Koh Tao: Suspects found guilty of murdering British backpackers

[lucky11]

Jane Taupin, a renowned Australian forensic scientist​ was in attendance at the court but never called by the defence.

Myself and many , many people who have supported the defence must find that a worry.

Why was this expert not called? Her statements out of court to the BBC suggest her evidence was very much to the advantage of the accused.

So why was she not called? This for me is a major worry and gives me doubt about the defence's case.

If anyone has a Twitter account, would you please ask Andrew Hall this question directly, it needs to be addressed with urgency.

Ah!! changing your tune a bit now, are we?

The defence can only submit was is available and useful to them in order to to construct their case. It seems, by all accounts, that what they had was too flimsy and inadequate.

All this bluster at the beginning appears to be just that!! When shove comes to push it seems that all they were doing is whining away about this and that whilst worrying that the prosecution had the upper hand with real evidence that would prove their guilt! Their worst nightmare came about when they were trounced in the courts.

[MorristheRunt]

Another thing that amazed me was the fact that not one of the victims friends testified in court, very strange.

Especialy Davids friend, I think his name was Chris, the guy that originaly the RTP accused of been involved.

Why was he not called to give evidence?

[lucky11]

Jane Taupin, a renowned Australian forensic scientist​ was in attendance at the court but never called by the defence.

Myself and many , many people who have supported the defence must find that a worry.

Why was this expert not called? Her statements out of court to the BBC suggest her evidence was very much to the advantage of the accused.

So why was she not called? This for me is a major worry and gives me doubt about the defence's case.

If anyone has a Twitter account, would you please ask Andrew Hall this question directly, it needs to be addressed with urgency.

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

@JeromeTaylor @JQP6 Dr. Jane Taupin was/is key international DNA expert advisor to defense team. Who testifies is part of lawyers strategy

Some strategy!! they fly this useless Dr. expert in to bolster their defence case - and end up not using her as she is of no help or usefulness to them. In other words an overly qualified dud.

[MrTee]

Some strategy!! they fly this useless Dr. expert in to bolster their defence case - and end up not using her as she is of no help or usefulness to them. In other words an overly qualified dud.

I see you are having trouble assimilating a very simple fact, that is perhaps the reason you keep talking about the DNA evidence as though is it meaningful..

No Chain of Custody means DNA evidence is meaningless.

When you finally understand what that actually means I can imagine you'll have a eureka moment as your belief system collapses around you.

Stay strong brother.

Edited December 29, 2015 by MrTee

[HUH]

A certain individual of interest at the start of the investigation had a very public, televised and quite frankly disgraceful DNA test, all this in front of the Chief of Police ( what the hell was he doing there?)

Amazingly well within 24 hours the results were released and not to anyone's surprise were found to show he had no part in the crime!

I think it common knowledge than even the most basic DNA test takes a lot longer than 24 hours.

Stop telling lies Morris

Go do some research on rapid dna

In 2012 Florida police dept got there new rapid dna testing machine a X Rapid hit 200 unit The first case they solved using this machine was a robbery of a US solders home while he was in afghanistan, it produced a profile in 90 MINUTES that linked a suspect to the crime.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/790124-thailand-lookout-the-rapidhit-200-can-generate-a-dna-profile-in-about-90-minutes/

Nice to see your so easily amused, strange that when the murders first occurred Somyot publicly stated that Thailand does not have the DNA testing technology available to distinguish between an asian and westerner and was going to ask for the help of the FBI.

Then suddenly not only do they have that technology but also a record turnaround in test results that included one of the most difficult to analyze which even with the latest technology takes time when there are 3 different DNA profiles mixed together as in the case of Hannah.

But I'm sure you can find a reasonable excuse for this such as, "Somyot was mistaken"?

[Zeberdee]

7.5m thb? Haha they can't even afford a memory stick to store photos on!

[MorristheRunt]

Jane Taupin, a renowned Australian forensic scientist​ was in attendance at the court but never called by the defence.

Myself and many , many people who have supported the defence must find that a worry.

Why was this expert not called? Her statements out of court to the BBC suggest her evidence was very much to the advantage of the accused.

So why was she not called? This for me is a major worry and gives me doubt about the defence's case.

