Koh Tao debacle: Shoddy work from beginning to end

[bannork]

I agree wholeheartedly, that the B2 are getting poor LEGAL advice if they do not at some

point in time (with their safety in mind) reveal what they know in their defense!

If they did this, and pled guilty they would have received half sentences and been out in 20 years or less.

If they only raped or assisted, they would be out in 5 years.

We all know they were there.

We all know they were involved.

I also think they are being very poorly advised. Especially the 2nd defendant.

The lawyers should stop filling their heads with mumbo jumbo.

They are not going to get a free ticket as this stands.

There you go again with misleading insinuation and assumptions.

Why?

f they only raped or assisted, they would be out in 5 years.There is no evidence of rape in fact it was denied by the english examination.

We all know they were there. No we do not

We all know they were involved. no we do not

Only you know these things. How is that?

The rest of us would like to see real hard evidence before assuming their guilt but neither you or anyone else can point to it.

From the questions posed by DNA experts it's plain the prosecution have a case to answer- a situation surely the defence lawyers can pursue in the appeal to the first higher court, The Appeals Court. Many case have been overturned in either this or The Supreme Court so it's premature of the defenders of the B2 to rant and rave. The defence need to produce a robust and scientific rebuttal.

But what if the Norfolk inquest revealed there was semen from the B2 in Hannah? There was no evidence of rape but was there evidence of sexual intercourse?

[boomerangutang]

Anyone can blow smoke as to what wasn't done and what should've been done but what was done is that the Judges issued their ruling and the Judges have the authority and jurisdiction to do so. They could be dead wrong -- I don't care. Their ruling is not going to be vacated. It is subject to appeal under the Thai Rules of Criminal Procedure. Hopefully now the Defense team is finalizing an appeal request that will cause a reasonable appeal panel to review the Samui Court's decision and rule in favor of the 2 convicted if that is so warranted.

... and if the 2 convicted know more about what actually happened than they have revealed to date, then I think they are getting some poor legal advice.

That's probably one of the basic differences in how we see the trial and verdict. I do care. That's why I post so often herein.

You may wonder why a middle aged farang (like myself) cares about justice for two murdered backpackers, or cares about 2 young Burmese men (at the bottom rung of the social ladder) wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't do. Well, that's grist for the mill of how we see the whole thing differently.

[AleG]

There you go again with misleading insinuation and assumptions.

Why?

f they only raped or assisted, they would be out in 5 years.There is no evidence of rape in fact it was denied by the english examination.

We all know they were there. No we do not

We all know they were involved. no we do not

Only you know these things. How is that?

The rest of us would like to see real hard evidence before assuming their guilt but neither you or anyone else can point to it.

From the questions posed by DNA experts it's plain the prosecution have a case to answer- a situation surely the defence lawyers can pursue in the appeal to the first higher court, The Appeals Court. Many case have been overturned in either this or The Supreme Court so it's premature of the defenders of the B2 to rant and rave. The defence need to produce a robust and scientific rebuttal.

But what if the Norfolk inquest revealed there was semen from the B2 in Hannah? There was no evidence of rape but was there evidence of sexual intercourse?

somo is wrong about what the UK report said, this is an excerpt from the judgment report:

"Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D, testified that there was a tear to the Second Deceased’s vulva, which is consistent with the report of the second victim’s autopsy in the United Kingdom in Document Lor. 31 (page 21), submitted by the defendants, indicating that there was a tear at the vulva. This fact supports credibility to Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D,’s testimony is made in a straightforward manner."

[iReason]

"They could be dead wrong --I don't care." JLCrab

Wow.

Reminds me of this guy:

Edited January 17, 2016 by iReason

[greenchair]

I agree wholeheartedly, that the B2 are getting poor LEGAL advice if they do not at some

point in time (with their safety in mind) reveal what they know in their defense!

If they did this, and pled guilty they would have received half sentences and been out in 20 years or less.

If they only raped or assisted, they would be out in 5 years.

We all know they were there.

We all know they were involved.

I also think they are being very poorly advised. Especially the 2nd defendant.

