Koh Tao debacle: Shoddy work from beginning to end

[boomerangutang]

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 .

That's so true, it made me laugh. Scientifically, humans are about a 25% DNA match to banana. Look it up. We're probably no further than 20% match to every life form on the planet. Peoples' DNA matches every chimp and bonobo by about 98%. Pop Quiz: Do you know which life form has the largest Y chromosome? Answer: Papaya. I shit you not. Since Y chromosomes grow slightly, the older their lineage, it's theorized that papaya were the first life form with a Y chromosome. Next time you walk by a male papaya tree, wai him, as you would a respected ancestor. (yes, papaya trees are either male and female, similar to pot plants).

[boomerangutang]

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.

He didn't ask if it would bother you if a daughter were murdered. That's an obvious answer. He asked whether you'd be happy (I'd use the word 'satisfied') with the RTP investigation.

As for 'legal standing,' you're off base. A parent does have legal standing. Either or both the victims' families can, within Thai law, launch independent investigations. It I were in their shoes, I would take that option, even though it's expensive and it would be like swimming upstream. The parents can also choose who to hire as investigators. Yet that too could prove problematic. You'd want to hire a detective who spoke Thai, yet what Thai is adept at detective work and/or standing up to authority, other than Pontip? ....and what person would have the gall to investigate things/people which could result in a bullet in the head? ....or knocked on the head and pushed into a swimming pool late at night?

Edited January 18, 2016 by boomerangutang

[JLCrab]

As far as the current legal proceedings at the Court and Appeals, there is no legal standing. If the parents want to file criminal charges against persons of your obvious preference that is something else.

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.

It was also a 25% match to a banana.

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

That's so true, it made me laugh. Scientifically, humans are about a 25% DNA match to banana. Look it up. We're probably no further than 20% match to every life form on the planet. Peoples' DNA matches every chimp and bonobo by about 98%. Pop Quiz: Do you know which life form has the largest Y chromosome? Answer: Papaya. I shit you not. Since Y chromosomes grow slightly, the older their lineage, it's theorized that papaya were the first life form with a Y chromosome. Next time you walk by a male papaya tree, wai him, as you would a respected ancestor. (yes, papaya trees are either male and female, similar to pot plants).

Well why didn't she say there was a 25 % match to the 1st defendant. Or there was 25 % of one of defendants but not sure which one.

Or 25 % that could be from a banana holding the hoe.

Or why mention it at all of it is so insignificant.

And are you saying that I could be a 25 %match on that hoe?

Anyway, you're saying the defense witness testimony about dna is farcical lol.

[rockingrobin]

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 .

That's so true, it made me laugh. Scientifically, humans are about a 25% DNA match to banana. Look it up. We're probably no further than 20% match to every life form on the planet. Peoples' DNA matches every chimp and bonobo by about 98%. Pop Quiz: Do you know which life form has the largest Y chromosome? Answer: Papaya. I shit you not. Since Y chromosomes grow slightly, the older their lineage, it's theorized that papaya were the first life form with a Y chromosome. Next time you walk by a male papaya tree, wai him, as you would a respected ancestor. (yes, papaya trees are either male and female, similar to pot plants).

Well why didn't she say there was a 25 % match to the 1st defendant. Or there was 25 % of one of defendants but not sure which one.

Or 25 % that could be from a banana holding the hoe.

Or why mention it at all of it is so insignificant.

And are you saying that I could be a 25 %match on that hoe?

Anyway, you're saying the defense witness testimony about dna is farcical lol.

The defence statement about the dna is not farcical, in order to comprehend the testimony an understanding of dna typing is needed.

In a nutshell the 1st defendant shared 25% of the dna markers when compared to the sample , the other 75% were not shared, so the conclusion is the defendant could not have been the donor of this sample

[Artisi]

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?

It is easily explained, they seem to be extremely careful in reporting non-sense, false information, false leads, etc., however, carefulness and carelessness are both based solely on the Baht, the bigger the number - the higher the exponential factor applies to either condition.