If anyone has a Twitter account, would you please ask Andrew Hall this question directly, it needs to be addressed with urgency.

Ah!! changing your tune a bit now, are we?

The defence can only submit was is available and useful to them in order to to construct their case. It seems, by all accounts, that what they had was too flimsy and inadequate.

All this bluster at the beginning appears to be just that!! When shove comes to push it seems that all they were doing is whining away about this and that whilst worrying that the prosecution had the upper hand with real evidence that would prove their guilt! Their worst nightmare came about when they were trounced in the courts.

Changing my tune?

I call it open mindedness.

Some evidence given to the court would indicate the Burmese were involved.

Some evidence given by the prosecution gives me a horrible feeling of set up.

But I must add, I was shell shocked by the Miller Family statement....damming against the Burmese.

[DiscoDan]

Another thing that amazed me was the fact that not one of the victims friends testified in court, very strange.

Especialy Davids friend, I think his name was Chris, the guy that originaly the RTP accused of been involved.

Why was he not called to give evidence?

No he was not a witness

Maybe he had no evidence to give ? or do you think that David and Hannah's Friends have no access to social media ?

Or were they also Paid off ?

[DM07]

...and why would they have called Dr. Taupin as a witness?

There was nothing to test, to verify...the DNA was "used up", "gone" or "I don't know"!

Khun Pornthip already testified, that the handling of the DNA "evidence" was not done properly and it was useless as "evidence".

I guess, when the defense invited Dr. Taupin to join the team, they didn't assume, that the RTP were so totally incompetent, that there would actually be something to re- test!

So, what?!

[MorristheRunt]

Another thing that amazed me was the fact that not one of the victims friends testified in court, very strange.

Especialy Davids friend, I think his name was Chris, the guy that originaly the RTP accused of been involved.

Why was he not called to give evidence?

No he was not a witness

Maybe he had no evidence to give ? or do you think that David and Hannah's Friends have no access to social media ?

Or were they also Paid off ?

I believe Chris was the last person to see David alive, so I would have thought he would have been a very good witness.

The mood and behaviour of the victim and the ambience of his surrounding are vital in a fair trial.

When have I ever said anyone has been paid off...please retract that remark.

[sambum]

So, RTP- fanboys: you suggest, that there is evidence, that we haven't seen or heard about?!

Evidence, only some inner circle members (and the Miller- family) know about?!

Why exactly, would that be so?

Even the judge, who handed down the judgement said, that the case is flawed, but the DNA- evidence was the most compelling part (which means, in my reading: even that was flawed!).

So we have seen all the failures and fumbles, all the mistakes, all the "I don't know" and "it is used up".

We have seen the case been sent back a total of 3 times and we all have heard all the questions and all the doubts!

All that has been made public...but the ONE "evidence", that links the B2 to the crime without any doubt and so clear, that a death -sentence has been spoken...THAT part of evidence, is the only thing, that has been kept a secret?!

On what planet does that make ANY sense?

If the semen found inside Hannah's body was that of the B2 then that trumps EVERYTHING else. Nothing else matters, unless you think that they raped Hannah and then somebody else murdered them, which wouldn't actually make that much sense!!

Despite the argument put forth by some defenders of the Burmese that the presence of their semen on the victim's body does not prove murder, I tend to believe that it would go a long way towards convincing most reasonable folks of their guilt. The problem is that, as many have already pointed out, there has been no CREDIBLE presentation by the prosecutors of ANY evidence,

other than what amounts to a weaker version of "the dog ate my homework" by the RTP.

It was hardly what any self respecting court anywhere in the world could call "rock-solid DNA evidence."

Apparently, rock solid enough!!

You should have said "rock solid enough in Thailand"!

[lucky11]

Jane Taupin, a renowned Australian forensic scientist​ was in attendance at the court but never called by the defence.

Myself and many , many people who have supported the defence must find that a worry.

Why was this expert not called? Her statements out of court to the BBC suggest her evidence was very much to the advantage of the accused.

So why was she not called? This for me is a major worry and gives me doubt about the defence's case.

If anyone has a Twitter account, would you please ask Andrew Hall this question directly, it needs to be addressed with urgency.

