Koh Tao: Suspects found guilty of murdering British backpackers

[HUH]

The only murder weapon produced = a hoe.

Is dna from the b2 on it = no.

Why is that?

Touch DNA is very tricky. Not every item that is touched will leave enough skin cells for proper analysis. Also the chance of recovering DNA from an outdoor crime scene decreases significantly over time with two weeks showing a significant drop in allele markers detected for most of the samples. They only managed to retrieve a partial sample (25%) -there was a match but not sufficient to be accepted.

Please read up and do some research on a so called 25% match, when you've done you'll discover the serious flaws in your opinions, but lets just say anyone of the street can have the same result, but you'll discover that yourself if you want to be enlightened.

[Zeberdee]

Hannah's and David's dna was on the handle.

Yet no trace from the person doing the damage?

I find that hard to believe.

[asiamaster]

The calls to close this thread and put certain individuals onto the ignore list, indicates that the not guilty camp is running out of steam.

Which is interesting, as with the help of this thread, I have now convinced two of my colleagues, who were firmly in the not guilty camp, that the judgement was correct.

They both oppose the death penalty, so they are not in favour of sentence.

I too have changed from the not guilty camp. When I found out they had David's phone and destroyed it and hid, that was it. There just is no explaining that. Sorry to aleg

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

I originally believed the phone was planted by the police. Then it was revealed that indeed the b2 gave the phone to a friend that put it there,it never seemed to that it could be David's. But it is Wei Phyo own statement that he was back down at the beach at 5 o'clock in the morning and amazingly found a phone that changed my mind. What another coincidence? Not only were their clothes stolen while they swimming, but some strange person also left their phone on the beach, that Wei Phyo found. And that person has obviously not come forward to claim the phone, because they are afraid of the village headman. Lol, pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

In the earlier confession it was admitted that he had taken the phone. But then the whole torture issue came up. And it was when it was revealed that the IMEI matched that he changed the statement to the "back to the beach" one. That is probably also when the defense team realised that it was a lost case. Hence their weak "final" performance.

[AleG]

I too have changed from the not guilty camp. When I found out they had David's phone and destroyed it and hid, that was it. There just is no explaining that. Sorry to aleg

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

You know who knows it was David's phone? His family, the ones that used the IMEI number engraved on it to establish the ownership, those people that then you come along and accuse of knowing less than you about the facts of the case.

You know how I know it wasn't planted by the police or swapped at any point? Because Zaw Lin admitted he had it since the night of the murders and because his friend testified in court that he received the phone from him the next day. I'm sure the Miller's are acutely aware of those facts too.

"There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made"

No, there was no phone from the crime scene displayed on TV, I think you are confused over some phones that were found at the lodgings of the first suspects questioned, three Burmese workers that were cleared of any involvement.

I bet you "learned" that from StealthEnergiser didn't you?

You are twisting yourself in knots trying to find ways to take the phone out of the picture, time and time again I and others have brought the facts forward; still you are in denial, why is that?

[lucky11]

Hannah's and David's dna was on the handle.

Yet no trace from the person doing the damage?

I find that hard to believe.

Apart from the 25% match of one of the B2 on a weak sample.

[asiamaster]

The only murder weapon produced = a hoe.

Is dna from the b2 on it = no.

Why is that?

Touch DNA is very tricky. Not every item that is touched will leave enough skin cells for proper analysis. Also the chance of recovering DNA from an outdoor crime scene decreases significantly over time with two weeks showing a significant drop in allele markers detected for most of the samples. They only managed to retrieve a partial sample (25%) -there was a match but not sufficient to be accepted.

Please read up and do some research on a so called 25% match, when you've done you'll discover the serious flaws in your opinions, but lets just say anyone of the street can have the same result, but you'll discover that yourself if you want to be enlightened.

I was not talking about 25 markers but 25% of the markers. Read up to find the difference....

[Zeberdee]

Pretty sure you need a lot more than 25% for a positive match.

[AleG]

Hannah's and David's dna was on the handle.

Yet no trace from the person doing the damage?

I find that hard to believe.

If you are stumped by that this will blow your mind:

There was no full DNA profile from the owner of the hoe either.

You know, they guy that had spent many sweaty hours toiling with it. Where's his DNA? Surely it must be on the hoe, right?