[KunMatt]

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 .

It's the lucky11 procedure. Make a false argument and then ignore all the explanations. Do this for 1 week.

It's quite amazing how many posters do the same thing. It's almost eerie how similar they are to each other.

[iReason]

Yes KunMatt, it almost seems as if they are sitting in the same room.

That depraved little place where no soul resides.

Keep an eye on the bottom of the page and you will see them lurking.

Daily. For hours.

I can go away for half a day, come back, and there they still are.

DELETED

Edited January 19, 2016 by seedy
troll / flaming

[TheLobster]

You are being baited, don't rise to it.

[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.

It was also a 25% match to a banana.

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

That's so true, it made me laugh. Scientifically, humans are about a 25% DNA match to banana. Look it up. We're probably no further than 20% match to every life form on the planet. Peoples' DNA matches every chimp and bonobo by about 98%. Pop Quiz: Do you know which life form has the largest Y chromosome? Answer: Papaya. I shit you not. Since Y chromosomes grow slightly, the older their lineage, it's theorized that papaya were the first life form with a Y chromosome. Next time you walk by a male papaya tree, wai him, as you would a respected ancestor. (yes, papaya trees are either male and female, similar to pot plants).

Well why didn't she say there was a 25 % match to the 1st defendant. Or there was 25 % of one of defendants but not sure which one.

Or 25 % that could be from a banana holding the hoe.

Or why mention it at all of it is so insignificant.

And are you saying that I could be a 25 %match on that hoe?

Anyway, you're saying the defense witness testimony about dna is farcical lol.

The defence statement about the dna is not farcical, in order to comprehend the testimony an understanding of dna typing is needed.

In a nutshell the 1st defendant shared 25% of the dna markers when compared to the sample , the other 75% were not shared, so the conclusion is the defendant could not have been the donor of this sample

I thought it was the 2nd defendant.

I don't understand why any of his dna showed up at all.

I looked on the Internet half siblings share 25% DNA. They would not share 25 % with any other person . there must be a blood connection to share any dna with another (I think ) nobody that had not touched the hoe would come up 25 % . Anyway, as I said, why did she mention it. I laugh when people answer half a question, because they are tongue tied with the other half and expect people to stop questioning. Politicians, and defense lawyers do it all the time to avoid difficult questions.

[AleG]

It was also a 25% match to a banana.

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

That's so true, it made me laugh. Scientifically, humans are about a 25% DNA match to banana. Look it up. We're probably no further than 20% match to every life form on the planet. Peoples' DNA matches every chimp and bonobo by about 98%. Pop Quiz: Do you know which life form has the largest Y chromosome? Answer: Papaya. I shit you not. Since Y chromosomes grow slightly, the older their lineage, it's theorized that papaya were the first life form with a Y chromosome. Next time you walk by a male papaya tree, wai him, as you would a respected ancestor. (yes, papaya trees are either male and female, similar to pot plants).

Well why didn't she say there was a 25 % match to the 1st defendant. Or there was 25 % of one of defendants but not sure which one.

Or 25 % that could be from a banana holding the hoe.

Or why mention it at all of it is so insignificant.

And are you saying that I could be a 25 %match on that hoe?

Anyway, you're saying the defense witness testimony about dna is farcical lol.

Kun Han and Boomerangutang have no idea what they are talking about, humans and bananas share part of their genome, DNA profiling for humans use specific human genes in specific locations in the human genome, they don't analyze the entire genome and talking about bananas only demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the subject.

What a partial profile matching 25% of the markers on an individual means is that, for example, if the DNA uses 16 locations in the genome to establish a match only 4 locations could be resolved from the sample, and those four locations match those of the suspect.

They also demonstrate they don't know what they are talking about when repeating that nobody knows to who the complete profile from the hoe corresponded to, it was David Miller's DNA; so the results was DNA from two males, one full profile for David Miller and one incomplete profile that did not exclude one of the two Burmese

Rockingrobin also doesn't know what she is talking about, as I explained the partial profile was that, a partial profile; it is not the case that they found a complete profile and 25% matched and 75% didn't; they got only the 25% that matched.