The lawyers should stop filling their heads with mumbo jumbo.

They are not going to get a free ticket as this stands.

You know they were there?

Please provide any evidence to prove they were at the crime scene.

I don't need to provide evidence, they provided it themselves with that cokamamy story of excuses to explain their where abouts on that night and how they came to have the victims phone. The judge saw through that and made his decision. I respect that at this time.

[Khun Han]

^ Didn't one of the B3 scratch his head in that 7/11 CCTV video that weve seen? Can't we read some significance into that? Did the judges? ya know, something like "It's not normal behaviour for innocent people to show signs of nervousness such as scratching your head when buying cigarettes and beer."

[JLCrab]

"They could be dead wrong --I don't care." JLCrab

Wow.

Reminds me of this guy:

I don't care if the judges made the wrong decision or not. It is their decision. It is within their jurisdiction and authority. It is legally binding. It is subject to appeal and the defense team is hopefully now preparing a cogent appeal to that decision.

And I don't care what is posted on here -- it is all sideshow.

Edited January 17, 2016 by JLCrab

[Khun Han]

"They could be dead wrong --I don't care." JLCrab

Wow.

Reminds me of this guy:

I don't care if the judges made the wrong decision or not. It is their decision. It is within their jurisdiction and authority. It is legally binding. It is subject to appeal and the defense team is hopefully now preparing a cogent appeal to that decision.

And I don't care what is posted on here -- it is all sideshow.

Oh but you do. You wouldn't spend so much time and effort reading and posting if you didn't: You'd have just had a bit of fun, got bored and moved on long ago.

[iReason]

Yup.

But, he has chosen to linger for the better part of two years.

For the "sideshow".

[JLCrab]

"They could be dead wrong --I don't care." JLCrab

Wow.

Reminds me of this guy:

I don't care if the judges made the wrong decision or not. It is their decision. It is within their jurisdiction and authority. It is legally binding. It is subject to appeal and the defense team is hopefully now preparing a cogent appeal to that decision.

And I don't care what is posted on here -- it is all sideshow.

Oh but you do. You wouldn't spend so much time and effort reading and posting if you didn't: You'd have just had a bit of fun, got bored and moved on long ago.

OK -- I'll revise: I don't care that most of what gets posted in response to my comments is in disagreement with those comments. And all those comments mine included are only sideshow.

Edited January 17, 2016 by JLCrab

[iReason]

I'm still waiting for a counter response to this:

“This finding was made in spite of the following facts: [each of which violates the standards of ISO 17025]:

1. The police claimed they had ‘used up’ all the original mixed semen samples.

2. There were no chain of custody documents in evidence.

3. There were inadequate case notes.

4. No statistical analysis was performed.

5. Hand-written changes were made to documents without explanation.

6. A used condom was not made available to the defense, and stamps were not present on documents.

But the court says:

"The court said yesterday that DNA samples collected from the crime scene are so incontrovertible, that they justify a conviction."

"According to the court, the test was so well documented and photographed that a forgery could not possibly have occurred."

Not hard to find out that, that last statement is false.

"The court also acknowledged in its verdict that the prosecutor’s case against the two men is marked by several irregularities and shortcomings: namely, a lack of “chain of custody”, a paper trail that marked the transfer of documents and evidence up the ranks in the police force."

"Another point of contention was the fact that the two suspects were arrested and interrogated without proper legal counsel and interpretation."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1451042373

Edited January 17, 2016 by iReason

[AleG]

I'm still waiting for a counter response to this:

“This finding was made in spite of the following facts: [each of which violates the standards of ISO 17025]:

1. The police claimed they had ‘used up’ all the original mixed semen samples.

2. There were no chain of custody documents in evidence.

3. There were inadequate case notes.

4. No statistical analysis was performed.

5. Hand-written changes were made to documents without explanation.

6. A used condom was not made available to the defense, and stamps were not present on documents.

But the court says:

"The court said yesterday that DNA samples collected from the crime scene are so incontrovertible, that they justify a conviction."

"According to the court, the test was so well documented and photographed that a forgery could not possibly have occurred."