Ah!! changing your tune a bit now, are we?

The defence can only submit was is available and useful to them in order to to construct their case. It seems, by all accounts, that what they had was too flimsy and inadequate.

All this bluster at the beginning appears to be just that!! When shove comes to push it seems that all they were doing is whining away about this and that whilst worrying that the prosecution had the upper hand with real evidence that would prove their guilt! Their worst nightmare came about when they were trounced in the courts.

Changing my tune?

I call it open mindedness.

Some evidence given to the court would indicate the Burmese were involved.

Some evidence given by the prosecution gives me a horrible feeling of set up.

But I must add, I was shell shocked by the Miller Family statement....damming against the Burmese.

I think that you must be the only one on this thread with an open mind. You may well turn out to be the 'bell weather' poster as to which camp is right and which camp is not, in your estimation that is.

I don't think that I would be far wrong if I determine that you started off in the innocent camp and have been swayed over by some elements of the trial to ours.

Keep an open mind on this and lets see where your feelings on proceedings take you.

[sambum]

....and do you think the Thais have this newish machine?

I'm betting they don't.

Beat me (and probably numerous others) to that question!

[sambum]

Jane Taupin, a renowned Australian forensic scientist​ was in attendance at the court but never called by the defence.

Myself and many , many people who have supported the defence must find that a worry.

Why was this expert not called? Her statements out of court to the BBC suggest her evidence was very much to the advantage of the accused.

So why was she not called? This for me is a major worry and gives me doubt about the defence's case.

If anyone has a Twitter account, would you please ask Andrew Hall this question directly, it needs to be addressed with urgency.

Ah!! changing your tune a bit now, are we?

The defence can only submit was is available and useful to them in order to to construct their case. It seems, by all accounts, that what they had was too flimsy and inadequate.

All this bluster at the beginning appears to be just that!! When shove comes to push it seems that all they were doing is whining away about this and that whilst worrying that the prosecution had the upper hand with real evidence that would prove their guilt! Their worst nightmare came about when they were trounced in the courts.

Changing my tune?

I call it open mindedness.

Some evidence given to the court would indicate the Burmese were involved.

Some evidence given by the prosecution gives me a horrible feeling of set up.

But I must add, I was shell shocked by the Miller Family statement....damming against the Burmese.

I think that you must be the only one on this thread with an open mind. You may well turn out to be the 'bell weather' poster as to which camp is right and which camp is not, in your estimation that is.

I don't think that I would be far wrong if I determine that you started off in the innocent camp and have been swayed over by some elements of the trial to ours.

Keep an open mind on this and lets see where your feelings on proceedings take you.

You certainly don't have an open mind - by your own admission (''our" camp) so please stop criticising people that do. Some people prefer to look at both sides of the picture themselves without condescending comments from you like "changing your tune" etc etc

[sambum]

She was that useful to the defence team that as soon as she had finished her work and came to her useless conclusions - they threw her out of the door never to be heard of again. More of a time consuming hindrance than a benefit to them, it seems!!

Your confrontational attitude beggars belief! I am very surprised that you haven't been given a "holiday" yet for baiting and trolling!!

Edited December 29, 2015 by sambum

[lucky11]

I wasn't criticising him, quite the opposite, I was commending him for his open minded stance. Would I give him a' like' and then go on to criticise him?

Ate you not in the 'innocent' camp? I was just pointing out the fact that maybe he is seeing the light and finds some disparities that he cannot reconcile with in the defences camp!

[lucky11]

She was that useful to the defence team that as soon as she had finished her work and came to her useless conclusions - they threw her out of the door never to be heard of again. More of a time consuming hindrance than a benefit to them, it seems!!

Your confrontational attitude beggars belief! I am very surprised that you haven't been given a "holiday" yet for baiting and trolling!!

OK, if she was that useful to the defence - then tell me how! Come on, what did she do or say to benefit them?

Provide me with something of substance and I will withdraw my criticism.

[taony]

I wasn't criticising him, quite the opposite, I was commending him for his open minded stance. Would I give him a' like' and then go on to criticise him?

Ate you not in the 'innocent' camp? I was just pointing out the fact that maybe he is seeing the light and finds some disparities that he cannot reconcile with in the defences camp!

stop trying to decide what "camp" we are all in. You are the only one in a camp. We are all discussing the case.

