Forensic team to testify in Koh Tao murder trial

[GOLDBUGGY]

In this clip at 1.37 there is a hoe with no broken blade have the RTP switched the murder weapon at some stage or is it just there for reference.

So you know think the RTP switched the hoe, then put 2 peoples DNA on it who are not the B2 ? I thought they are meant to be stitching up the B2 not helping them get away with murder.

My thoughts exactly.

Oh Yeah! Many Garden Hoes in Thailand come with a pointed blade and not just flat. Just Google Thailand Hoe and get an image. They are not broken. They are just made this way. I had one myself.

[Darkknight666]

In this clip at 1.37 there is a hoe with no broken blade have the RTP switched the murder weapon at some stage or is it just there for reference.

So you know think the RTP switched the hoe, then put 2 peoples DNA on it who are not the B2 ? I thought they are meant to be stitching up the B2 not helping them get away with murder.

My thoughts exactly.

Oh Yeah! Many Garden Hoes in Thailand come with a pointed blade and not just flat. Just Google Thailand Hoe and get an image. They are not broken. They are just made this way. I had one myself.

Wow. Maybe try again with your spectacles on? The hoe pictured on the beach is missing part of its business end. Top right corner Buggy..... Go have a look.

[thailandchilli]

In this clip at 1.37 there is a hoe with no broken blade have the RTP switched the murder weapon at some stage or is it just there for reference.

So you know think the RTP switched the hoe, then put 2 peoples DNA on it who are not the B2 ? I thought they are meant to be stitching up the B2 not helping them get away with murder.

My thoughts exactly.

Oh Yeah! Many Garden Hoes in Thailand come with a pointed blade and not just flat. Just Google Thailand Hoe and get an image. They are not broken. They are just made this way. I had one myself.

really, you had one of these specially made Hoe's with what you call a pointed blade thats not broken?????

[sambum]

Another scenario...

Something I would not like to think happened, but given the fact that it is now said that both Hannah's David's DNA was on the hoe as if both handled it.

Could Hannah have used it to defend herself against David, hitting David with it, David snatches it off her, in a rage kills her, he stumbles in the sea and drowns???

No I would not like to think this is what happened but there again I do not want to see innocent people sent down for this crime.

Third person moves the hoe to protect the owner of the hoe from being accused?

Now THAT is a conspiracy theory of astronomical proportions, and I expect someone to be along very shortly to tell you so!

[AleG]

AleG, you said in an earlier post that the DNA on the hoe is irrelevant, so just to clarify what DNA evidence is the relevant DNA.

The prosecution never claimed that DNA from the hoe implicated the defendants, the results from the retesting... don't implicate the defendants, ergo, irrelevant.

The DNA I refereed to is from inside Witheridge, recovered during her autopsy, the one the defense choose not to contest directly because I don't think they want to have its validity verified.

AleG, you said in an earlier post that the DNA on the hoe is irrelevant, so just to clarify what DNA evidence is the relevant DNA.

I think he has been pretty clear he supports unsubstantiated reports of dna found in sperm inside hanna presented by those who have committed perjury in the court.

Witnesses presenting evidence in court does not equal "unsubstantiated reports", much as you'd wish it to be so. What is unsubstantiated though is your accusation that the people that did so committed perjury.

[rockingrobin]

AleG, you said in an earlier post that the DNA on the hoe is irrelevant, so just to clarify what DNA evidence is the relevant DNA.

The prosecution never claimed that DNA from the hoe implicated the defendants, the results from the retesting... don't implicate the defendants, ergo, irrelevant.

The DNA I refereed to is from inside Witheridge, recovered during her autopsy, the one the defense choose not to contest directly because I don't think they want to have its validity verified.

AleG, you said in an earlier post that the DNA on the hoe is irrelevant, so just to clarify what DNA evidence is the relevant DNA.

I think he has been pretty clear he supports unsubstantiated reports of dna found in sperm inside hanna presented by those who have committed perjury in the court.

Witnesses presenting evidence in court does not equal "unsubstantiated reports", much as you'd wish it to be so. What is unsubstantiated though is your accusation that the people that did so committed perjury.

The issue with the hoe is that the RTP forensics failed to analyse it, and the independent testing does not support the RTP prosecution but along with the blonde hair contradicts the scenario put forward by the RTP

This has very similar patterns to another case

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/police-made-evidence-fit-the-crime-in-convicting-kyle-unger-lawyer-1.814303

[minikev]

I think it's obvious that it is a different one and is broken across the blade.

[thailandchilli]

I think it's obvious that it is a different one and is broken across the blade.