Not hard to find out that, that last statement is false.

"The court also acknowledged in its verdict that the prosecutor’s case against the two men is marked by several irregularities and shortcomings: namely, a lack of “chain of custody”, a paper trail that marked the transfer of documents and evidence up the ranks in the police force."

"Another point of contention was the fact that the two suspects were arrested and interrogated without proper legal counsel and interpretation."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1451042373

"1. The police claimed they had ‘used up’ all the original mixed semen samples."

They never said that, not good for a start to begin with something completely false.

"2. There were no chain of custody documents in evidence.

3. There were inadequate case notes.

4. No statistical analysis was performed."

The judges disagree with you on the significance of your three part molehill:

"Thus, the Court finds the testing result as credible and trustworthy, despite the fact that the plaintiff’s examination results did not present a chain of custody document in the examination and the fact that the plaintiff did not calculate the level of concidence in the report, with the similar manner as that of the Ministry of Justice’s Forensic Institute’s practice, which is the two defendants’ trusted institution. However, the difference lies in slightly different format and routines, which is considered as different internal practice in their own institutions. The differences do not contribute to inaccurate and incorrect test results, thus the result from the Forensic Institute and Central Forensic Bureau’s credibility has not been damaged or compromised. The defendants’ witness, Mr Woravee Wiyawut, M.D., a DNA specialist at the Forensic Institute, also testified in support that the Forensic Institute and the Central Forensic Bureau are both accredited under the ISO 17025, which is the same as the witness’s institution and the said two institutions operate in accordance with international standards. Therefore, it lends more plausibility to the plaintiff’s examination result that the evidence is credible beyond reasonable doubt. "

But go ahead and show that you know better, show us what chain of documents, specifically, are missing; what makes the case notes inadequate and how the statistical analysis from the police lab differs from the CFIS, because if it escaped your notice the court report says: "despite the fact that the plaintiff’s examination results did not present a chain of custody document in the examination and the fact that the plaintiff did not calculate the level of concidence in the report, with the similar manner as that of the Ministry of Justice’s Forensic Institute’s practice" It is saying that the chain of custody documents and the statistical analysis were not done in a similar way to the way the CFIS does it, not that they were not done at all.

"5. Hand-written changes were made to documents without explanation."

No explanation? You are very selective on what you quote from the judgment report:

"Despite the fact that the test results reported in Document Jor.20, page 5 had a correction and additions where the two defendants claimed the document had an abnormality, Police Colonel Watee who certified the report, testified that this was the result of typographical errors, which were corrected when they were discovered. The court considered the testimonies and the exhibited document and it was found that the top of the said document, as indicated in Clause 1.3, a cotton swab containing mucous fluid from the rectum, thus the lower table in the column of the evidence Number 1.3 must contain information about mucous tissue from the rectum. The original print indicated from the vaginal tissue is a repeat of the column of evidence Number 1.2. Therefore, it shows that there was a typographical error as the witness testified. The correction was in the detail to reflect the fact. In this regard the detail does not cause any damage or does not reduce the weight of the DNA test results."

"6. A used condom was not made available to the defense, and stamps were not present on documents."

Did it not?

"BANGKOK (AP) — A lawyer for two migrant Myanmar workers on trial for murdering British backpackers David Miller and Hannah Witheridge said Thursday that DNA evidence the defense had sought for retesting has become available despite earlier doubts it could be used.

Nakorn Chompuchat, defense lawyer in the trial for the 2014 killings on Koh Tao island, said a forensic police officer told judges in court that some evidence, including blood-stained sand and a condom, had enough DNA to be retested."

As for the stamp, you are just repeating talking points, you have no idea what stamp, where and for what is supposedly missing, do you?

[boomerangutang]

I don't need to provide evidence, they provided it themselves with that cokamamy story of excuses to explain their where abouts on that night and how they came to have the victims phone. The judge saw through that and made his decision. I respect that at this time.

It would be funny, were it not so serious for the B2: When the scapegoats say they didn't do the crime, they are labeled liars. Yet, when one says he found a mobile phone on a beach, he's believed and they're both labelled as beserk murderers.

