.

[Trisha61]

Which explains why the rtp have acted to protect Thais. They probably are furious with the defence for not supporting them. No one dare question a Thai authority. It's ingrained in Thai society.

I've posted before about Andy Hall not being a very popular individual in the eyes of the Thai establishment. This was exemplified by him being berated by senior Thai policemen outside the Samui courthouse on the 1st day of the trial. They were annoyed by the fact that he had the sheer audacity to support the B2 and not their corrupted version of justice.

Actually the confrontation was, according to Andy Hall, for "disrespecting the families of the victims", and from what I've hear it has something to do with events described at the end of this article.

No thats completely untrue. The confrontation was outside the court with the lead RTP investigator asking why the defense are putting up such a strong case and that the Human rights lawyers should be working for the prosecution not the defense.

More smoke and mirrors.

[BritTim]

Semen DNA Evidence: Claims and counter claims

Right from the start of this case, the RTP supporters have (correctly) indicated that the key evidence is alleged DNA matches of the Burmese kids with semen samples allegedly found during the autopsy on Hannah. Below, I try to summarize the various statements that have been made about the semen samples, DNA tests, and supporting documentation to evaluate the credibility of that evidence.

First Issue : What is the evidence that a rape occurred?

• The Thai autopsy report states that three semen samples were found. The report further states that there were injuries on the Hannah's body that were consistent with sexual assault. To the best of my knowledge, there is no photographic evidence to back up these statements.
• Dr Pornthip, head of Thailand's Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) and generally accepted as Thailand's leading forensic specialist, testified in court that, based on the photographic evidence of the body that is available to her (admittedly not comprehensive) there are no injuries typical of violent sexual assault.
  The RTP supporters have countered this by saying rape is possible without typical signs (TRUE), semen found proves rape (TRUE ONLY if semen really was found, AND various other conditions are satisfied), and Dr Pornthip supported the purchase of worthless airport scanners (IRRELEVANT).
• The defense has passed copies of the report of the UK postmortem (carried out by a Home Office pathologist) to the judges and prosecution. The report is apparently 400 pages long with full photographic evidence of its findings. The report comes to the same conclusion as Dr Pornthip that injuries typical of sexual assault were not present, and directly contradicts important findings in the Thai autopsy report, raising great doubts over that report's credibility.
  The RTP supporters have countered this by saying rape is possible without typical signs (TRUE but does not explain why the Thai report says there were), semen found proves rape (TRUE ONLY if semen really was found, AND various other conditions are satisfied), the credentials of the UK Home Office Pathologist have not been established, and the UK Home Office Pathologist's report cannot be accepted as valid evidence unless he is willing to travel to Thailand and testify as to its contents in person (DESPERATE : are they really claiming the photos are faked; if so, show us the Thai autopsy photos that prove this).

Second Issue : Where are the samples?

(Background: to understand the statements below, it is important to understand what Replicated DNA is. A small quantity of the original Reference Sample is put through a process called PCR. To simplify, this creates large amounts of DNA restricted to sequences that are highly variable between individuals. This is call Replicated DNA. However, there is no way one can know the origin of the Replicated DNA. Unlike the original Reference Sample, one cannot distinguish semen from a hair follicle or blood. Only small amounts of the source material are needed for PCR, and it is generally accepted practice to retain some of the Reference Sample for potential future retesting.)

• The RTP has repeatedly made statements that Reference Samples (in particular, semen samples) are lost or more usually, "used up". This is an inexplicable breach of normal forensic procedure.
• Pol. Lt. Col. Kewalee stated that '"all" genetic material tested in the lab is replicated and saved for at least one year'. This sounds good until one realizes that she is referring to the Replicated DNA from the PCR process. Replicated DNA degrades much faster than the DNA in the Reference Sample and, as said, the type of the original sample cannot be determined.
• The defense, who had strenuously argued for retesting of the Reference Samples (especially the semen samples) were initially happy to hear this, as (like pretty much everyone else) they misunderstood what was really available.
• The RTP said they would provide the CIFS Replicated DNA for retesting, and say where it came from. Understandably, the defense elected against retesting under those conditions. However, attempts were made by RTP supporters to portray this as doubts over the defendants' innocence.
• RTP supporters contest the claims above, stating that, although some prosecution witnesses said the Reference Samples were "used up", others implied they were not. In particular, Pol Lt Col Kewalee's statement that Replicated DNA was kept did not preclude the continued existence of one or more Reference Samples.
• The original existence of the DNA samples, its collection, testing, and disposal or current location should be available via documentation called 'Chain of Custody'.of which more later.