Time to make a new profile and change your tact.

Edited December 29, 2015 by taony

[StealthEnergiser]

I must say I am amazed not one person on Koh Tao has shown remorse and has not spoken out (if persons of influence were involved)

Also the present administration has publcly backed the investigation and the subsequent trial verdict, whatever it thinks, the junta has many enimies, strong and influential ones, some based on foreign shores. If a misscaridge of justice has gone down....why the silence...this gives me a doubt about the Burmese inoocence.

Also the defence case in court was nothing short of pathetic. Was this down to shear incompitence or fear?

On your last point it was down to them not being able to counter the overwhelmingly conclusive DNA evidence pointing to their absolute guilt!!

Let's face it, they had SEVEN, I repeat, seven of the best defence lawyers in Thailand acting for them with very little going for them by way of argument compared to what the prosecution had. They were always going to lose this case due to the DNA evidence bomb shell.

People accuse them of being meek when it comes to their usage of the DNA evidence available to them. If it was so flawed and proved their innocence then why was it ignored by them and capitalised on by the prosecution to swing the verdict their way? The judge said that the DNA element was key to his decision in coming to his conclusions about their guilt.

It was quite funny seeing Jonathon Head on the BBC news trying to fathom out the reasons behind the complete impotence of the defence team in the trial!!

It was a mixture of astonishment, confusion and disbelief!!

overwhelmingly conclusive DNA evidence ???????

[lucky11]

OK, your view that the evidence was flimsy, I believe it to be solid and irrefutable.

[lucky11]

I must say I am amazed not one person on Koh Tao has shown remorse and has not spoken out (if persons of influence were involved)

Also the present administration has publcly backed the investigation and the subsequent trial verdict, whatever it thinks, the junta has many enimies, strong and influential ones, some based on foreign shores. If a misscaridge of justice has gone down....why the silence...this gives me a doubt about the Burmese inoocence.

Also the defence case in court was nothing short of pathetic. Was this down to shear incompitence or fear?

On your last point it was down to them not being able to counter the overwhelmingly conclusive DNA evidence pointing to their absolute guilt!!

Let's face it, they had SEVEN, I repeat, seven of the best defence lawyers in Thailand acting for them with very little going for them by way of argument compared to what the prosecution had. They were always going to lose this case due to the DNA evidence bomb shell.

People accuse them of being meek when it comes to their usage of the DNA evidence available to them. If it was so flawed and proved their innocence then why was it ignored by them and capitalised on by the prosecution to swing the verdict their way? The judge said that the DNA element was key to his decision in coming to his conclusions about their guilt.

It was quite funny seeing Jonathon Head on the BBC news trying to fathom out the reasons behind the complete impotence of the defence team in the trial!!

It was a mixture of astonishment, confusion and disbelief!!

overwhelmingly conclusive DNA evidence ???????

That's 'what did' for them and sealed their fate, isn't it?

[lucky11]

OK, your view that the evidence was flimsy, I believe it to be solid and irrefutable.

No DNA on the alledged muder weapon.......solid and irrefutable.....mmmmmm

Davids and Hannas wounds created by the same weapon.,,,,mmmmm

No chain of command of DNA evidence and all DNA lost so no re-tests possible ....mmmmm

All solid and good?

Oh and the best one...all prosecution evidence brought to court in a shopping trolley....have they given it back to Lotus yet?

The DNA (semen) found inside of Hannah's body matched that of the B2 - game over.

[DM07]

OK, your view that the evidence was flimsy, I believe it to be solid and irrefutable.

No DNA on the alledged muder weapon.......solid and irrefutable.....mmmmmm

Davids and Hannas wounds created by the same weapon.,,,,mmmmm

No chain of command of DNA evidence and all DNA lost so no re-tests possible ....mmmmm

All solid and good?

Oh and the best one...all prosecution evidence brought to court in a shopping trolley....have they given it back to Lotus yet?

The DNA (semen) found inside of Hannah's body matched that of the B2 - game over.

How anyone, who is "intelligent" enough to turn on a computer and write in halfway cohesive sentences, can come to that conclusion, is absolutely beyond me!