Note: the judges main (and many would say only) evidence connecting the 2 with one of the victims is the DNA purportedly found in/on Hannah. Both DNA experts involved with the trial (one was allowed to testify, one was kept from testifying by RTP), agree that the DNA trail is frazzled and unprofessional - not even close to internationally accepted standards. None of David's blood on the hoe, yet the prosecution claimed the hoe was used to kill David. Hannah's clothing was lost by RTP. If the judges didn't have an agenda in this case, then I'm Lady Gaga's pet snake.

^ Didn't one of the B3 scratch his head in that 7/11 CCTV video that weve seen? Can't we read some significance into that? Did the judges? ya know, something like "It's not normal behaviour for innocent people to show signs of nervousness such as scratching your head when buying cigarettes and beer."

Are you for real? A guy scratches his head in a convenience shop, hours before a crime, and that implicates him in the crime? You'd fit right in with the cop investigators. I think a lady was seen scratching her butt, several hours before the crime. She must be executed also.

The old saying "grasping at straws" should be re-written to reflect RTP echoers desperate attempts to nail the scapegoats. Here's a suggestion for a newfangled phrase: "scratching head itch"

Here it is in a sentence: The half dozen Thai establishment supporters continue to 'scratch their head itches' in desperate attempts to find evidence which nail Burmese migrants.

Edited January 18, 2016 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

Of the dozens of screw-ups in the investigation, it's difficult to find one which stands out. yet here's one that warrants dishonorable mention:

You remember Ms Pontip saying there were at least 2 sets of DNA on the hoe which didn't match the victims or the defendants? Who wanted to know who those two sets of DNA matched? No one. Granted, One set is probably the gardener. Yet, neither RTP, not prosecution, nor judges nor even the defense council seemed to care who the mystery DNA belonged to.

[AGareth2]

the DNA for retesting?

Can you prove this was original DNA from the autopsy?

Documents correct.

If not then how do you know that it is the original DNA?

[somo]

Of the dozens of screw-ups in the investigation, it's difficult to find one which stands out. yet here's one that warrants dishonorable mention:

You remember Ms Pontip saying there were at least 2 sets of DNA on the hoe which didn't match the victims or the defendants? Who wanted to know who those two sets of DNA matched? No one. Granted, One set is probably the gardener. Yet, neither RTP, not prosecution, nor judges nor even the defense council seemed to care who the mystery DNA belonged to.

That's because it may belong to the killer which would be inconvenient.

[somo]

I didn't know the RTP also lost Hannah's clothes as well as all the DNA.

They are exceedingly careless. Perhaps there was some other persons DNA on her clothing as well as on the murder weapon which might not have been compatible with their story. I'm just surprised they didn't lose the murder weapon as well or will that also disappear soon?

[JLCrab]

Of the dozens of screw-ups in the investigation, it's difficult to find one which stands out. yet here's one that warrants dishonorable mention:

You remember Ms Pontip saying there were at least 2 sets of DNA on the hoe which didn't match the victims or the defendants? Who wanted to know who those two sets of DNA matched? No one. Granted, One set is probably the gardener. Yet, neither RTP, not prosecution, nor judges nor even the defense council seemed to care who the mystery DNA belonged to.

This is what I remember:

"My experts were able to identify one full DNA profile and one partial DNA profile from the handle of the hoe,” (Dr. Pornthip) said. “However when I placed these two profiles against those provided by the Royal Thai police, said to be from the two Burmese defendants, they did not match.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

[iReason]

Some Trolls are really amazingly dense.

Just blathering away at hypotheticals and assumptions.

No attention paid to legalities.

And flying in from left field just flaying away with no basis in fact or context.

There really is no point in engaging them if they can't even stay current with the thread.

Especially, if they haven't read post #362...

Edited January 18, 2016 by iReason

[JLCrab]

That's OK -- I find that in the real world, when some are too eager to make a point, they choose to misquote or rephrase that which someone originally said or a particular decision or statute. Same here.

If you want to quote the good Dr. Pornthip, at least quote her accurately.

