Koh Tao: Suspects found guilty of murdering British backpackers

[taony]

Pour it on!!

[Eirene]

A masked vigilante yesterday stood up in a swell of protesters and said he has evidence that can prove the innocence of two Myanmar men sentenced to death in Thailand. http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/18341-masked-man-at-koh-tao-rally-demands-meet-with-interpol.html

?

[Darkknight666]

Hopefully he has something solid, It'd make my 2016 already. Will Interpol hear his story?

[MrTee]

Hopefully he has something solid, It'd make my 2016 already. Will Interpol hear his story?

I don't think Interpol have any jurisdiction..

I don't think they can do anything to provide such help in investigations, that is down to the state's own police.

[balo]

Interesting , lets hope the Burmese guy can give us some vital information.

[seedy]

one Off Topic Troll / Flaming post removed

[boomerangutang]

Here is a partial list of things which are fine, no problem with RTP and Thai officialdom. By definition, they're all fine with the handful of people posting here who echo everything officialdom put forth:

>>> allowing a suspect to contaminate the crime scene. Allowing same suspect to be involved with nailing the scapegoats.

>>> not checking nearby areas where clothes could be rinsed/cleaned

>>> not following up on witnesses (Sean, MM/B3, MM/disc jockey, and several others)

>>> no checking of phone records from the time of the crime.

>>> not looking at CCTV which may have shown boat(s) leaving island that morning.

>>> not checking flight manifests/CCTV of flights going from region of crime to Bkk for that morning

>>> not insisting on CCTV from AC or In Touch bars

>>> not arresting Mon when he was a prime suspect. No-bail detention would have been fair.

>>> not arresting Nomsod, when they caught up with him after he had been hiding for over a week. No bail.

>>> not interviewing the many people who know and/or are friends with Nomsod

>>> not finding out why a boat driver was sleeping in a cave Monday night at Samui, and too drugged to speak.

>>> accepting Mon's explanation that he was Running Man.

>>> not inspecting clothing from crime, and then losing same clothing.

>>> not thoroughly inspecting hair found in Hannah's hand. Losing hair.

>>> not keeping DNA from crime.

>>> not even trying to look at money trail which may exist between Toovichiens and army/police brass.

Makes one wonder what sort of training RTP inspectors go through. And also reinforces Pontip's suggestion that other (non-uniformed?) experts, other than RTP, should be allowed to do detective work in Thailand. Perhaps it's time to inspect the institution(s) where RTP inspectors get trained. What are the facilities like? Is it just a room with some video games and a candy vending machine? Even a little ol' granma in Nakon Wherever who has watched some detective shows on TV would have done a more professional job at investigating the crime. However, if she was Thai, then it's game-over for the scapegoats before she even got started. From 10 days after the crime, top authorities made it clear who would no longer be considered as suspects. Granny would have to toe the line - there's no other option. Since that time, zero evidence has been allowed to surface which might implicate the former top suspects, and their names are not allowed to be mentioned. If this was China or North Korea, it would be understandable. But we thought Thailand was a bit more open. Apparently it's not.

Edited January 6, 2016 by boomerangutang

[DM07]

“Even if the source of attack was from abroad, they will be convicted eventually,” he said. “It’s not a problem. Thai police are excellent.”

[Khun Han]

^ Nope, AleG. Your 'disprove' was disproven by me. I will repeat: if Nomsod was involved, as many believe, he hid from police for ten (that's 10 for those struggling with English) days from the date of the murder until he turned up with a new haircut and the family lawyer.

By your flawed logic Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin are even more guilty than him because they hid from the police for 17 days.

You are twisting yourselves into pretzels trying to justify your beliefs.

...ahm...no they didn't!

Unless to you "going on with ones life" is the same as "hiding from the police"!

You see no difference between giving DNA- samples, going to work every morning, staying around on the island and completely disappearing from the scene for a full 10 days?

Hot is cold, blue is green?

Good point. It makes Nomsod's keeping a low profile for ten days even more stark.

[DKUNPUTAF713]

I would surmise that someone in Burma (sic) would assist in contacting perhaps "ANONYMOUS"

as I am sure they would be willing to get whatever information the individual may possess and

get it online for the world to ponder!!

[smedly]

Someone kindly posted previously about the DNA findings in response to my question about methods, data, analysis - not really answering my question, but interesting all the same.

STR vWA analysis: DNA from rectum of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Zaw Lin (Zoren) & 16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR vWA analysis: DNA from vagina of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR D2S1338 analysis: DNA from right nipple of Hannah Witheridge

Positive match to Wai Phyo (Win), loci 20 & 25 missing

16 Matching loci on only the vWA Core Locus .. probability of 0.21 - that is just over one in five. 21 out of 100 people.

really.. not the whole geonome? to have a statistically meaningful identification you need to match on 13 locus (US)

Completely meaningless when there is zero documentation on how the samples were processed.. I simply do not believe that the DNA found on Hannah was correctly processed.

If the Samples were correctly processed then simple response is PROVE IT!

It is not enough just say there are 16 matches on a single locus. its is meaningless. Show you methods and your working out. Science 101!

PS do not shoot the messenger - personally I was grateful to STE for posting this information

The forum DNA expert will be along soon to confirm in very technical detail that DNA matched B2, if he ignores your post (very likely) I will summarise what he will say.

The Judge (scientific expert) ruled the DNA (that was never physically produced) matched the accused because police claim it does.