What appears obvious for the majority of reasonable minded people such as a seriously flawed investigation and trial is not obvious for those who for whatever reason seem hell bent on backing the official RTP "story". Its worth noting however that such a minority of people who believe this story all seem to have connections to K.T.

Edited September 22, 2015 by thailandchilli

[fireplay]

AleG, you said in an earlier post that the DNA on the hoe is irrelevant, so just to clarify what DNA evidence is the relevant DNA.

The prosecution never claimed that DNA from the hoe implicated the defendants, the results from the retesting... don't implicate the defendants, ergo, irrelevant.

The DNA I refereed to is from inside Witheridge, recovered during her autopsy, the one the defense choose not to contest directly because I don't think they want to have its validity verified.

AleG, you said in an earlier post that the DNA on the hoe is irrelevant, so just to clarify what DNA evidence is the relevant DNA.

I think he has been pretty clear he supports unsubstantiated reports of dna found in sperm inside hanna presented by those who have committed perjury in the court.

Witnesses presenting evidence in court does not equal "unsubstantiated reports", much as you'd wish it to be so. What is unsubstantiated though is your accusation that the people that did so committed perjury.

There have been many conflicting reports of what has been said...statements retracted...contradicted....and blatently false delivered in the courtroom as reported in media and then minutely detailed by the heavy hitters in this thread.

Stealth loonodingle mad aussie etc...care to re entertain said reports? If we had proper recording mechanisms this would all be put to bed but i do remember you blowing your trumpet over the last year about waiting for the trial. Sir...this trial is full of shit. I believe you are a pretty smart guy. Answer khun Matt's questions please.

[GOLDBUGGY]

the scene is looking different

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

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

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

I agree AleG or otherwise the Defense wouldn't be spending so much time and effort by trying to discredit this.

What I found most interesting about the latest news, is where did the Defense get Hannah's and David's DNA from, and to say it was n the Garden Hoe? Remember everyone saying that what the Police had was all corrupt, and tainted, and the replica was no damned good? For the 20th time?

If this came from the Forensics Lab in the UK, I would think he/she would have had to be their to testify to this, and show some proof of control and custody, since it is DNA. Or does this only apply to the Prosecution and the Defense can say anything they want and be taken as the gospel truth?

[GOLDBUGGY]

One news report suggested that information from a “highly-placed source” suggests that the court would probably take a long time to reach a verdict as it would need to examine further evidence

How can either prosecution or defense present 'further evidence' without it being part of the trial ???

Surely even in this crackpot of a system, evidence must be reviewed, examined, rebutted ??? What is this some kind of secret evidence thats not possible to be challenged ??

You mean like those secret document the Defense Team didn't let anyone see or talk about but were passed under the table to the Judges? Or as it was reported by the Media.

[rockingrobin]

the scene is looking different

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

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

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

I agree AleG or otherwise the Defense wouldn't be spending so much time and effort by trying to discredit this.

What I found most interesting about the latest news, is where did the Defense get Hannah's and David's DNA from, and to say it was n the Garden Hoe? Remember everyone saying that what the Police had was all corrupt, and tainted, and the replica was no damned good? For the 20th time?

If this came from the Forensics Lab in the UK, I would think he/she would have had to be their to testify to this, and show some proof of control and custody, since it is DNA. Or does this only apply to the Prosecution and the Defense can say anything they want and be taken as the gospel truth?

GB the problem with Aleg semen match , is that all we have is a statement to say it is a match. There is no chain of custody , the forensic officer taking the sample did not sign for it and could not account for an annotation/mark on the evidence bag. Documentation has been crossed out and been hand amended The guy who signed for all the mass dna testing on the island was not present.

[Madaussie]

One news report suggested that information from a “highly-placed source” suggests that the court would probably take a long time to reach a verdict as it would need to examine further evidence

How can either prosecution or defense present 'further evidence' without it being part of the trial ???

Surely even in this crackpot of a system, evidence must be reviewed, examined, rebutted ??? What is this some kind of secret evidence thats not possible to be challenged ??

You mean like those secret document the Defense Team didn't let anyone see or talk about but were passed under the table to the Judges? Or as it was reported by the Media.

You're goner have to eat your words regarding the documents because they have significant dislcosure

[fireplay]

Also regarding the defense's decision not to retest the "samples". Let's make this real clear. The prosecution was not offering a little vile or plate of dna gunk to test...they seemed...and correct me if I am wrong...to be offering their own conclusion reports for the defense to compare dna of the defendents against.

Or were they offering physical swabs...which could have come from the mass cheek wipes that happened.