BTW this was NFL football conference playoffs so 2 games SUN Morn and this MON morn starting at 1 AM Thailand time. I listen on the internet radio and so have been online for about 8 hours each morning.

Edited January 18, 2016 by JLCrab

[Khun Han]

^ Didn't one of the B3 scratch his head in that 7/11 CCTV video that weve seen? Can't we read some significance into that? Did the judges? ya know, something like "It's not normal behaviour for innocent people to show signs of nervousness such as scratching your head when buying cigarettes and beer."

Are you for real? A guy scratches his head in a convenience shop, hours before a crime, and that implicates him in the crime? You'd fit right in with the cop investigators. I think a lady was seen scratching her butt, several hours before the crime. She must be executed also.

The old saying "grasping at straws" should be re-written to reflect RTP echoers desperate attempts to nail the scapegoats. Here's a suggestion for a newfangled phrase: "scratching head itch"

Here it is in a sentence: The half dozen Thai establishment supporters continue to 'scratch their head itches' in desperate attempts to find evidence which nail Burmese migrants.

Boomer,

I was making fun of Greenchair's clutching at straws in trying to attach criminal significance to every move by the B3. And there was also a little dig at certain people who got to make a big call, to do with their eagerness to attach criminal significance to things like going skinny dipping at night (not normal behaviour, apparently).

Obviously my sarcasm missed the mark .

[JLCrab]

^ Didn't one of the B3 scratch his head in that 7/11 CCTV video that weve seen? Can't we read some significance into that? Did the judges? ya know, something like "It's not normal behaviour for innocent people to show signs of nervousness such as scratching your head when buying cigarettes and beer."

Are you for real? A guy scratches his head in a convenience shop, hours before a crime, and that implicates him in the crime? You'd fit right in with the cop investigators. I think a lady was seen scratching her butt, several hours before the crime. She must be executed also.

The old saying "grasping at straws" should be re-written to reflect RTP echoers desperate attempts to nail the scapegoats. Here's a suggestion for a newfangled phrase: "scratching head itch"

Here it is in a sentence: The half dozen Thai establishment supporters continue to 'scratch their head itches' in desperate attempts to find evidence which nail Burmese migrants.

Boomer,

I was making fun of Greenchair's clutching at straws in trying to attach criminal significance to every move by the B3. And there was also a little dig at certain people who got to make a big call, to do with their eagerness to attach criminal significance to things like going skinny dipping at night (not normal behaviour, apparently).

Obviously my sarcasm missed the mark .

The use of the words 'normal behavior' comes from the MWRN /Defense translation of the Samui Court judgment. The summary of the Court's ruling from Khaosad English 30 DEC 2015 reads:

Other key points in the verdict: The two defendants said they suddenly had the idea of going swimming in the sea on their way back to the residence. It was in the dead of the night, and it was raining slightly. It is unimaginable that any person would have made this decision, unless they wanted to erase the evidence on their shirts and bodies.

[JLCrab]

Yes -- but I''d still like to drop a few kilograms.

The judges heard the scenario of the early morning swim and have chosen to say in their opinion that it is not credible. If you disagree, that is up to you.

Edited January 18, 2016 by JLCrab

[greenchair]

Let's not forget there was also a 25 % match to the 2nd defendant according to pornthip.

Love the way posters only select the pieces of that suit themselves.

[Khun Han]

^ Didn't one of the B3 scratch his head in that 7/11 CCTV video that weve seen? Can't we read some significance into that? Did the judges? ya know, something like "It's not normal behaviour for innocent people to show signs of nervousness such as scratching your head when buying cigarettes and beer."

Are you for real? A guy scratches his head in a convenience shop, hours before a crime, and that implicates him in the crime? You'd fit right in with the cop investigators. I think a lady was seen scratching her butt, several hours before the crime. She must be executed also.

The old saying "grasping at straws" should be re-written to reflect RTP echoers desperate attempts to nail the scapegoats. Here's a suggestion for a newfangled phrase: "scratching head itch"

Here it is in a sentence: The half dozen Thai establishment supporters continue to 'scratch their head itches' in desperate attempts to find evidence which nail Burmese migrants.