But why not then? Because as asiamaster said it can degrade due to environmental factors, it can also be impossible to detect under a much larger source of DNA such as blood and skin cells from the victims bludgeoned with it or not enough material was transferred to begin with. In any case the point is, there's no guarantee that DNA will transfer and that it will be available in enough quantities to positively identify an individual.

We know for a fact that the hoe owner picked it up and moved it elsewhere the morning the bodies were found, he was the last person to handle it barehanded yet no DNA from him, lack of DNA doesn't prove the two Burmese didn't handle the hoe as it is claimed by some people.

[fab99]

Pretty sure you need a lot more than 25% for a positive match.

There is a good chance that you or me would actually have a 25% match too...

Completely irrelevant, what about finding the real match, looking for other suspects...

Who could reasonably believe by the way the victims were killed by only 2 persons ?

[AleG]

Pretty sure you need a lot more than 25% for a positive match.

It's enough to rule out anyone that doesn't have any of those markers, which is not the case at hand.

As it stands you can't say that the results prove the DNA of at least one of the wasn't on the hoe, it can't be said that it's their DNA either; so when people claim that the DNA analysis of the hoe proved their innocence they are assuming facts not in evidence.

[fab99]

Hannah's and David's dna was on the handle.

Yet no trace from the person doing the damage?

I find that hard to believe.

If you are stumped by that this will blow your mind:

There was no full DNA profile from the owner of the hoe either.

You know, they guy that had spent many sweaty hours toiling with it. Where's his DNA? Surely it must be on the hoe, right?

But why not then? Because as asiamaster said it can degrade due to environmental factors, it can also be impossible to detect under a much larger source of DNA such as blood and skin cells from the victims bludgeoned with it or not enough material was transferred to begin with. In any case the point is, there's no guarantee that DNA will transfer and that it will be available in enough quantities to positively identify an individual.

We know for a fact that the hoe owner picked it up and moved it elsewhere the morning the bodies were found, he was the last person to handle it barehanded yet no DNA from him, lack of DNA doesn't prove the two Burmese didn't handle the hoe as it is claimed by some people.

And how do you explain that the DNA of both victims was on the hoe (not their blood, their DNA,from handling the hoe...) it refutes the element of surprise in the RTP scenario, I don't know why the defense didn't press more on all the discrepencies...

[CP3]

Pretty sure you need a lot more than 25% for a positive match.

There were a few points prior to this, led to believe this that 25% was from b2

[NCFC]

The calls to close this thread and put certain individuals onto the ignore list, indicates that the not guilty camp is running out of steam.

Which is interesting, as with the help of this thread, I have now convinced two of my colleagues, who were firmly in the not guilty camp, that the judgement was correct.

They both oppose the death penalty, so they are not in favour of sentence.

I too have changed from the not guilty camp. When I found out they had David's phone and destroyed it and hid, that was it. There just is no explaining that. Sorry to aleg

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

It would be difficult to locate a body lying among rocks on an unlit beach, as you point out. Imagine then how much more difficult it must be to locate a black-cased iphone on an unlit beach

And yet the b2 managed to be in possession of David's iphone on the night of rhe murders. That is now a generally accepted fact, I think.

[sambum]

In reply to lucky11 :-

Your whole style of writing/replying to anyone is confrontational! If you can not see that from the 2 examples quoted above, then calling me melodramatic, then "There's none so blind......... "etc

Duplicate Post

Edited December 29, 2015 by sambum

[HUH]

Touch DNA is very tricky. Not every item that is touched will leave enough skin cells for proper analysis. Also the chance of recovering DNA from an outdoor crime scene decreases significantly over time with two weeks showing a significant drop in allele markers detected for most of the samples. They only managed to retrieve a partial sample (25%) -there was a match but not sufficient to be accepted.

Please read up and do some research on a so called 25% match, when you've done you'll discover the serious flaws in your opinions, but lets just say anyone of the street can have the same result, but you'll discover that yourself if you want to be enlightened.

I was not talking about 25 markers but 25% of the markers. Read up to find the difference....

I have already but it seems your knowledge needs some updating:

A DNA profile can be thought of in simple terms as a set of 20- 30 different numbers, depending on whether the UK system (10 pairs of markers) or the US system (13 pairs of markers) is being used.

At each marker you read two numbers. In every person these numbers at each marker can vary between say 5 and 20. It's like a combination lock of 30 numbers long with each of the 30 values having at least 10 possibilities. Finding the combination by chance would have a probability less than one in 50 billion.