Third Issue : Wrong people involved

• Thailand's Central Institute of Forensic Science was specifically established to provide quality forensic testing, independent of the police investigative team, and promote confidence in Thailand's justice system.
• In a high profile case like this, one would have expected the CIFS to be heavily involved. In fact, until they were contacted by the defense and asked to independently evaluate forensic issues, they were kept completely out of the case. The police did all testing themselves in house. Besides the issue of quality of the testing, there are obvious questions about independence.

Fourth Issue : Inadequate Documentation

Given that the RTP was doing all evidence collection and testing themselves, with no independent oversight, impeccable records keeping and transparency was a must.

• The defense has been requesting full autopsy results, including photos, and chains of custody of Reference Samples and DNA tests for many months. Up until the trial stated in July, the RTP could argue privacy concerns prevented them from complying. Since then, they have been ordered by the judges to hand the information over, but claim budget constraints mean they cannot comply.
• What little the defense or CIFS has been given has been described as incomplete, riddled with obvious errors and sometimes modified later.
• A high regarded foreign expert witness, in Thailand specifically to pass judgment on the documentation of the Reference Samples and DNA tests has been unable even to testify because the defense have been given so little to analyze.
• RTP supporters variously claim that the defense has everything available to the prosecution, that the defense failed to ask for it, that the deficiencies are minor and do not detract from the overall results, and that the defense is nitpicking because they cannot prove the DNA testing was not done correctly.

Corrections welcome

[fab99]

Semen DNA Evidence: Claims and counter claims

Right from the start of this case, the RTP supporters have (correctly) indicated that the key evidence is alleged DNA matches of the Burmese kids with semen samples allegedly found during the autopsy on Hannah. Below, I try to summarize the various statements that have been made about the semen samples, DNA tests, and supporting documentation to evaluate the credibility of that evidence.

First Issue : What is the evidence that a rape occurred?

• The Thai autopsy report states that three semen samples were found. The report further states that there were injuries on the Hannah's body that were consistent with sexual assault. To the best of my knowledge, there is no photographic evidence to back up these statements.
• Dr Pornthip, head of Thailand's Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) and generally accepted as Thailand's leading forensic specialist, testified in court that, based on the photographic evidence of the body that is available to her (admittedly not comprehensive) there are no injuries typical of violent sexual assault.

  The RTP supporters have countered this by saying rape is possible without typical signs (TRUE), semen found proves rape (TRUE ONLY if semen really was found, AND various other conditions are satisfied), and Dr Pornthip supported the purchase of worthless airport scanners (IRRELEVANT).

• The defense has passed copies of the report of the UK postmortem (carried out by a Home Office pathologist) to the judges and prosecution. The report is apparently 400 pages long with full photographic evidence of its findings. The report comes to the same conclusion as Dr Pornthip that injuries typical of sexual assault were not present, and directly contradicts important findings in the Thai autopsy report, raising great doubts over that report's credibility.

  The RTP supporters have countered this by saying rape is possible without typical signs (TRUE but does not explain why the Thai report says there were), semen found proves rape (TRUE ONLY if semen really was found, AND various other conditions are satisfied), the credentials of the UK Home Office Pathologist have not been established, and the UK Home Office Pathologist's report cannot be accepted as valid evidence unless he is willing to travel to Thailand and testify as to its contents in person (DESPERATE : are they really claiming the photos are faked; if so, show us the Thai autopsy photos that prove this).

Second Issue : Where are the samples?

(Background: to understand the statements below, it is important to understand what Replicated DNA is. A small quantity of the original Reference Sample is put through a process called PCR. To simplify, this creates large amounts of DNA restricted to sequences that are highly variable between individuals. This is call Replicated DNA. However, there is no way one can know the origin of the Replicated DNA. Unlike the original Reference Sample, one cannot distinguish semen from a hair follicle or blood. Only small amounts of the source material are needed for PCR, and it is generally accepted practice to retain some of the Reference Sample for potential future retesting.)