Boomer,

I was making fun of Greenchair's clutching at straws in trying to attach criminal significance to every move by the B3. And there was also a little dig at certain people who got to make a big call, to do with their eagerness to attach criminal significance to things like going skinny dipping at night (not normal behaviour, apparently).

Obviously my sarcasm missed the mark .

The use of the words 'normal behavior' comes from the MWRN /Defense translation of the Samui Court judgment. The summary of the Court's ruling from Khaosad English 30 DEC 2015 reads:

Other key points in the verdict: The two defendants said they suddenly had the idea of going swimming in the sea on their way back to the residence. It was in the dead of the night, and it was raining slightly. It is unimaginable that any person would have made this decision, unless they wanted to erase the evidence on their shirts and bodies.

Which is an even more ridiculous 2+2=5 type interpretation of the swim. The fact that such patent nonsense can be included in a judgement summing-up says it all about Thai 'justice'.

[Khun Han]

Let's not forget there was also a 25 % match to the 2nd defendant according to pornthip.

Love the way posters only select the pieces of that suit themselves.

It was also a 25% match to a banana.

Love the way posters keep repeating the same misunderstandings to suit themselves after being corrected .

Edited January 18, 2016 by Khun Han

[JLCrab]

Yes -- but I''d still like to drop a few kilograms.

The judges heard the scenario of the early morning swim and have chosen to say in their opinion that it is not credible. If you disagree, that is up to you.

Weight loss will have no effect on your posts.

Now tell me truthfully.......If YOUR daughter had her brains spread over a beach, would you be happy with the RTP investigation process... Now DON'T fluff about with words....YES or NO....

I wouldn't be happy at all but this is a sovereign state.

[boomerangutang]

Of the dozens of screw-ups in the investigation, it's difficult to find one which stands out. yet here's one that warrants dishonorable mention:

You remember Ms Pontip saying there were at least 2 sets of DNA on the hoe which didn't match the victims or the defendants? Who wanted to know who those two sets of DNA matched? No one. Granted, One set is probably the gardener. Yet, neither RTP, not prosecution, nor judges nor even the defense council seemed to care who the mystery DNA belonged to.

This is what I remember:

"My experts were able to identify one full DNA profile and one partial DNA profile from the handle of the hoe,” (Dr. Pornthip) said. “However when I placed these two profiles against those provided by the Royal Thai police, said to be from the two Burmese defendants, they did not match.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

"Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, the head of the Thai forensics institute, told judges that two DNA samples found on the bloodied hoe belonged to two males, but neither matched the defendants...." source

Boomer spins: if two samples of males on the hoe don't match the defendants' DNA, then one is probably the gardener, ....who is the other man? No Thai authority wants to know.

Sometimes what's missing or not mentioned speaks loudest. I'll say it again because it's continued to ring true for the past 16 months (since Panya was replaced by Somyot): RTP, prosecution and judges don't want to deal with (or see or hear about) any 'evidence if it doesn't point at the scapegoats. If you can cite one specific example which contradicts my statement, then feel free to do so. In contrast, I and tens of thousands of other concerned observers can point at dozens of clues which implicate other men (other than the scapegoats). You know their names because they've been referred to hundreds of times on these KT crime threads.

[JLCrab]

Yes -- but I''d still like to drop a few kilograms.

The judges heard the scenario of the early morning swim and have chosen to say in their opinion that it is not credible. If you disagree, that is up to you.

Weight loss will have no effect on your posts.

Now tell me truthfully.......If YOUR daughter had her brains spread over a beach, would you be happy with the RTP investigation process... Now DON'T fluff about with words....YES or NO....

I wouldn't be happy at all but this is a sovereign state.

So what......Explain......?

I would notbe happy at all that my daughter had her head bashed in bit this is a sovereign state and I would have no legal standing to challenge anything as my embassy would so advise.

[JLCrab]

Think you ought to back out of this thread.........You are a disgrace to your kids........Gawd 'elp us......

Thank you.