In exactly the same way, a DNA profile with all 30 numbers identifies a person absolutely: it is just impossible for two people to have the same set of 30 numbers by chance, so this is a perfect identification system.

BUT if you can only read 20 out of the 30 numbers , or 15 out of the 20, how good is the identification? Only being able to read some of the numbers from a DNA profile is very common indeed: when the DNA is in low amounts, when the DNA is a mix of many people, when the sample is very old and cells are degraded, when the sample is from a rape kit where the swab was taken a long period after the crime and the suspect's sample has been degraded by body enzymes, and so on.

So this is what, in general terms, is meant by a "partial profile".

The situation is even more uncertain here because they are talking about Y-chromosome profiling. This is often done when the DNA is in very low amounts, or is contaminated with huge amounts of victim DNA (as is often the case in sexual assaults), and you can't do a 'proper' 30-marker identification profile.

Because only men have the Y-chromosome, testing for a Y-chromosome profile eliminates all female DNA without having to do complicated chemical separations on the sample that can destroy much of it if the quality or amount is low.

BUT Y-chromosome typing is NOT good enough for identification purposes, because the Y-chromosome, unlike the markers used in the 13 marker profling above, does not change enough over time to be useful. All male relatives: fathers, brother, sons, paternal uncles, will have identical Y-chromosome markers, Also in some populations, especially where there is not much migration, it is possible for the same Y-chromosome profile to be present in as many as 1 in a 1000 unrelated people. So even a complete Y-chromosome profile is not good enough to prove identity.

Its main use is to exclude suspects. If a marker is present with, say, value 20 in a suspect, but the crime scene DNA has the value 11 at this place, this proves beyond argument that the DNA is not the suspect's.

A Y-chromosome match of 25%, which is being discussed here, means that only one quarter of the markers were the same. This means nothing at all about identification, as the witness said. No markers were readable that excluded the suspect, and a match of one quarter of the markers with the suspect gives no indication at all about whether it is his DNA, because this same match could have been obtained from any random man off the street. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/857515-forensic-team-to-testify-in-koh-tao-murder-trial/page-13#entry9887220

[smedly]

I too have changed from the not guilty camp. When I found out they had David's phone and destroyed it and hid, that was it. There just is no explaining that. Sorry to aleg

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

You know who knows it was David's phone? His family, the ones that used the IMEI number engraved on it to establish the ownership, those people that then you come along and accuse of knowing less than you about the facts of the case.

You know how I know it wasn't planted by the police or swapped at any point? Because Zaw Lin admitted he had it since the night of the murders and because his friend testified in court that he received the phone from him the next day. I'm sure the Miller's are acutely aware of those facts too.

"There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made"

No, there was no phone from the crime scene displayed on TV, I think you are confused over some phones that were found at the lodgings of the first suspects questioned, three Burmese workers that were cleared of any involvement.

I bet you "learned" that from StealthEnergiser didn't you?

You are twisting yourself in knots trying to find ways to take the phone out of the picture, time and time again I and others have brought the facts forward; still you are in denial, why is that?

I am twisting nothing, I am looking at this case in a very objective way and from my own experience, if I couldn't find anything wrong then I would be very much convinced of guilt and explaining why, as it stands I still have seen nothing that would convince me, there are just too many inconsistencies the primary one being the dna, unless they can produce the original samples then as far as I am concerned they never existed and that opinion is supported by any standard that I am aware of, it is also the opinion of forensic experts and legal experts in the field

The parents checked an imei number given to them by police - I doubt very much the phone itself could be identified from looking at it, as for the phone found at the crime scene - you are telling lies

[asiamaster]

Pretty sure you need a lot more than 25% for a positive match.

There is a good chance that you or me would actually have a 25% match too...

Completely irrelevant, what about finding the real match, looking for other suspects...

Who could reasonably believe by the way the victims were killed by only 2 persons ?

What I know for sure is that 97% of your DNA matches that of a chimpanzee.

Now don't be offended so does mine....

[smedly]

Hannah's and David's dna was on the handle.

Yet no trace from the person doing the damage?

I find that hard to believe.

If you are stumped by that this will blow your mind:

There was no full DNA profile from the owner of the hoe either.

You know, they guy that had spent many sweaty hours toiling with it. Where's his DNA? Surely it must be on the hoe, right?

But why not then? Because as asiamaster said it can degrade due to environmental factors, it can also be impossible to detect under a much larger source of DNA such as blood and skin cells from the victims bludgeoned with it or not enough material was transferred to begin with. In any case the point is, there's no guarantee that DNA will transfer and that it will be available in enough quantities to positively identify an individual.