The highly qualified scientific criminal expert Millar family also confirmed this (sorry Millar family but you are not qualified or have experience to make that call) which is of little relevance

The motive for the murders was rape which the UK coroner report says did not happen so where did the claimed non presented DNA evidence originate ? was it made up or was it the saliva samples tested against themselves, no chain of custody presented so impossible to determine what was tested against what and where it came from even if tests actually took place.

A very robust case in every respect......right

[smedly]

^ Nope, AleG. Your 'disprove' was disproven by me. I will repeat: if Nomsod was involved, as many believe, he hid from police for ten (that's 10 for those struggling with English) days from the date of the murder until he turned up with a new haircut and the family lawyer.

By your flawed logic Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin are even more guilty than him because they hid from the police for 17 days.

You are twisting yourselves into pretzels trying to justify your beliefs.

...ahm...no they didn't!

Unless to you "going on with ones life" is the same as "hiding from the police"!

You see no difference between giving DNA- samples, going to work every morning, staying around on the island and completely disappearing from the scene for a full 10 days?

Hot is cold, blue is green?

you can only hide when you know someone is looking for you

[AleG]

Someone kindly posted previously about the DNA findings in response to my question about methods, data, analysis - not really answering my question, but interesting all the same.

STR vWA analysis: DNA from rectum of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Zaw Lin (Zoren) & 16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR vWA analysis: DNA from vagina of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR D2S1338 analysis: DNA from right nipple of Hannah Witheridge

Positive match to Wai Phyo (Win), loci 20 & 25 missing

16 Matching loci on only the vWA Core Locus .. probability of 0.21 - that is just over one in five. 21 out of 100 people.

really.. not the whole geonome? to have a statistically meaningful identification you need to match on 13 locus (US)

Completely meaningless when there is zero documentation on how the samples were processed.. I simply do not believe that the DNA found on Hannah was correctly processed.

If the Samples were correctly processed then simple response is PROVE IT!

It is not enough just say there are 16 matches on a single locus. its is meaningless. Show you methods and your working out. Science 101!

PS do not shoot the messenger - personally I was grateful to STE for posting this information

The forum DNA expert will be along soon to confirm in very technical detail that DNA matched B2, if he ignores your post (very likely) I will summarise what he will say.

The Judge (scientific expert) ruled the DNA (that was never physically produced) matched the accused because police claim it does.

The highly qualified scientific criminal expert Millar family also confirmed this (sorry Millar family but you are not qualified or have experience to make that call) which is of little relevance

The motive for the murders was rape which the UK coroner report says did not happen so where did the claimed non presented DNA evidence originate ? was it made up or was it the saliva samples tested against themselves, no chain of custody presented so impossible to determine what was tested against what and where it came from even if tests actually took place.

A very robust case in every respect......right

Have you read the court report?

Please provide a citation were it says that the actual physical DNA evidence needs to be presented to the court to have the analysis results accepted as valid.

You have repeatedly portrayed yourself as an expert on court proceedings, it should be easy.

Here's a good debunking of the misinformation regarding this issue:

"Let’s look at the actual facts about the Koh Tao Murder Trial regarding the DNA evidence and subsequent analysis:

1) The DNA analysis used in the Koh Tao trial was a 16 STR loci analysis. These results can can displayed as a simplistic, one page table. But just because the table is simplistic doesn’t mean the analysis was. Due to its statistical power of discrimination, STR analysis is the gold standard in forensic DNA testing across the globe. [1,2,3] Relating to the hand written amendments, changes, and alterations, ISO/IEC 17025 clearly states that “when mistakes occur in records, each mistake shall be crossed out, not erased, made illegible or deleted, and the correct value entered alongside.” In court, this also relates to the integrity of the evidence, as well as its transparency and accountability. Both the original and amended laboratory reports (whether hand written or typed) are considered legal documents. [4,5] Any statement about what ‘would or wouldn’t’ be admissible in another court is pure speculation and not based on any facts. The admittance or exclusion of evidence is a discretionary decision made by the trial judge, in any courtroom. [5]

2) ISO/IEC 17025 does not list any specific requirements for ‘chain of custody’ records. Nor does it require any lab to do statistical calculations based on “validated population data bases” of any kind. It is simply a document that lists the “general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories”. ISO standards are intentionally broad and general in nature as they are meant for international use. Each lab will develop its own policies and practice procedures regarding ‘chain of custody’ records. The laboratories that sampled and analyzed the DNA samples in the Koh Tao trial were found to have been following their written ‘chain of custody’ procedures and practices and thus were in compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. [1,4]

3) Because STR analysis data is so readily inferred from the genotyping data and easily interpreted, it may seem oversimplified to someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of molecular biology. In STR analysis, DNA is extracted from a sample, quantified, and then amplified. After amplification, the separation and detection of specific STR regions occurs. After detecting these STR regions or alleles, the number of repeats is determined. This process is called sample genotyping. The resulting DNA profile, which is a combination of individual STR genotypes, is then used for comparison between two samples. The results are often displayed as a simplistic table, comparing the number of repeats at each STR loci between the two samples. [2,3]

4) It is not essential to do a statistical analysis based on allelic frequency to determine the probability due to the large literature base of published studies on STR analysis. One famous study found that “the average match probability for the combined 13 loci is rarer than one in a trillion, even in the population with the most reduced genetic variation” and “there has been no case to date where two people have been found to have matching STR markers in all 13 areas used for comparison (except identical twins)”. The probability of a 16 STR loci match (which was found for both of the defendants in the Koh Tao trial) being a random match would be even less than these reported probabilities. [3,6,7]