• The RTP has repeatedly made statements that Reference Samples (in particular, semen samples) are lost or more usually, "used up". This is an inexplicable breach of normal forensic procedure.
• Pol. Lt. Col. Kewalee stated that '"all" genetic material tested in the lab is replicated and saved for at least one year'. This sounds good until one realizes that she is referring to the Replicated DNA from the PCR process. Replicated DNA degrades much faster than the DNA in the Reference Sample and, as said, the type of the original sample cannot be determined.
• The defense, who had strenuously argued for retesting of the Reference Samples (especially the semen samples) were initially happy to hear this, as (like pretty much everyone else) they misunderstood what was really available.
• The RTP said they would provide the CIFS Replicated DNA for retesting, and say where it came from. Understandably, the defense elected against retesting under those conditions. However, attempts were made by RTP supporters to portray this as doubts over the defendants' innocence.
• RTP supporters contest the claims above, stating that, although some prosecution witnesses said the Reference Samples were "used up", others implied they were not. In particular, Pol Lt Col Kewalee's statement that Replicated DNA was kept did not preclude the continued existence of one or more Reference Samples.
• The original existence of the DNA samples, its collection, testing, and disposal or current location should be available via documentation called 'Chain of Custody'.of which more later.

Third Issue : Wrong people involved

• Thailand's Central Institute of Forensic Science was specifically established to provide quality forensic testing, independent of the police investigative team, and promote confidence in Thailand's justice system.
• In a high profile case like this, one would have expected the CIFS to be heavily involved. In fact, until they were contacted by the defense and asked to independently evaluate forensic issues, they were kept completely out of the case. The police did all testing themselves in house. Besides the issue of quality of the testing, there are obvious questions about independence.

Fourth Issue : Inadequate Documentation

Given that the RTP was doing all evidence collection and testing themselves, with no independent oversight, impeccable records keeping and transparency was a must.

• The defense has been requesting full autopsy results, including photos, and chains of custody of Reference Samples and DNA tests for many months. Up until the trial stated in July, the RTP could argue privacy concerns prevented them from complying. Since then, they have been ordered by the judges to hand the information over, but claim budget constraints mean they cannot comply.
• What little the defense or CIFS has been given has been described as incomplete, riddled with obvious errors and sometimes modified later.
• A high regarded foreign expert witness, in Thailand specifically to pass judgment on the documentation of the Reference Samples and DNA tests has been unable even to testify because the defense have been given so little to analyze.
• RTP supporters variously claim that the defense has everything available to the prosecution, that the defense failed to ask for it, that the deficiencies are minor and do not detract from the overall results, and that the defense is nitpicking because they cannot prove the DNA testing was not done correctly.

Corrections welcome

Thanks a lot for this great post clearly presented, must have taken a lot of time to write it, appreciate that.

If there is one post that deserves to be pinned for future reference, that's the one (along with the one explaining clearly DNA testing and what a partial match means -nothing-).

I will quote it in the future to support what I say and to make it resurface.

Thanks again.

Edited September 27, 2015 by fab99

[GOLDBUGGY]

At an early trial date Dr. Pornthip said they had the Chain of Custody of the Prosecution's DNA, so I am wondering which documents are the Defense asking for now before they put their Star Witness on the Stand.

"She said pools of blood found on the sand on Sairee beach in Koh Tao last September had not been gathered for DNA testing, nor had any of Ms Witheridge’s clothing which was still on her body at the time of her death. Insufficient photographs had been taken of the scene to be useful to a forensic examination, and the chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete, she said.“The documents have been edited. The dates are not right,” Dr Pornthip, who has decades of experience in forensic science, told the three sitting judges."

I just can't see how she can say the "chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete" if she did not have them to look at and even know this. So I don't see how or why everyone is claiming they don't have them now when she testified in court already saying they do.

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/dna_found_on_murder_weapon_does_not_match_with_two_men_on_trial_for_killing_hannah_witheridge_1_4228734

Simple GOLDBUGGY…..

If the RTP cannot produce evidence to verify complete chain of custody, there is no evidence to verify that the chain of custody is complete.

I am not disagreeing with you Aj Mick even thought it was a Defense Witness who said this and offered her Professional Opinion. In fact it was me who linked this post from this Defense Witness Testimony.

The point I tried to get across was that many posters here kept repeating that The Prosecution did not have or gave the Defense any DNA Documentation as they have none. None as in Zero, Dippity-do-da, Zilch, Na Da, and so on. None as if this DNA Evidence was fabricated by the Lab, Police, and Prosecutor.

But this carefully worded court statement from Dr. Pornthip herself clearly stated that "DNA evidence was incomplete". So obviously to say this there had to have been "Some" DNA Evidence, and not "None" as many kept saying.