[phuketandsee]

I think it is time we all ignored Lucky11 and shortened this thread. Clearly no amount of reason is going to change his view.

[metisdead]

Off topic bickering session has been removed. What is allowed in the US courts is off topic here.

[sambum]

She was that useful to the defence team that as soon as she had finished her work and came to her useless conclusions - they threw her out of the door never to be heard of again. More of a time consuming hindrance than a benefit to them, it seems!!

Your confrontational attitude beggars belief! I am very surprised that you haven't been given a "holiday" yet for baiting and trolling!!

OK, if she was that useful to the defence - then tell me how! Come on, what did she do or say to benefit them?

Provide me with something of substance and I will withdraw my criticism.

She couldn't comment on something that wasn't available to her! Anyway, my point was about your confrontational attitude in many of your posts. For example:-

"came to her useless conclusions"

"they threw her out of the door never to be heard of again."

I could quote many other examples, but I don't want a holiday for 'stalking"!

[lucky11]

OK, your view that the evidence was flimsy, I believe it to be solid and irrefutable.

No DNA on the alledged muder weapon.......solid and irrefutable.....mmmmmm

Davids and Hannas wounds created by the same weapon.,,,,mmmmm

No chain of command of DNA evidence and all DNA lost so no re-tests possible ....mmmmm

All solid and good?

Oh and the best one...all prosecution evidence brought to court in a shopping trolley....have they given it back to Lotus yet?

The DNA (semen) found inside of Hannah's body matched that of the B2 - game over.

How anyone, who is "intelligent" enough to turn on a computer and write in halfway cohesive sentences, can come to that conclusion, is absolutely beyond me!

Remind me of the judges basis for pronouncing them guilty. I'll help you - this is what the judge said before passing sentence.

As is customary in Thailand, where trials are not held before a jury, a judge delivered the verdict and sentence and said the DNA tests by investigators were carried out to acceptable standards and the DNA found on Ms Witheridge matched those of the defendants.

[lucky11]

She was that useful to the defence team that as soon as she had finished her work and came to her useless conclusions - they threw her out of the door never to be heard of again. More of a time consuming hindrance than a benefit to them, it seems!!

Your confrontational attitude beggars belief! I am very surprised that you haven't been given a "holiday" yet for baiting and trolling!!

OK, if she was that useful to the defence - then tell me how! Come on, what did she do or say to benefit them?

Provide me with something of substance and I will withdraw my criticism.

She couldn't comment on something that wasn't available to her! Anyway, my point was about your confrontational attitude in many of your posts. For example:-

"came to her useless conclusions"

"they threw her out of the door never to be heard of again."

I could quote many other examples, but I don't want a holiday for 'stalking"!

Who am I supposedly confronting. You? Dr Taupin? you are just being melodramatic.

[HUH]

OK, your view that the evidence was flimsy, I believe it to be solid and irrefutable.

No DNA on the alledged muder weapon.......solid and irrefutable.....mmmmmm

Davids and Hannas wounds created by the same weapon.,,,,mmmmm

No chain of command of DNA evidence and all DNA lost so no re-tests possible ....mmmmm

All solid and good?

Oh and the best one...all prosecution evidence brought to court in a shopping trolley....have they given it back to Lotus yet?

The DNA (semen) found inside of Hannah's body matched that of the B2 - game over.

The game as you call is is far from over, you forget the judicial process is very far from complete yet. As much as you are 100% convinced of their guilt lets see if the appeal judges agree

[JLCrab]

Some strategy!! they fly this useless Dr. expert in to bolster their defence case - and end up not using her as she is of no help or usefulness to them. In other words an overly qualified dud.

I see you are having trouble assimilating a very simple fact, that is perhaps the reason you keep talking about the DNA evidence as though is it meaningful..

No Chain of Custody means DNA evidence is meaningless.

When you finally understand what that actually means I can imagine you'll have a eureka moment as your belief system collapses around you.

Stay strong brother.

I presume the Koh Tao Defense Team now includes attorneys and persons familiar with the Thai Criminal Courts Appeals procedures and will know what information is relevant to an Appeal and what information is extraneous.

Edited December 29, 2015 by JLCrab