5) Again, STR analysis is the standard in forensic DNA testing across the globe. STR regions are highly variable between individuals, which is why they are used in forensic testing. Even using DNA-17, the 10 STR loci analysis used by UK law enforcement, a 10 STR loci match “has a match probability estimated in the order of 1 in a billion”. In the Koh Tao trial, the DNA profiles extracted from semen found in one victim were a 16 STR loci match to the DNA profiles extracted from cheek swabs from both of the defendants. The probability of a 16 STR loci match being a random match is less than 0.0000000001%. [1,3,8]

REFERENCES:

[1] Koh Samui Court Report (available to read on BlindJusticeKohTao’s Facebook page)

[2] Perlin, MW. Easy Reporting of Hard DNA: Computer Comfort in the Courtroom. Forensic Magazine; 2012. http://www.forensicmag.com/…/easy-reporting-hard-dna-comput… (accessed 6 January 2016).

[3] Butler, JM. Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing. Maryland, USA. Academic Press; 2010. https://goo.gl/j4wJnB

[4] ISO/IEC 17025. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. http://www.dc.mahidol.ac.th/…/con…/ISO_Wada/iso17025_eng.pdf

[5] Munday, R. Evidence. 8th ed. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press; 2015. https://goo.gl/Imw4IS

[6] Chakraborty, R. et al. The utility of short tandem repeat loci beyond human identification: Implications for development of new DNA typing systems. Electrophoresis. 1999; 20(8): 1682-1696. https://www.msu.edu/user/msuhla/mod2_1.pdf

[7] National Forensic Science Technology Center. A Simplified Guide to DNA Evidence. Florida, USA. Bureau of Justice Assistance; 2013. http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/dna/DNA.pdf

[8] The Crown Prosecution Service.. DNA-17 Profiling. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/dna-17_profiling/… (accessed 6 January 2016)."

Unlike your constant denials that analysis cites sources, references actual court documents and doesn't resort to imaginary scenarios to make an argument.

[partington]

Someone kindly posted previously about the DNA findings in response to my question about methods, data, analysis - not really answering my question, but interesting all the same.

STR vWA analysis: DNA from rectum of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Zaw Lin (Zoren) & 16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR vWA analysis: DNA from vagina of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR D2S1338 analysis: DNA from right nipple of Hannah Witheridge

Positive match to Wai Phyo (Win), loci 20 & 25 missing

16 Matching loci on only the vWA Core Locus .. probability of 0.21 - that is just over one in five. 21 out of 100 people.

really.. not the whole geonome? to have a statistically meaningful identification you need to match on 13 locus (US)

Completely meaningless when there is zero documentation on how the samples were processed.. I simply do not believe that the DNA found on Hannah was correctly processed.

If the Samples were correctly processed then simple response is PROVE IT!

It is not enough just say there are 16 matches on a single locus. its is meaningless. Show you methods and your working out. Science 101!

PS do not shoot the messenger - personally I was grateful to STE for posting this information

This information is wrong as written, and so fairly meaningless.

STR vWA means "the short tandem repeat at the vWA locus."

"vWA" IS ONE single locus (a place in the genome that can be of different lengths in different people.) Each single locus is present ONCE on each of a pair of chromosomes and therefore each person can only have TWO values for the vWA locus (e.g. 11,17 ) because the vWA locus is present only twice in any one person, NOT sixteen times-this is nonsense. There can't be sixteen matches at vWA therefore.

Similarly D2S1338 is a SINGLE locus, that is a site present only once on each of a pair of chromosomes, it therefore can only have two numerical values in a single person (one for the length of the site on each chromosome e.g. 21, 23). It is therefore impossible for there to be sixteen matches.

At vWA and D2S1388 there would only be four figures for each suspect. A full DNA profile uses 10 different loci (plural of locus) in the UK, and 13 different loci in the US. Thus a high probability identification (less than one in a billion of being a chance match, i.e. a definitive identification) needs two numbers at each of 10 or 13 loci, that is a list of 20 or 26 different numbers, each of which must be identical in the suspect and the victim sample.

If this rather garbled account above is trying to say that the DNA samples from the victim match the suspects at four places (two numbers at vWA and two numbers at D2S1388) then the probability that this could happen by chance would be so high that it would be completely unacceptable in any court anywhere as identification.

All DNA reports (but obviously not the one submitted to the court , since apparently this was non-existent) give a calculated probability that the results obtained could be a chance match. When this probability is one in 50 million to several billion (as they always are in perfect matches of 20 or 26 number profiles from 10 or 13 loci) then the identification can be absolutely relied on. If only two loci and four numbers were used the probability of a chance match would be so high the result would be meaningless. A one in a 100 chance of getting the match would simply not identify anybody.

In any case it's become clear from the time taken to do the "analysis" (less than 24 hours), and the lack of any laboratory account of what was done, that this DNA evidence is not true. For technical reasons sperm DNA must be isolated from the overwhelming background of victim DNA by chemical treatment. This treatment separates female from male DNA but it takes at least overnight to process, and then the actual DNA profile needs to be done. There was not enough time between collection and report of the "match" for this to really have been carried out.