So I asked a simple question, which so far nobody has tried to answer, and mention on my first line. What documents are the Defense asking for now before they can put there Forensic Expert from Australia on the Stand? A simple question I thought. I asked because Dr. Pornthip made this statement 2 weeks ago on the Stand, so the Defense Team knew what they had 2 weeks ago. So why bring this witness here now when they must have known they only had Incomplete DNA Evidence? ,

I was not debating how good this DNA Evidence was or even how incomplete it was, as I honestly don't know. Other then what Dr. Pornthip said, which was: "The documents had been edited." "The dates not right". Up until I read this I didn't know or think it was even possible to edit this document. so how can I debate it?

But this is a separate issue altogether which I did not raise here. If you chose to start another link to show how this would be thrown out of a UK, or USA Court, and why it hasn't been done here, I would be happy to read that and get informed. It just seems to me that the Defense Team is spending a lot of time and resources on proving this DNA Evidence is no good, when others say that there isn't any to say that about.

[glenmohr]

Toronto, Canada, has a very balanced summary a couple of days ago, refer

metronews.ca/news/world/201

" nobody talks, nobody wants to talk, nobody dares to talk..."

Some have justifiably asked why friends of the deceased and other potential witnesses have not come forward.

Given that I have no family in Thailand I can pretty much say what I like, but for those who are putting their friends, neighbours and families at risk they can be somewhat justified in their silences.

There are dark forces at work but I certainly hope and pray that good will triumph over evil and at that point Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings fame makes yet another movie illustrating how evil is evil.

[fab99]

At an early trial date Dr. Pornthip said they had the Chain of Custody of the Prosecution's DNA, so I am wondering which documents are the Defense asking for now before they put their Star Witness on the Stand.

"She said pools of blood found on the sand on Sairee beach in Koh Tao last September had not been gathered for DNA testing, nor had any of Ms Witheridges clothing which was still on her body at the time of her death. Insufficient photographs had been taken of the scene to be useful to a forensic examination, and the chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete, she said.The documents have been edited. The dates are not right, Dr Pornthip, who has decades of experience in forensic science, told the three sitting judges."

I just can't see how she can say the "chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete" if she did not have them to look at and even know this. So I don't see how or why everyone is claiming they don't have them now when she testified in court already saying they do.

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/dna_found_on_murder_weapon_does_not_match_with_two_men_on_trial_for_killing_hannah_witheridge_1_4228734

Simple GOLDBUGGY..

If the RTP cannot produce evidence to verify complete chain of custody, there is no evidence to verify that the chain of custody is complete.

I am not disagreeing with you Aj Mick even thought it was a Defense Witness who said this and offered her Professional Opinion. In fact it was me who linked this post from this Defense Witness Testimony.

The point I tried to get across was that many posters here kept repeating that The Prosecution did not have or gave the Defense any DNA Documentation as they have none. None as in Zero, Dippity-do-da, Zilch, Na Da, and so on. None as if this DNA Evidence was fabricated by the Lab, Police, and Prosecutor.

But this carefully worded court statement from Dr. Pornthip herself clearly stated that "DNA evidence was incomplete". So obviously to say this there had to have been "Some" DNA Evidence, and not "None" as many kept saying.

So I asked a simple question, which so far nobody has tried to answer, and mention on my first line. What documents are the Defense asking for now before they can put there Forensic Expert from Australia on the Stand? A simple question I thought. I asked because Dr. Pornthip made this statement 2 weeks ago on the Stand, so the Defense Team knew what they had 2 weeks ago. So why bring this witness here now when they must have known they only had Incomplete DNA Evidence? ,

I was not debating how good this DNA Evidence was or even how incomplete it was, as I honestly don't know. Other then what Dr. Pornthip said, which was: "The documents had been edited." "The dates not right". Up until I read this I didn't know or think it was even possible to edit this document. so how can I debate it?

But this is a separate issue altogether which I did not raise here. If you chose to start another link to show how this would be thrown out of a UK, or USA Court, and why it hasn't been done here, I would be happy to read that and get informed. It just seems to me that the Defense Team is spending a lot of time and resources on proving this DNA Evidence is no good, when others say that there isn't any to say that about.

GB did you read the post above by BritTim?

I think it summarize quite well what information we have, but there is one important thing I agree with you : we don't have all the information and reports about the trial and what is presented are never complete mostly for lack of coverage by the media and the ban on note taking.

It's difficult in this conditions to be sure about anything, but from what we have seen so far, I am inclined to believe the documentation from the prosecution is inadequate and not fully disclosed, the details of the mistakes and what is not disclosed don't matter that much, it is just not normal and fair for the accused that are risking the death penalty.