Perhaps a poster more understanding of this can explain....what did the prosecution offer to be retested? A report? A physical dna collection?

Edited September 22, 2015 by fireplay

[AleG]

The prosecution never claimed that DNA from the hoe implicated the defendants, the results from the retesting... don't implicate the defendants, ergo, irrelevant.

The DNA I refereed to is from inside Witheridge, recovered during her autopsy, the one the defense choose not to contest directly because I don't think they want to have its validity verified.

Witnesses presenting evidence in court does not equal "unsubstantiated reports", much as you'd wish it to be so. What is unsubstantiated though is your accusation that the people that did so committed perjury.

There have been many conflicting reports of what has been said...statements retracted...contradicted....and blatently false delivered in the courtroom as reported in media and then minutely detailed by the heavy hitters in this thread.

Stealth loonodingle mad aussie etc...care to re entertain said reports? If we had proper recording mechanisms this would all be put to bed but i do remember you blowing your trumpet over the last year about waiting for the trial. Sir...this trial is full of shit. I believe you are a pretty smart guy. Answer khun Matt's questions please.

Conflicting statements and reports, as you pointed out, reported by the media; more often than not originating with the defense team who obviously has an incentive to discredit the investigation as much as possible and inflate any little fact or event in their favour.

As for khunmatts questions, first of I have already answered the questions, secondly by his past interactions with Balo I determined that he is not interested in an honest discussion, thirdly the moderators have repeatedly reminded that the discussion is not about forum members, it's about a court case and finally his questions are based on lies some people have been maliciously spreading about me.

In short, he is all the attention he deserves.

[berybert]

AleG, you said in an earlier post that the DNA on the hoe is irrelevant, so just to clarify what DNA evidence is the relevant DNA.

The prosecution never claimed that DNA from the hoe implicated the defendants, the results from the retesting... don't implicate the defendants, ergo, irrelevant.

The DNA I refereed to is from inside Witheridge, recovered during her autopsy, the one the defense choose not to contest directly because I don't think they want to have its validity verified.

AleG, you said in an earlier post that the DNA on the hoe is irrelevant, so just to clarify what DNA evidence is the relevant DNA.

I think he has been pretty clear he supports unsubstantiated reports of dna found in sperm inside hanna presented by those who have committed perjury in the court.

Witnesses presenting evidence in court does not equal "unsubstantiated reports", much as you'd wish it to be so. What is unsubstantiated though is your accusation that the people that did so committed perjury.

You and we have no idea if any DNA was taking from inside Witheridge.

Or maybe you do, and maybe you know who it really belongs too. Feel free to let us know.

[catsanddogs]

This must be horrific listening for the Witherbridge family.

Forensic Science Officer Worawee Waiyawuth said DNA testing in their laboratory showed Ms Witheridge had held the hoe handle for the longest time, leaving a DNA trace which was not blood, although her blood was on the blade.

This scenario does not paint the picture put to us by the positioning of Hannah's body when found at the crime scene, instead it shows a lengthy struggle and fight put up by Hannah

I know this has been mentioned before, but NO ONE heard anything? it seems amazing to me that as Hannah had held the hoe handle for the longest time, and consequently putting up a lengthy struggle and fight, how is it that nothing of the struggle was heard? And let's not forget that David was there as well - 2 people shouting and screaming in what was obviously a fairly prolonged attack. In the early hours of the morning, when there are no everyday sounds to mask unusual ones, no one heard anything?

At the risk of being labelled a "conspiracy theorist" by "you know who" this smells of cover up all the way. It seems that people have been told to say that they heard nothing. I think I remember reading on here that someone heard a guitar being played and singing on the beach earlier - but no one heard the sounds of 2 people screaming and shouting and fighting for their lives?

It is reported that two French girls heard the commotion according to McAnna. In a facebook post he said that the police had taken statements from the two French girls. Where are they now when the defence need them!

[StealthEnergiser]

The prosecution never claimed that DNA from the hoe implicated the defendants, the results from the retesting... don't implicate the defendants, ergo, irrelevant.

The DNA I refereed to is from inside Witheridge, recovered during her autopsy, the one the defense choose not to contest directly because I don't think they want to have its validity verified.

Witnesses presenting evidence in court does not equal "unsubstantiated reports", much as you'd wish it to be so. What is unsubstantiated though is your accusation that the people that did so committed perjury.

There have been many conflicting reports of what has been said...statements retracted...contradicted....and blatently false delivered in the courtroom as reported in media and then minutely detailed by the heavy hitters in this thread.