EDIT: just as a follow up to what some have written above: it is of course quite feasible in a table that consists of 16 or so pairs of numbers to just type in whatever numbers you want. If the records of how the numbers were obtained are not made available for examination ( why would they not be? graphs from the sequencing machines are stored as digital files indefinitely and can be printed out at will to show the actual peaks giving the numbers listed in the table) there is no way to prove that the numbers weren't just written in as desired and based on nothing.

Edited January 6, 2016 by partington

[AleG]

^ Nope, AleG. Your 'disprove' was disproven by me. I will repeat: if Nomsod was involved, as many believe, he hid from police for ten (that's 10 for those struggling with English) days from the date of the murder until he turned up with a new haircut and the family lawyer.

By your flawed logic Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin are even more guilty than him because they hid from the police for 17 days.

You are twisting yourselves into pretzels trying to justify your beliefs.

...ahm...no they didn't!

Unless to you "going on with ones life" is the same as "hiding from the police"!

You see no difference between giving DNA- samples, going to work every morning, staying around on the island and completely disappearing from the scene for a full 10 days?

Hot is cold, blue is green?

you can only hide when you know someone is looking for you

It's amazing how you can't see that you are proving my point.

[StealthEnergiser]

Activist group Anonymous joins protest against convictions of men for David Miller's death http://www.itv.com/news/channel/update/2015-12-30/activist-group-anonymous-joins-protest-against-convictions-of-men-for-david-millers-death/

Thats interesting they would be capable at getting to the bottom of something like this from what i have read about them.

To me it would be interesting if you could share with us a few of their ACHIEVEMENTS that you have read about, not just their announcemen

Anonymous hacks Thai police sites over Burmese jailings for British backpacker murders

International cyber activists call for tourists to boycott Thailand following widely condemned police investigation

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/anonymous-hacks-thai-police-sites-over-burmese-jailings-for-british-backpacker-murders

[DM07]

AleG....

What point, dude?

The B2 were not hiding!

Why should they?

They had done nothing!

But your posterboy disappears without a trace for 10 days...not even his girlfriend can allegedly reach him!

What is it, I am missing?

Edited January 6, 2016 by DM07

[StealthEnergiser]

Someone kindly posted previously about the DNA findings in response to my question about methods, data, analysis - not really answering my question, but interesting all the same.

STR vWA analysis: DNA from rectum of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Zaw Lin (Zoren) & 16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR vWA analysis: DNA from vagina of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR D2S1338 analysis: DNA from right nipple of Hannah Witheridge

Positive match to Wai Phyo (Win), loci 20 & 25 missing

16 Matching loci on only the vWA Core Locus .. probability of 0.21 - that is just over one in five. 21 out of 100 people.

really.. not the whole geonome? to have a statistically meaningful identification you need to match on 13 locus (US)

Completely meaningless when there is zero documentation on how the samples were processed.. I simply do not believe that the DNA found on Hannah was correctly processed.

If the Samples were correctly processed then simple response is PROVE IT!

It is not enough just say there are 16 matches on a single locus. its is meaningless. Show you methods and your working out. Science 101!

PS do not shoot the messenger - personally I was grateful to STE for posting this information

The forum DNA expert will be along soon to confirm in very technical detail that DNA matched B2, if he ignores your post (very likely) I will summarise what he will say.

The Judge (scientific expert) ruled the DNA (that was never physically produced) matched the accused because police claim it does.

The highly qualified scientific criminal expert Millar family also confirmed this (sorry Millar family but you are not qualified or have experience to make that call) which is of little relevance

The motive for the murders was rape which the UK coroner report says did not happen so where did the claimed non presented DNA evidence originate ? was it made up or was it the saliva samples tested against themselves, no chain of custody presented so impossible to determine what was tested against what and where it came from even if tests actually took place.

A very robust case in every respect......right

Have you read the court report?

Please provide a citation were it says that the actual physical DNA evidence needs to be presented to the court to have the analysis results accepted as valid.

You have repeatedly portrayed yourself as an expert on court proceedings, it should be easy.

Here's a good debunking of the misinformation regarding this issue:

"Let’s look at the actual facts about the Koh Tao Murder Trial regarding the DNA evidence and subsequent analysis:

1) The DNA analysis used in the Koh Tao trial was a 16 STR loci analysis. These results can can displayed as a simplistic, one page table. But just because the table is simplistic doesn’t mean the analysis was. Due to its statistical power of discrimination, STR analysis is the gold standard in forensic DNA testing across the globe. [1,2,3] Relating to the hand written amendments, changes, and alterations, ISO/IEC 17025 clearly states that “when mistakes occur in records, each mistake shall be crossed out, not erased, made illegible or deleted, and the correct value entered alongside.” In court, this also relates to the integrity of the evidence, as well as its transparency and accountability. Both the original and amended laboratory reports (whether hand written or typed) are considered legal documents. [4,5] Any statement about what ‘would or wouldn’t’ be admissible in another court is pure speculation and not based on any facts. The admittance or exclusion of evidence is a discretionary decision made by the trial judge, in any courtroom. [5]

2) ISO/IEC 17025 does not list any specific requirements for ‘chain of custody’ records. Nor does it require any lab to do statistical calculations based on “validated population data bases” of any kind. It is simply a document that lists the “general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories”. ISO standards are intentionally broad and general in nature as they are meant for international use. Each lab will develop its own policies and practice procedures regarding ‘chain of custody’ records. The laboratories that sampled and analyzed the DNA samples in the Koh Tao trial were found to have been following their written ‘chain of custody’ procedures and practices and thus were in compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. [1,4]