Nobody claimed the documentation was inexistent, but that it had mistakes and wasn't clearly disclosed, and we are left to give our opinions about the reasons behind this...

[GOLDBUGGY]

Clerical errors have got cases thrown out before !!!

Can I ask where and in which case?

I am only asking as I never read of DNA Clerical Errors like this where it happened before.

[fab99]

Clerical errors have got cases thrown out before !!!

Can I ask where and in which case?

I am only asking as I never read of DNA Clerical Errors like this where it happened before.

Plenty of information and examples if you google "clerical error case dismissed"

You're welcome.

[fab99]

The thing is, if we consider the mistakes and missing elements individually they probably are rarely enough to dismiss the case on their own, but as a whole, the accumulation of these gives a more than reasonable doubt, and that is what is needed in a death penalty case (or any other).

So focusing on one detail to say it is irrelevant and doesn't prove innocence is misleading, we need to keep looking at the big picture.

[fab99]

Semen DNA Evidence: Claims and counter claims

Right from the start of this case, the RTP supporters have (correctly) indicated that the key evidence is alleged DNA matches of the Burmese kids with semen samples allegedly found during the autopsy on Hannah. Below, I try to summarize the various statements that have been made about the semen samples, DNA tests, and supporting documentation to evaluate the credibility of that evidence.

First Issue : What is the evidence that a rape occurred?

• The Thai autopsy report states that three semen samples were found. The report further states that there were injuries on the Hannah's body that were consistent with sexual assault. To the best of my knowledge, there is no photographic evidence to back up these statements.
• Dr Pornthip, head of Thailand's Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) and generally accepted as Thailand's leading forensic specialist, testified in court that, based on the photographic evidence of the body that is available to her (admittedly not comprehensive) there are no injuries typical of violent sexual assault.

  The RTP supporters have countered this by saying rape is possible without typical signs (TRUE), semen found proves rape (TRUE ONLY if semen really was found, AND various other conditions are satisfied), and Dr Pornthip supported the purchase of worthless airport scanners (IRRELEVANT).

• The defense has passed copies of the report of the UK postmortem (carried out by a Home Office pathologist) to the judges and prosecution. The report is apparently 400 pages long with full photographic evidence of its findings. The report comes to the same conclusion as Dr Pornthip that injuries typical of sexual assault were not present, and directly contradicts important findings in the Thai autopsy report, raising great doubts over that report's credibility.

  The RTP supporters have countered this by saying rape is possible without typical signs (TRUE but does not explain why the Thai report says there were), semen found proves rape (TRUE ONLY if semen really was found, AND various other conditions are satisfied), the credentials of the UK Home Office Pathologist have not been established, and the UK Home Office Pathologist's report cannot be accepted as valid evidence unless he is willing to travel to Thailand and testify as to its contents in person (DESPERATE : are they really claiming the photos are faked; if so, show us the Thai autopsy photos that prove this).

Second Issue : Where are the samples?

(Background: to understand the statements below, it is important to understand what Replicated DNA is. A small quantity of the original Reference Sample is put through a process called PCR. To simplify, this creates large amounts of DNA restricted to sequences that are highly variable between individuals. This is call Replicated DNA. However, there is no way one can know the origin of the Replicated DNA. Unlike the original Reference Sample, one cannot distinguish semen from a hair follicle or blood. Only small amounts of the source material are needed for PCR, and it is generally accepted practice to retain some of the Reference Sample for potential future retesting.)

• The RTP has repeatedly made statements that Reference Samples (in particular, semen samples) are lost or more usually, "used up". This is an inexplicable breach of normal forensic procedure.
• Pol. Lt. Col. Kewalee stated that '"all" genetic material tested in the lab is replicated and saved for at least one year'. This sounds good until one realizes that she is referring to the Replicated DNA from the PCR process. Replicated DNA degrades much faster than the DNA in the Reference Sample and, as said, the type of the original sample cannot be determined.
• The defense, who had strenuously argued for retesting of the Reference Samples (especially the semen samples) were initially happy to hear this, as (like pretty much everyone else) they misunderstood what was really available.
• The RTP said they would provide the CIFS Replicated DNA for retesting, and say where it came from. Understandably, the defense elected against retesting under those conditions. However, attempts were made by RTP supporters to portray this as doubts over the defendants' innocence.
• RTP supporters contest the claims above, stating that, although some prosecution witnesses said the Reference Samples were "used up", others implied they were not. In particular, Pol Lt Col Kewalee's statement that Replicated DNA was kept did not preclude the continued existence of one or more Reference Samples.
• The original existence of the DNA samples, its collection, testing, and disposal or current location should be available via documentation called 'Chain of Custody'.of which more later.