Stealth loonodingle mad aussie etc...care to re entertain said reports? If we had proper recording mechanisms this would all be put to bed but i do remember you blowing your trumpet over the last year about waiting for the trial. Sir...this trial is full of shit. I believe you are a pretty smart guy. Answer khun Matt's questions please.

Conflicting statements and reports, as you pointed out, reported by the media; more often than not originating with the defense team who obviously has an incentive to discredit the investigation as much as possible and inflate any little fact or event in their favour.

As for khunmatts questions, first of I have already answered the questions, secondly by his past interactions with Balo I determined that he is not interested in an honest discussion, thirdly the moderators have repeatedly reminded that the discussion is not about forum members, it's about a court case and finally his questions are based on lies some people have been maliciously spreading about me.

In short, he is all the attention he deserves.

there's one under oath

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

[GOLDBUGGY]

In this clip at 1.37 there is a hoe with no broken blade have the RTP switched the murder weapon at some stage or is it just there for reference.

So you know think the RTP switched the hoe, then put 2 peoples DNA on it who are not the B2 ? I thought they are meant to be stitching up the B2 not helping them get away with murder.

My thoughts exactly.

Oh Yeah! Many Garden Hoes in Thailand come with a pointed blade and not just flat. Just Google Thailand Hoe and get an image. They are not broken. They are just made this way. I had one myself.

Wow. Maybe try again with your spectacles on? The hoe pictured on the beach is missing part of its business end. Top right corner Buggy..... Go have a look.

Oh you mean your photo with that big magnify glass over that corner to make it look like it is cut.

Look on Google for the real photos. They have plenty of true one there.

[fireplay]

This must be horrific listening for the Witherbridge family.

Forensic Science Officer Worawee Waiyawuth said DNA testing in their laboratory showed Ms Witheridge had held the hoe handle for the longest time, leaving a DNA trace which was not blood, although her blood was on the blade.

This scenario does not paint the picture put to us by the positioning of Hannah's body when found at the crime scene, instead it shows a lengthy struggle and fight put up by Hannah

I know this has been mentioned before, but NO ONE heard anything? it seems amazing to me that as Hannah had held the hoe handle for the longest time, and consequently putting up a lengthy struggle and fight, how is it that nothing of the struggle was heard? And let's not forget that David was there as well - 2 people shouting and screaming in what was obviously a fairly prolonged attack. In the early hours of the morning, when there are no everyday sounds to mask unusual ones, no one heard anything?

At the risk of being labelled a "conspiracy theorist" by "you know who" this smells of cover up all the way. It seems that people have been told to say that they heard nothing. I think I remember reading on here that someone heard a guitar being played and singing on the beach earlier - but no one heard the sounds of 2 people screaming and shouting and fighting for their lives?

It is reported that two French girls heard the commotion according to McAnna. In a facebook post he said that the police had taken statements from the two French girls. Where are they now when the defence need them!

Why haven't official statements been submitted from the victims friends...or have been called to testify...or even verify or deny fresh milk and his posse present that night? I wonder if that cop was dj'ing in his blonde wig at the ac bar the night of Sep 14 2014.

[AleG]

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

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

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

I agree AleG or otherwise the Defense wouldn't be spending so much time and effort by trying to discredit this.

What I found most interesting about the latest news, is where did the Defense get Hannah's and David's DNA from, and to say it was n the Garden Hoe? Remember everyone saying that what the Police had was all corrupt, and tainted, and the replica was no damned good? For the 20th time?

If this came from the Forensics Lab in the UK, I would think he/she would have had to be their to testify to this, and show some proof of control and custody, since it is DNA. Or does this only apply to the Prosecution and the Defense can say anything they want and be taken as the gospel truth?

The retest was done by the Central Institute of Forensic Science, almost certainly they were (without passing through the defense first) directly provided by the police with either actual samples or analysis results from the two victims to compare with their own analysis.

[StealthEnergiser]

"A rusty hoe, its blade broken and caked in gore, lay nearby."

http://www.washingto...ropical-island/

[stephenterry]

One thing is crystal clear. If the rtp had a DNA match there wouldn't have been all this subterfuge. They would have placed it on the table and let the defence independently test it. It beggars belief that anyone believes the rtp.

[fireplay]

The prosecution never claimed that DNA from the hoe implicated the defendants, the results from the retesting... don't implicate the defendants, ergo, irrelevant.

The DNA I refereed to is from inside Witheridge, recovered during her autopsy, the one the defense choose not to contest directly because I don't think they want to have its validity verified.