3) Because STR analysis data is so readily inferred from the genotyping data and easily interpreted, it may seem oversimplified to someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of molecular biology. In STR analysis, DNA is extracted from a sample, quantified, and then amplified. After amplification, the separation and detection of specific STR regions occurs. After detecting these STR regions or alleles, the number of repeats is determined. This process is called sample genotyping. The resulting DNA profile, which is a combination of individual STR genotypes, is then used for comparison between two samples. The results are often displayed as a simplistic table, comparing the number of repeats at each STR loci between the two samples. [2,3]

4) It is not essential to do a statistical analysis based on allelic frequency to determine the probability due to the large literature base of published studies on STR analysis. One famous study found that “the average match probability for the combined 13 loci is rarer than one in a trillion, even in the population with the most reduced genetic variation” and “there has been no case to date where two people have been found to have matching STR markers in all 13 areas used for comparison (except identical twins)”. The probability of a 16 STR loci match (which was found for both of the defendants in the Koh Tao trial) being a random match would be even less than these reported probabilities. [3,6,7]

5) Again, STR analysis is the standard in forensic DNA testing across the globe. STR regions are highly variable between individuals, which is why they are used in forensic testing. Even using DNA-17, the 10 STR loci analysis used by UK law enforcement, a 10 STR loci match “has a match probability estimated in the order of 1 in a billion”. In the Koh Tao trial, the DNA profiles extracted from semen found in one victim were a 16 STR loci match to the DNA profiles extracted from cheek swabs from both of the defendants. The probability of a 16 STR loci match being a random match is less than 0.0000000001%. [1,3,8]

REFERENCES:

[1] Koh Samui Court Report (available to read on BlindJusticeKohTao’s Facebook page)

[2] Perlin, MW. Easy Reporting of Hard DNA: Computer Comfort in the Courtroom. Forensic Magazine; 2012. http://www.forensicmag.com/…/easy-reporting-hard-dna-comput… (accessed 6 January 2016).

[3] Butler, JM. Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing. Maryland, USA. Academic Press; 2010. https://goo.gl/j4wJnB

[4] ISO/IEC 17025. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. http://www.dc.mahidol.ac.th/…/con…/ISO_Wada/iso17025_eng.pdf

[5] Munday, R. Evidence. 8th ed. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press; 2015. https://goo.gl/Imw4IS

[6] Chakraborty, R. et al. The utility of short tandem repeat loci beyond human identification: Implications for development of new DNA typing systems. Electrophoresis. 1999; 20(8): 1682-1696. https://www.msu.edu/user/msuhla/mod2_1.pdf

[7] National Forensic Science Technology Center. A Simplified Guide to DNA Evidence. Florida, USA. Bureau of Justice Assistance; 2013. http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/dna/DNA.pdf

[8] The Crown Prosecution Service.. DNA-17 Profiling. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/dna-17_profiling/… (accessed 6 January 2016)."

Unlike your constant denials that analysis cites sources, references actual court documents and doesn't resort to imaginary scenarios to make an argument.

do you disagree with this ?

from the above article

Melbourne-based Jane Taupin says documents detailing how Thai investigators matched DNA from Myanmar workers Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun to the victims were not provided to a Thai court, in contravention of international DNA analysis and reporting standards.

She also points out that DNA matching, a complex procedure requiring meticulous care, can only be determined on the basis of statistical probability in the population and none was presented to the court.

n a review of the DNA evidence obtained by Fairfax Media, Ms Taupin said no documents detailing the collection, movement, handling and chain of custody of DNA samples were provided to the court which is required under United States and United Kingdom codes of practice.

"The scientific records were not provided for review (for whatever reason) and thus as a scientist I could not perform a scientific review, or determine whether these records accorded with the principles of the standard," she said.

Ms Taupin said case file notes from the Thai police forensic laboratory should have been produced that showed a continuity of exhibits and the rationale for any scientific testing.

"Without these, any scientific review is limited and thus itself does not achieve a proper standard," she said

Ms Taupin stressed her comments were not criticism of the court but a review of the DNA evidence that defence lawyers say will form the basis of an appeal.

Andy Hall, an advocate for migrants who advised defence lawyers in the case, said the defence requested additional DNA-related documents from the prosecution but they were not provided.

"I can confirm there were no documents in the case file that explained methods of DNA testing or any assumptions from the police side or explanation of results in detail," Mr Hall said.

"There were also no probability statistics provided for matches of DNA and nor was there any documents at court specifying evidence to support the substance/biological nature of the DNA profile," he said.

Mr Hall said the prosecution referred to DNA coming from sperm, saliva and skin but provided no evidence to back up the assertions.

http://www.theage.co...106-gm05af.html

[Khun Han]

AleG....

What point, dude?

The B2 were not hiding!

Why should they?

They had done nothing!

But your posterboy disappears without a trace for 10 days...not even his girlfriend can allegedly reach him!

What is it, I am missing?

Black can easily be white in some minds.

[Chetzee]

AleG....

What point, dude?

The B2 were not hiding!

Why should they?

They had done nothing!

But your posterboy disappears without a trace for 10 days...not even his girlfriend can allegedly reach him!

What is it, I am missing?

Black can easily be white in some minds.

On the one hand , your dad and uncle r all over the tv and papers ...

and the other you are just getting on with your poorly paid job trying to send some money home.

Above and below the radar so to speak !

[smedly]

Someone kindly posted previously about the DNA findings in response to my question about methods, data, analysis - not really answering my question, but interesting all the same.