Third Issue : Wrong people involved

• Thailand's Central Institute of Forensic Science was specifically established to provide quality forensic testing, independent of the police investigative team, and promote confidence in Thailand's justice system.
• In a high profile case like this, one would have expected the CIFS to be heavily involved. In fact, until they were contacted by the defense and asked to independently evaluate forensic issues, they were kept completely out of the case. The police did all testing themselves in house. Besides the issue of quality of the testing, there are obvious questions about independence.

Fourth Issue : Inadequate Documentation

Given that the RTP was doing all evidence collection and testing themselves, with no independent oversight, impeccable records keeping and transparency was a must.

• The defense has been requesting full autopsy results, including photos, and chains of custody of Reference Samples and DNA tests for many months. Up until the trial stated in July, the RTP could argue privacy concerns prevented them from complying. Since then, they have been ordered by the judges to hand the information over, but claim budget constraints mean they cannot comply.
• What little the defense or CIFS has been given has been described as incomplete, riddled with obvious errors and sometimes modified later.
• A high regarded foreign expert witness, in Thailand specifically to pass judgment on the documentation of the Reference Samples and DNA tests has been unable even to testify because the defense have been given so little to analyze.
• RTP supporters variously claim that the defense has everything available to the prosecution, that the defense failed to ask for it, that the deficiencies are minor and do not detract from the overall results, and that the defense is nitpicking because they cannot prove the DNA testing was not done correctly.

Corrections welcome

Hence the absence of pictures of the Thai autopsy for... lack of budget (they have enough budget to make hundreds of DNA tests allegedly but not enough to print a few pictures).

These pictures could have shown the errors in the report, therefore the prosecution isn't disclosing them (even on a CD as requested by the defense team)...

Edited September 27, 2015 by CharlieH

[z42]

At an early trial date Dr. Pornthip said they had the Chain of Custody of the Prosecution's DNA, so I am wondering which documents are the Defense asking for now before they put their Star Witness on the Stand.

"She said pools of blood found on the sand on Sairee beach in Koh Tao last September had not been gathered for DNA testing, nor had any of Ms Witheridge’s clothing which was still on her body at the time of her death. Insufficient photographs had been taken of the scene to be useful to a forensic examination, and the chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete, she said.“The documents have been edited. The dates are not right,” Dr Pornthip, who has decades of experience in forensic science, told the three sitting judges."

I just can't see how she can say the "chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete" if she did not have them to look at and even know this. So I don't see how or why everyone is claiming they don't have them now when she testified in court already saying they do.

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/dna_found_on_murder_weapon_does_not_match_with_two_men_on_trial_for_killing_hannah_witheridge_1_4228734

Simple GOLDBUGGY…..

If the RTP cannot produce evidence to verify complete chain of custody, there is no evidence to verify that the chain of custody is complete.

I am not disagreeing with you Aj Mick even thought it was a Defense Witness who said this and offered her Professional Opinion. In fact it was me who linked this post from this Defense Witness Testimony.

The point I tried to get across was that many posters here kept repeating that The Prosecution did not have or gave the Defense any DNA Documentation as they have none. None as in Zero, Dippity-do-da, Zilch, Na Da, and so on. None as if this DNA Evidence was fabricated by the Lab, Police, and Prosecutor.

But this carefully worded court statement from Dr. Pornthip herself clearly stated that "DNA evidence was incomplete". So obviously to say this there had to have been "Some" DNA Evidence, and not "None" as many kept saying.

So I asked a simple question, which so far nobody has tried to answer, and mention on my first line. What documents are the Defense asking for now before they can put there Forensic Expert from Australia on the Stand? A simple question I thought. I asked because Dr. Pornthip made this statement 2 weeks ago on the Stand, so the Defense Team knew what they had 2 weeks ago. So why bring this witness here now when they must have known they only had Incomplete DNA Evidence? ,

I was not debating how good this DNA Evidence was or even how incomplete it was, as I honestly don't know. Other then what Dr. Pornthip said, which was: "The documents had been edited." "The dates not right". Up until I read this I didn't know or think it was even possible to edit this document. so how can I debate it?

But this is a separate issue altogether which I did not raise here. If you chose to start another link to show how this would be thrown out of a UK, or USA Court, and why it hasn't been done here, I would be happy to read that and get informed. It just seems to me that the Defense Team is spending a lot of time and resources on proving this DNA Evidence is no good, when others say that there isn't any to say that about.