We know for a fact that the hoe owner picked it up and moved it elsewhere the morning the bodies were found, he was the last person to handle it barehanded yet no DNA from him, lack of DNA doesn't prove the two Burmese didn't handle the hoe as it is claimed by some people.

And how do you explain that the DNA of both victims was on the hoe (not their blood, their DNA,from handling the hoe...) it refutes the element of surprise in the RTP scenario, I don't know why the defense didn't press more on all the discrepencies...

it is not beyond possibility that the handle of the Hoe was wiped down using some of the victims clothing

How did Mon know it was missing when he asked the gardener to put it back were he found it, that also means the gardener was handling the hoe twice - taking it away and putting it back, did someone wipe it down after that

[AleG]

If you are stumped by that this will blow your mind:

There was no full DNA profile from the owner of the hoe either.

You know, they guy that had spent many sweaty hours toiling with it. Where's his DNA? Surely it must be on the hoe, right?

But why not then? Because as asiamaster said it can degrade due to environmental factors, it can also be impossible to detect under a much larger source of DNA such as blood and skin cells from the victims bludgeoned with it or not enough material was transferred to begin with. In any case the point is, there's no guarantee that DNA will transfer and that it will be available in enough quantities to positively identify an individual.

We know for a fact that the hoe owner picked it up and moved it elsewhere the morning the bodies were found, he was the last person to handle it barehanded yet no DNA from him, lack of DNA doesn't prove the two Burmese didn't handle the hoe as it is claimed by some people.

And how do you explain that the DNA of both victims was on the hoe (not their blood, their DNA,from handling the hoe...) it refutes the element of surprise in the RTP scenario, I don't know why the defense didn't press more on all the discrepencies...

You can find the answer to both questions in the previous page or two, the idea that the victims handled the hoe based on their DNA being on it has no merit.

As for why they didn't press on the discrepancies they talk about, my opinion is because they don't add up to the point that they invalidate the DNA results; if they did I'm sure they would be more specific when about them.

[SiSePuede419]

A complete DNA sample will contain 6 billion

base (pairs).

There are about 6 million differences in the total DNA of two unrelated

people.

That 0.1% for "unrelated".

Assume many people living in a small, isolated village are related, which only increases the similarities.

Highly doubtful anyone in Thailand has the equipment and skills to do this analysis in an accurate manner.

[AleG]

I too have changed from the not guilty camp. When I found out they had David's phone and destroyed it and hid, that was it. There just is no explaining that. Sorry to aleg

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

You know who knows it was David's phone? His family, the ones that used the IMEI number engraved on it to establish the ownership, those people that then you come along and accuse of knowing less than you about the facts of the case.

You know how I know it wasn't planted by the police or swapped at any point? Because Zaw Lin admitted he had it since the night of the murders and because his friend testified in court that he received the phone from him the next day. I'm sure the Miller's are acutely aware of those facts too.

"There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made"

No, there was no phone from the crime scene displayed on TV, I think you are confused over some phones that were found at the lodgings of the first suspects questioned, three Burmese workers that were cleared of any involvement.

I bet you "learned" that from StealthEnergiser didn't you?

You are twisting yourself in knots trying to find ways to take the phone out of the picture, time and time again I and others have brought the facts forward; still you are in denial, why is that?

I am twisting nothing, I am looking at this case in a very objective way and from my own experience, if I couldn't find anything wrong then I would be very much convinced of guilt and explaining why, as it stands I still have seen nothing that would convince me, there are just too many inconsistencies the primary one being the dna, unless they can produce the original samples then as far as I am concerned they never existed and that opinion is supported by any standard that I am aware of, it is also the opinion of forensic experts and legal experts in the field

The parents checked an imei number given to them by police - I doubt very much the phone itself could be identified from looking at it, as for the phone found at the crime scene - you are telling lies

Calling people liars when you are shown to be wrong is not what I consider being open minded.

How about you show a source for your claim that the police was showing a phone, any phone, found at the crime scene on TV or any other media for that matter?

But go ahead, try to find the source where you got that from, and after you see that I am right you may consider apologizing.

Edited December 29, 2015 by AleG

[asiamaster]

The parents checked an imei number given to them by police - I doubt very much the phone itself could be identified from looking at it, as for the phone found at the crime scene - you are telling lies

I seem to be repeating myself: the IMEI of an I phone can be found in many places. On the back case on the Sim tray and also in the programming. Yes the phone was damaged but did they put it under a steamroller???