STR vWA analysis: DNA from rectum of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Zaw Lin (Zoren) & 16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR vWA analysis: DNA from vagina of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR D2S1338 analysis: DNA from right nipple of Hannah Witheridge

Positive match to Wai Phyo (Win), loci 20 & 25 missing

16 Matching loci on only the vWA Core Locus .. probability of 0.21 - that is just over one in five. 21 out of 100 people.

really.. not the whole geonome? to have a statistically meaningful identification you need to match on 13 locus (US)

Completely meaningless when there is zero documentation on how the samples were processed.. I simply do not believe that the DNA found on Hannah was correctly processed.

If the Samples were correctly processed then simple response is PROVE IT!

It is not enough just say there are 16 matches on a single locus. its is meaningless. Show you methods and your working out. Science 101!

PS do not shoot the messenger - personally I was grateful to STE for posting this information

The forum DNA expert will be along soon to confirm in very technical detail that DNA matched B2, if he ignores your post (very likely) I will summarise what he will say.

The Judge (scientific expert) ruled the DNA (that was never physically produced) matched the accused because police claim it does.

The highly qualified scientific criminal expert Millar family also confirmed this (sorry Millar family but you are not qualified or have experience to make that call) which is of little relevance

The motive for the murders was rape which the UK coroner report says did not happen so where did the claimed non presented DNA evidence originate ? was it made up or was it the saliva samples tested against themselves, no chain of custody presented so impossible to determine what was tested against what and where it came from even if tests actually took place.

A very robust case in every respect......right

Have you read the court report?

Please provide a citation were it says that the actual physical DNA evidence needs to be presented to the court to have the analysis results accepted as valid.

You have repeatedly portrayed yourself as an expert on court proceedings, it should be easy.

Here's a good debunking of the misinformation regarding this issue:

"Let’s look at the actual facts about the Koh Tao Murder Trial regarding the DNA evidence and subsequent analysis:

1) The DNA analysis used in the Koh Tao trial was a 16 STR loci analysis. These results can can displayed as a simplistic, one page table. But just because the table is simplistic doesn’t mean the analysis was. Due to its statistical power of discrimination, STR analysis is the gold standard in forensic DNA testing across the globe. [1,2,3] Relating to the hand written amendments, changes, and alterations, ISO/IEC 17025 clearly states that “when mistakes occur in records, each mistake shall be crossed out, not erased, made illegible or deleted, and the correct value entered alongside.” In court, this also relates to the integrity of the evidence, as well as its transparency and accountability. Both the original and amended laboratory reports (whether hand written or typed) are considered legal documents. [4,5] Any statement about what ‘would or wouldn’t’ be admissible in another court is pure speculation and not based on any facts. The admittance or exclusion of evidence is a discretionary decision made by the trial judge, in any courtroom. [5]

2) ISO/IEC 17025 does not list any specific requirements for ‘chain of custody’ records. Nor does it require any lab to do statistical calculations based on “validated population data bases” of any kind. It is simply a document that lists the “general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories”. ISO standards are intentionally broad and general in nature as they are meant for international use. Each lab will develop its own policies and practice procedures regarding ‘chain of custody’ records. The laboratories that sampled and analyzed the DNA samples in the Koh Tao trial were found to have been following their written ‘chain of custody’ procedures and practices and thus were in compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. [1,4]

3) Because STR analysis data is so readily inferred from the genotyping data and easily interpreted, it may seem oversimplified to someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of molecular biology. In STR analysis, DNA is extracted from a sample, quantified, and then amplified. After amplification, the separation and detection of specific STR regions occurs. After detecting these STR regions or alleles, the number of repeats is determined. This process is called sample genotyping. The resulting DNA profile, which is a combination of individual STR genotypes, is then used for comparison between two samples. The results are often displayed as a simplistic table, comparing the number of repeats at each STR loci between the two samples. [2,3]

4) It is not essential to do a statistical analysis based on allelic frequency to determine the probability due to the large literature base of published studies on STR analysis. One famous study found that “the average match probability for the combined 13 loci is rarer than one in a trillion, even in the population with the most reduced genetic variation” and “there has been no case to date where two people have been found to have matching STR markers in all 13 areas used for comparison (except identical twins)”. The probability of a 16 STR loci match (which was found for both of the defendants in the Koh Tao trial) being a random match would be even less than these reported probabilities. [3,6,7]

5) Again, STR analysis is the standard in forensic DNA testing across the globe. STR regions are highly variable between individuals, which is why they are used in forensic testing. Even using DNA-17, the 10 STR loci analysis used by UK law enforcement, a 10 STR loci match “has a match probability estimated in the order of 1 in a billion”. In the Koh Tao trial, the DNA profiles extracted from semen found in one victim were a 16 STR loci match to the DNA profiles extracted from cheek swabs from both of the defendants. The probability of a 16 STR loci match being a random match is less than 0.0000000001%. [1,3,8]

REFERENCES:

[1] Koh Samui Court Report (available to read on BlindJusticeKohTao’s Facebook page)

[2] Perlin, MW. Easy Reporting of Hard DNA: Computer Comfort in the Courtroom. Forensic Magazine; 2012. http://www.forensicmag.com/…/easy-reporting-hard-dna-comput… (accessed 6 January 2016).