GB post 1095, to answer the question you raised (I asked because Dr. Pornthip made this statement 2 weeks ago on the Stand, so the Defense Team knew what they had 2 weeks ago) in the simplest possible terms; Dr Pornthip is not working for the defense, her institute were sent what documentation the prosecution had, and as the documentation was sent to Pornthip's institute she had no means to discuss the details with the defense team, or pass said documentation on to them.

The defense team by law have a right to see what the prosecution has, because once something is presented to the court by the prosecution they must then become available to the defence team. Before they are presented to the court I believe that they don't have to be shared, but after presentation they must be.

The prosecution are unable to, or are unwilling to share the original samples or a chain of custody for them. Anything replicated afterwards can't be verified as coming from a certain source material (blood, semen etc) as it is merely the DNA coding that is retained. To the best of my knowledge, labs are not in the business of creating new blood or semen samples for example (if it can even be done that is).

Lots of physical evidence that could prove very useful for both the prosecution and the defence team hasn't been forthcoming when it's been requested by people directly involved in the court proceedings. That is incredibly suspicious and certainly harms the credibility of the prosecution in the opinion of many

[fritzzz25]

Which explains why the rtp have acted to protect Thais. They probably are furious with the defence for not supporting them. No one dare question a Thai authority. It's ingrained in Thai society.

I've posted before about Andy Hall not being a very popular individual in the eyes of the Thai establishment. This was exemplified by him being berated by senior Thai policemen outside the Samui courthouse on the 1st day of the trial. They were annoyed by the fact that he had the sheer audacity to support the B2 and not their corrupted version of justice.

Actually the confrontation was, according to Andy Hall, for "disrespecting the families of the victims", and from what I've hear it has something to do with events described at the end of this article.

And we know the editor of the Samui times has a "beef" with Andy, so it is no surprise he is slagged off there........

[Fat Haggis]

The RTP clearly stated that they recovered DNA samples of the accused that matches DNA samples found on the victims breast, rhey are the ones, along with the Thai coroners who made the statement about "bite marks".

Upon close examination of the victims return to the UK Home office pathologist found ZERO evidence to support the claims about a serious sexual assault, in direct contradiction to the original Thai version.

Why would they feel the need to lie? Several posters here have been very vocal about conspiracies and cover ups, and yet an extensive official document from the country of the victims is being dismissed by these people as "irrelevant" surely that is also supporting their own theory of a conspiracy?

They lambasted and ridiculed posters here because of their stance against the Island influential person asking if it was possible such a cover up can go so high.

It seems that the UK coroners results would be an answer to that question, yes it can, and it possibly has. Why believe the Thai autopsy result and not the UK pathologists report? Surely one would have an open mind if your only seeking out justice, never mind the truth because the truth is that prosecution witnesses have clearly lied in their testimony.

Using a translator that can't speak Thai in interrogations that were not recorded, who even admitted he didn't fully understand the Rakhine dialect himself, so how can that interrogation and what was said between the accused, the RTP and the accused be taken as gospel and good enough?

A single entry mix up of dates on documents can be excused as a clerical error, but not when it's been allegedly repeated on several parts as highlighted by Dr. Porntips.

That's sloppy work, or fabricated work no matter which angle you look at it.

[GOLDBUGGY]

At an early trial date Dr. Pornthip said they had the Chain of Custody of the Prosecution's DNA, so I am wondering which documents are the Defense asking for now before they put their Star Witness on the Stand.

"She said pools of blood found on the sand on Sairee beach in Koh Tao last September had not been gathered for DNA testing, nor had any of Ms Witheridge’s clothing which was still on her body at the time of her death. Insufficient photographs had been taken of the scene to be useful to a forensic examination, and the chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete, she said.“The documents have been edited. The dates are not right,” Dr Pornthip, who has decades of experience in forensic science, told the three sitting judges."

I just can't see how she can say the "chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete" if she did not have them to look at and even know this. So I don't see how or why everyone is claiming they don't have them now when she testified in court already saying they do.

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/dna_found_on_murder_weapon_does_not_match_with_two_men_on_trial_for_killing_hannah_witheridge_1_4228734

Your use of sarcasm is noted in the words 'Star Witness'. Judging by her credentials, I would describe her as a professional in her chosen field. Fortunately the civilised world has such dedicated people, who work selflessly ie do not claim to have done a perfect job nor prematurely claim financial rewards for incomplete incompetent work.