Further the IMEI is also on the box and could also have been on the purchase receipt. It is recommended to keep those for the purpose of identification, warranty. Well I kept mine for sure doubt if you did it -you don't come across at the smartest kid on the block ....

[asiamaster]

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

There were 3 phones: Hannah's i phone (before the ruder she had asked a friend to hold on to it for a while - David's old Samusng with Thai SIM and David's i-phone (with UK Sim). David had left the Samsung in his room and was brought in by a friend.

And yes it can be very dark on a beach unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find a phone lying in the sand...

[glenmohr]

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

Add AleG to that list.

Interestingly no other site covering this story has any supporters for the guilty decision. Why are they ( the small and vocal pro guilty gang) all concentrating here and nowhere else?

Oh crap! there is no DNA!

Because this is the only forum I am on - allied to the fact that it is so easy for us, the 7% minority, picking you off one by one and destroying your posts. This has been most noticeable of late, greatly aided by that bombshell post of AleG's and surprising enough, the classic own goal of stealthenergiser in what they reveal about the DNA evidence!!

[bunglebag]

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/

I doubt that the Thais do have this - but it shows that technology has reduced the time taken to obtain a DNA profile and maybe, even standard(ish) machines can produce results much faster than people imagine.

Pointless debate. The head of forensics in Bangkok himself said it took them a minimum of 48 hours to process the dna samples. How did Mon's come back so fast then too? Well under 24 hours

[bunglebag]

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?

Someone mentioned in the last couple of days that there were 2 eyewitnesses who were too scared to testify! Anyone know any more about this, or was it BS?

[glenmohr]

A complete DNA sample will contain 6 billion

base (pairs).

There are about 6 million differences in the total DNA of two unrelated

people.

That 0.1% for "unrelated".

Assume many people living in a small, isolated village are related, which only increases the similarities.

Highly doubtful anyone in Thailand has the equipment and skills to do this analysis in an accurate manner.

For DNA to have any merit or value in any particular investigation the requirements would be:

1) Collection by professional people trained in DNA collection

2) Analysed by qualified forensic scientists.

3) An accurate and detailed record kept of the entire process.

In the tragic case of Hannah and David's passing, not one of the 3 requirements above was fulfilled, specially the episode where it was initially stored in the Head man's fridge. Whoever thought or heard of something so obscene, valuable evidence being stored in the main suspect's brother's fridge. It beggars belief

[jing jing]

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

There it is, in a nutshell.

Either you have A) no knowledge of the RTP's history vis-a-vis fabricating evidence, B - no understanding of what irrefutable DNA evidence looks like, C) are just here to wind us up, or D) all of the above.

I choose D. So come on Lucky, which is it then?

Edited December 29, 2015 by jing jing

[bunglebag]

The calls to close this thread and put certain individuals onto the ignore list, indicates that the not guilty camp is running out of steam.

Which is interesting, as with the help of this thread, I have now convinced two of my colleagues, who were firmly in the not guilty camp, that the judgement was correct.

They both oppose the death penalty, so they are not in favour of sentence.

I too have changed from the not guilty camp. When I found out they had David's phone and destroyed it and hid, that was it. There just is no explaining that. Sorry to aleg

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

I originally believed the phone was planted by the police. Then it was revealed that indeed the b2 gave the phone to a friend that put it there,it never seemed to that it could be David's. But it is Wei Phyo own statement that he was back down at the beach at 5 o'clock in the morning and amazingly found a phone that changed my mind. What another coincidence? Not only were their clothes stolen while they swimming, but some strange person also left their phone on the beach, that Wei Phyo found. And that person has obviously not come forward to claim the phone, because they are afraid of the village headman. Lol, pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

I was very busy during parts of the court case and could not follow parts of it closely unfortunately.

When you say 'it was revealed that indeed the B2 gave the phone to a friend' - are you talking about something said in court? or part of the alleged torture driven confession? or something else?

and same question regarding the part of your post that talks about Wei Phyo's statement that he found a phone at 5am that morning - was that what he said himself in court, or part of an earlier statement?

[bunglebag]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Thai Gov - Koh Tao verdict will be trialed further and no need for re-trial

I'm struggling to comprehend what this means exactly. Can someone explain?

Edited December 29, 2015 by bunglebag