[3] Butler, JM. Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing. Maryland, USA. Academic Press; 2010. https://goo.gl/j4wJnB

[4] ISO/IEC 17025. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. http://www.dc.mahidol.ac.th/…/con…/ISO_Wada/iso17025_eng.pdf

[5] Munday, R. Evidence. 8th ed. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press; 2015. https://goo.gl/Imw4IS

[6] Chakraborty, R. et al. The utility of short tandem repeat loci beyond human identification: Implications for development of new DNA typing systems. Electrophoresis. 1999; 20(8): 1682-1696. https://www.msu.edu/user/msuhla/mod2_1.pdf

[7] National Forensic Science Technology Center. A Simplified Guide to DNA Evidence. Florida, USA. Bureau of Justice Assistance; 2013. http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/dna/DNA.pdf

[8] The Crown Prosecution Service.. DNA-17 Profiling. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/dna-17_profiling/… (accessed 6 January 2016)."

Unlike your constant denials that analysis cites sources, references actual court documents and doesn't resort to imaginary scenarios to make an argument.

I already posted this some time last year go look for it or do some research regarding DNA evidence presented to court, it is physical evidence and by any international standard that I am aware of it must be presented or available and if it isn't going to be then provisions must be made as proof that it existed

you may claim that this does not apply in Thailand but I don't care, Thailand have chosen to adopt DNA testing a standard for evidence in criminal proceedings, they simply cannot cherry pick the bits they don't like, they either adopt the whole principal or don't use it at all................simple

I'm not really interested in what you have to say further on this matter and I would assume nobody else is either, you have made you position quite clear on numerous occasions and so have I, I see absolutely no reason to repeat it over and over

[smedly]

By your flawed logic Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin are even more guilty than him because they hid from the police for 17 days.

You are twisting yourselves into pretzels trying to justify your beliefs.

...ahm...no they didn't!

Unless to you "going on with ones life" is the same as "hiding from the police"!

You see no difference between giving DNA- samples, going to work every morning, staying around on the island and completely disappearing from the scene for a full 10 days?

Hot is cold, blue is green?

you can only hide when you know someone is looking for you

It's amazing how you can't see that you are proving my point.

nobody has ever actually understood any point you have tried to make here on TVF, please explain, or rather never mind

[Aj Mick]

I don't have time to read everything here but it seems to me that no DNA evidence at all was produced only asserted. Yet it forms the core of the prosecutions case.

Does that about sum things up?

No, although there's a very strong propaganda effort to make it look that way.

You can read a summary of the court judgement following this link: Judgement of the Koh Samui Provincial Court on the Koh Tao Murder Case

The full report will be released, later... hopefully.

Yeah, yeah, seen that already.

A page to outline the charges.

Nearly 2 pages of the supposed rape in somewhat salacious detail

A bit about the murders.

Defence dismissed as irrelevant in a few lines, without any discussion.

And a page covering the verdict and sentence.

Hardly comprehensive, or showing any real consideration by the judges…… conviction is based on accepting the story the RTP dreamt up.

Do you understand what a summary is? Did you miss what I wrote that about the full report?

You complain about the summary being too short while you don't even know that the full judgement report is 63 pages long, you are criticizing the judges on false grounds.

Show a bit of respect; spare me the put down. Yes, I do understand what a summary is.

Did I complain that the summary was too short?

I observed that it is long on intimate detail about the rape (which the court accepts occurred, but there is reason to doubt), but limited on anything offered by the defence. It is as though the court accepted the veracity of the RTP story, and gave scant attention to the defence.

Maybe the full report will come out with more detailed argument, but the summary covers little more than the charges and the verdict, spiced up with a few juicy details to satisfy prurient interest.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Aj Mick

[AleG]

AleG....

What point, dude?

The B2 were not hiding!

Why should they?

They had done nothing!

But your posterboy disappears without a trace for 10 days...not even his girlfriend can allegedly reach him!

What is it, I am missing?

What you are missing is that on one hand you assume Nomsod must had been hiding all the time before being named a suspect and on the other hand you assume that the B2 were not hiding before being named as suspects.

You base that on your assumption that Nomsod is guilty and the B2 innocent... and you use the idea that he was hiding all along as evidence that he must be guilty.

Here's your argument in as simple a form as I can put it:

-Is he guilty?

-Yes!

-Why?

-Because he did X (being supposedly hiding since the day of the murders)

-Why did he do X?

-Because he was guilty!

-Was he hiding?

-Yes!

-How do you know he was hiding?

-Because he is guilty!

-How do you know he is guilt?

-Because he was hiding!

But it's worse than just using flawed circular logic, when it comes to to the B2 you simply substitute the assumption of guilt for innocence:

-Where they hiding?

-No!

-How do you know they were not hiding?

-Because they are innocent!

-How do you know they are innocent?

-Because they were not hiding!

Your argument is flawed because it's entirely based on self serving assumptions.

By the way, the B2 didn't just do nothing during that time, for instance they tried to get rid of David Miller's phone; which, unlike your assumptions and speculation, is something supported by actual physical evidence and witness testimony presented in a court of law.

[KunMatt]

What you are missing is that on one hand you assume Nomsod must had been hiding all the time before being named a suspect and on the other hand you assume that the B2 were not hiding before being named as suspects.

You base that on your assumption that Nomsod is guilty and the B2 innocent... and you use the idea that he was hiding all along as evidence that he must be guilty.

Here's your argument in as simple a form as I can put it:

-Is he guilty?

-Yes!

-Why?

-Because he did X (being supposedly hiding since the day of the murders)

-Why did he do X?

-Because he was guilty!