In my estimation the defence's 'Star Witness' has already appeared on stage in this charade. Please step forward and take a bow, all you prosecution witnesses, your audience is in raptures of delight and laughter.

BTW, if you need proof of police incompetence, please refer to the 2nd paragraph of your post, which you have predictably opted to ignore!

Well there was no sarcasm intended. "Star Witness" to me means "Important Witness" "Hot Shot" means to me a "High Roller" Someone big, famous and important in their field. "Top of the Class"

I know what my second paragraph says. I put it their so I should know. It is a statement from a well know Forensic Expert who gave to the court her "Professional Opinion". She is well known as she is a Director and has in the past had many clashes with the RTP. But she is also a witness for the Defense Team and I don't see why I should believe every word she said anymore that you should believe every word the Prosecution Witness says. I take both testimony into consideration.

Dr. Pornthip has also been quoted as saying by the Media "Dr Pornthip insisted independent verification was essential until Thailand could upgrade its DNA regulations and processes." If there claim is true in that there equipment is more modern and they employ better staff and technology, then why don'y they just switch. Or is it like the 2 Tier Hospital System they have here in Thailand, where you have Private and Government. Where Private has the best hospitals and more modern equipment, and arguably the best doctors, but most Thai's go to the Government Hospitals because it is cheaper or free?

[Scott]

Troll post removed and suspension given.

[metisdead]

A post containing a link to another site that contains another forum has been removed:

13) You will not post links to other Thailand forums, or forums which could reasonably be construed as competition to Thaivisa.com or its sponsors.

[Fat Haggis]

So let me get this right, a DNA expert analyst for the defence even stated she was surprised that the results came so quick, and very early on it was alleged that Thailand didn't have the ability to have results yielded so quick, in some cases less than 48 hours.

It was then alleged that the samples were sent to Singapore to be independently verified, would I be right them is stating that the claims that the RTP processed these DNA samples in several different places of theirs is also a fabrication ? This would mean that if they sent the DNA Analysis to several different locations there should be several sets of "chain of custody" documentation to accompany these results then?

Who received the samples in Singapore ? If they were ever sent there in the first place.

Given that Thailand and the RTP labs seem to be able to process DNA with such efficiency and speed, are they not being asked to analyse DNA from outside the country seeing as they're now the Hub of rapid DNA results?

[BritTim]

Defence lawyer Nakhon Chompuchat said Friday’s witnesses in the case of the killings of David Miller, 24, and Hannah Witheridge, 23, testified mostly about the problems of using unprofessional translators to interrogate the two defendants. The witnesses were a Myanmar scholar who teaches in Thailand, the translator for the Myanmar embassy and an embassy secretary.

Questions were raised by the witnesses about ethnic biases on the part of the translators – both from Myanmar – as well as their competence and whether they were living in Thailand illegally and thus susceptible to police pressure in their tasks.

Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/1861582/lost-translation-lawyers-men-accused-koh-tao-murder-claim

The last point about police pressure on the translators because of their ambiguous legal status is a good one that, for some reason, had not occurred to me.

[Wifflewaffle]

This is from the thai autopsy. as you will see they have not said she was raped.

The autopsy report indicates that Ms. Witheridge had engaged in sexual intercourse prior to her death, but it is unclear whether the act was consensual or forced. A number of media agencies previously reported that she was raped.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/761319-koh-tao-autopsy-of-murdered-britons-shows-struggle-drowning/

[Fat Haggis]

The approach to justice that irks someone happens all the time in Thailand and has happened recently with the suspicious death of a millionaire who died of blunt force trauma when the car he was a passenger hit a tree at less than 40 kph it was alleged by the driver that the passenger wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

The driver of the car.... A former Policeman and MP, the family wanted the investigation reopened as there were several " irregularities " with the case, including video evidence that the passenger habitually put his seatbelt on due to a prior accident!!

The airbags failed to go off. And that's also being questioned as to why this didn't happen, the initial investigation team stated it was just a "tragic accident " when it's become more apparent there was collusion and cover ups involved and it all centred once again around the RTP.

So yes, the actions of the people involved perverting the course of justice would irk me too.

It's the defences job to discredit and refute the evidence presented by the prosecution, and that's what they have been doing, and doing pretty well too, nothing sinister about it, what's more sinister is the approach certain posters have maintained since day 1.

[newcomer71]

As seen as more and more FALSE statements are reported:

From translation of official Thai autopsy report:

4.1.2. The area of the *omitted* exhibited signs of sexual assault.

Edited September 27, 2015 by newcomer71