Witnesses presenting evidence in court does not equal "unsubstantiated reports", much as you'd wish it to be so. What is unsubstantiated though is your accusation that the people that did so committed perjury.

There have been many conflicting reports of what has been said...statements retracted...contradicted....and blatently false delivered in the courtroom as reported in media and then minutely detailed by the heavy hitters in this thread.

Stealth loonodingle mad aussie etc...care to re entertain said reports? If we had proper recording mechanisms this would all be put to bed but i do remember you blowing your trumpet over the last year about waiting for the trial. Sir...this trial is full of shit. I believe you are a pretty smart guy. Answer khun Matt's questions please.

Conflicting statements and reports, as you pointed out, reported by the media; more often than not originating with the defense team who obviously has an incentive to discredit the investigation as much as possible and inflate any little fact or event in their favour.

As for khunmatts questions, first of I have already answered the questions, secondly by his past interactions with Balo I determined that he is not interested in an honest discussion, thirdly the moderators have repeatedly reminded that the discussion is not about forum members, it's about a court case and finally his questions are based on lies some people have been maliciously spreading about me.

In short, he is all the attention he deserves.

there's one under oath

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Aleg...that is perjury sir. You have to admit.

[GOLDBUGGY]

the scene is looking different

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

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

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

I agree AleG or otherwise the Defense wouldn't be spending so much time and effort by trying to discredit this.

What I found most interesting about the latest news, is where did the Defense get Hannah's and David's DNA from, and to say it was n the Garden Hoe? Remember everyone saying that what the Police had was all corrupt, and tainted, and the replica was no damned good? For the 20th time?

If this came from the Forensics Lab in the UK, I would think he/she would have had to be their to testify to this, and show some proof of control and custody, since it is DNA. Or does this only apply to the Prosecution and the Defense can say anything they want and be taken as the gospel truth?

GB the problem with Aleg semen match , is that all we have is a statement to say it is a match. There is no chain of custody , the forensic officer taking the sample did not sign for it and could not account for an annotation/mark on the evidence bag. Documentation has been crossed out and been hand amended The guy who signed for all the mass dna testing on the island was not present.

Just look at the logic. Why would the defense team be bringing in DNA Experts to discredit this DNA which you claim is no damned good?

[catsanddogs]

In this clip at 1.37 there is a hoe with no broken blade have the RTP switched the murder weapon at some stage or is it just there for reference.

So you know think the RTP switched the hoe, then put 2 peoples DNA on it who are not the B2 ? I thought they are meant to be stitching up the B2 not helping them get away with murder.

My thoughts exactly.

Oh Yeah! Many Garden Hoes in Thailand come with a pointed blade and not just flat. Just Google Thailand Hoe and get an image. They are not broken. They are just made this way. I had one myself.

really, you had one of these specially made Hoe's with what you call a pointed blade thats not broken?????

At the end of the wooden part of the hoe where the blade is attached seems to be a metal bit that protrudes out the back? Or is it a hammer lying underneath the hoe?

[berybert]

One thing is crystal clear. If the rtp had a DNA match there wouldn't have been all this subterfuge. They would have placed it on the table and let the defence independently test it. It beggars belief that anyone believes the rtp.

No one believes the RTP. Some here maybe know more than they are prepared to let on, therefore keeping up their lies in the hope the sword doesn't cut them.

[AleG]

there's one under oath

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Aleg...that is perjury sir. You have to admit.

Maybe, maybe it isn't; however that man is not the person that carried out the autopsy or the DNA analysis.

It does however prove that the people that did those things are not scared of contradicting statements from the police.

[AleG]

One thing is crystal clear. If the rtp had a DNA match there wouldn't have been all this subterfuge. They would have placed it on the table and let the defence independently test it. It beggars belief that anyone believes the rtp.

They did allow the defense to independently test it, the defense refused to do so.

[GOLDBUGGY]

One news report suggested that information from a “highly-placed source” suggests that the court would probably take a long time to reach a verdict as it would need to examine further evidence

How can either prosecution or defense present 'further evidence' without it being part of the trial ???

Surely even in this crackpot of a system, evidence must be reviewed, examined, rebutted ??? What is this some kind of secret evidence thats not possible to be challenged ??

You mean like those secret document the Defense Team didn't let anyone see or talk about but were passed under the table to the Judges? Or as it was reported by the Media.

You're goner have to eat your words regarding the documents because they have significant dislcosure

Oh? So what are they then? You talk like you know. Perhaps you can share with the rest of us then.

I don't know what they are but in a fair and transparent trial I never heard of secret documents being passed around where the other side can't even contest them, as they don't know what they are. Have You?