-Was he hiding?

-Yes!

-How do you know he was hiding?

-Because he is guilty!

-How do you know he is guilt?

-Because he was hiding!

But it's worse than just using flawed circular logic, when it comes to to the B2 you simply substitute the assumption of guilt for innocence:

-Where they hiding?

-No!

-How do you know they were not hiding?

-Because they are innocent!

-How do you know they are innocent?

-Because they were not hiding!

Your argument is flawed because it's entirely based on self serving assumptions.

By the way, the B2 didn't just do nothing during that time, for instance they tried to get rid of David Miller's phone; which, unlike your assumptions and speculation, is something supported by actual physical evidence and witness testimony presented in a court of law.

You are still talking like the B2 being guilty is the only scenario when we have already discussed at length the real possibility that the B2 are involved and so is Nomsod and Mon, seeing as they were both caught on CCTV at the crime scene.

If you are going to insist on the B2's involvement then you should also mention that they probably helped or witnessed Nomsod and Mon who were "definitely implicated in the crime" as proved by the very credible evidence of CCTV footage.

Edited January 6, 2016 by KunMatt

[lkv]

-Is he guilty?

-Yes!

-Why?

-Because he did X (being supposedly hiding since the day of the murders)

-Why did he do X?

-Because he was guilty!

-Was he hiding?

-Yes!

-How do you know he was hiding?

-Because he is guilty!

-How do you know he is guilt?

-Because he was hiding!

This type of circular flawed logic has also been used by you Aleg, although I am lazy to now look into your posts and analyze all your comments, it would be a waste of time, but what I can surely tell you is that it is being used by the people in different systems in Thailand relentlessly based on limiting the freedom of speech. ("Don't criticize what we say" laws).

Edited January 6, 2016 by lkv

[catsanddogs]

Apols if this has already been posted but a man claims he can prove the innocence of ZL and WP!

“I can only say what I know about the Koh Tao case to Interpol without Thai police intervention due to fears for the safety and security of my friends and the other workers in Koh Tao,” said the man, who wore a cloth to obscure his face.

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/18341-masked-man-at-koh-tao-rally-demands-meet-with-interpol.html

[AleG]

you can only hide when you know someone is looking for you

It's amazing how you can't see that you are proving my point.

nobody has ever actually understood any point you have tried to make here on TVF, please explain, or rather never mind

It's not my fault if you all get tangled on your self contradictory, ad-hoc rationalizations.

Boomerangutang, once again, tried to argue that Nomsod was hiding since the day of the murders, even though the police didn't name him a suspect and start looking for him until later, and that relatively long period of "hiding" made him look suspicious.

I demonstrated how specious that argument is by pointing out that on the basis that a person can be assumed to be hiding even before being named a suspect and the police starts looking for them, Wai Phyo and Zaw Lin were "hiding" for an even longer time than Nomsod, thus accepting that argument they would be even more guilty than Nomsod.

You almost, almost got it.

You tried to dismiss what I said by responding "you can only hide when you know someone is looking for you"... which is exactly the point I was making when the carcass of this long death horse was once again dragged upon the stage by Boomerangutang, so he could have another swing at it by again claiming Nomsod was hiding for over a week, even thought he reported to the police at most two days after they started looking for him... to which you somehow didn't see fit to say "you can only hide when you know someone is looking for you"

So, perhaps, next time read carefully what I said before summarily dismissing it.

Edited January 6, 2016 by AleG

[MrTee]

why feed the troll?

Starve it of the oxygen it needs and it'll go away

[AleG]

What you are missing is that on one hand you assume Nomsod must had been hiding all the time before being named a suspect and on the other hand you assume that the B2 were not hiding before being named as suspects.

You base that on your assumption that Nomsod is guilty and the B2 innocent... and you use the idea that he was hiding all along as evidence that he must be guilty.

Here's your argument in as simple a form as I can put it:

-Is he guilty?

-Yes!

-Why?

-Because he did X (being supposedly hiding since the day of the murders)

-Why did he do X?

-Because he was guilty!

-Was he hiding?

-Yes!

-How do you know he was hiding?

-Because he is guilty!

-How do you know he is guilt?

-Because he was hiding!

But it's worse than just using flawed circular logic, when it comes to to the B2 you simply substitute the assumption of guilt for innocence:

-Where they hiding?

-No!

-How do you know they were not hiding?

-Because they are innocent!

-How do you know they are innocent?

-Because they were not hiding!

Your argument is flawed because it's entirely based on self serving assumptions.

By the way, the B2 didn't just do nothing during that time, for instance they tried to get rid of David Miller's phone; which, unlike your assumptions and speculation, is something supported by actual physical evidence and witness testimony presented in a court of law.

You are still talking like the B2 being guilty is the only scenario when we have already discussed at length the real possibility that the B2 are involved and so is Nomsod and Mon, seeing as they were both caught on CCTV at the crime scene.

If you are going to insist on the B2's involvement then you should also mention that they probably helped or witnessed Nomsod and Mon who were "definitely implicated in the crime" as proved by the very credible evidence of CCTV footage.

It's also probable (for certain values of probability) that a band of wayward Somali pirates were involved in the crimes. Should we waste time discussing this other unsupported scenario?

Too far fetched for you? How about the probable scenario that a rival family in Koh Tao tried to frame those guys for the murders by "staging a crime scene" right at their doorsteps as a way to gain a bigger slice of the pie? Not supported either but imagine the hours that could be wasted on it.