As always the testimony from the defense witness gets completely ignored in favour of muddling the issue (after it has been clarified multiple times):

"The prosecution asked Mr Waiyawuth if the third, incomplete, profile could belong to one of the suspects. He replied that only a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile.

The prosecution said: “So his participation cannot be ruled out.”

Mr Waiyawith replied: “No, but he cannot be included either.”"

In other words, the results didn't exclude one of the suspects, if any of the indicators would had been different that would have excluded him, but they weren't and it didn't.

[AleG]

Yes KunMatt, it almost seems as if they are sitting in the same room.

That depraved little place where no soul resides.

Keep an eye on the bottom of the page and you will see them lurking.

Daily. For hours.

I can go away for half a day, come back, and there they still are.

On this page as well;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/886698-police-consider-prosecuting-koh-tao-victims-sister-over-thailand-criticism/page-20#entry10320459

(Although, they have been scarce lately since I posted what a true professional thinks of this debacle. (See post: #362)

This one particular Troll of which you speak seems to think this whole sordid affair is amusing.

He puts "likes" on posts that have condemned him.

That, along with his childish posts of: “hehe”, “have you missed me”, “telling porkies”, is in my opinion, what makes him a despicable, soulless, pathetic excuse of a human.

What you are saying is that you are monitoring people's page views daily, for hours.

Nothing creepy about that. Nope, not at all...

[greenchair]

It was also a 25% match to a banana.

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

That's so true, it made me laugh. Scientifically, humans are about a 25% DNA match to banana. Look it up. We're probably no further than 20% match to every life form on the planet. Peoples' DNA matches every chimp and bonobo by about 98%. Pop Quiz: Do you know which life form has the largest Y chromosome? Answer: Papaya. I shit you not. Since Y chromosomes grow slightly, the older their lineage, it's theorized that papaya were the first life form with a Y chromosome. Next time you walk by a male papaya tree, wai him, as you would a respected ancestor. (yes, papaya trees are either male and female, similar to pot plants).

Well why didn't she say there was a 25 % match to the 1st defendant. Or there was 25 % of one of defendants but not sure which one.

Or 25 % that could be from a banana holding the hoe.

Or why mention it at all of it is so insignificant.

And are you saying that I could be a 25 %match on that hoe?

Anyway, you're saying the defense witness testimony about dna is farcical lol.

Kun Han and Boomerangutang have no idea what they are talking about, humans and bananas share part of their genome, DNA profiling for humans use specific human genes in specific locations in the human genome, they don't analyze the entire genome and talking about bananas only demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the subject.

What a partial profile matching 25% of the markers on an individual means is that, for example, if the DNA uses 16 locations in the genome to establish a match only 4 locations could be resolved from the sample, and those four locations match those of the suspect.

They also demonstrate they don't know what they are talking about when repeating that nobody knows to who the complete profile from the hoe corresponded to, it was David Miller's DNA; so the results was DNA from two males, one full profile for David Miller and one incomplete profile that did not exclude one of the two Burmese

Rockingrobin also doesn't know what she is talking about, as I explained the partial profile was that, a partial profile; it is not the case that they found a complete profile and 25% matched and 75% didn't; they got only the 25% that matched.

As always the testimony from the defense witness gets completely ignored in favour of muddling the issue (after it has been clarified multiple times):

"The prosecution asked Mr Waiyawuth if the third, incomplete, profile could belong to one of the suspects. He replied that only a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile.

The prosecution said: So his participation cannot be ruled out.

Mr Waiyawith replied: No, but he cannot be included either."

In other words, the results didn't exclude one of the suspects, if any of the indicators would had been different that would have excluded him, but they weren't and it didn't.

Finally, an answer that is factual, reasonable and informative.

Now I have a fair understanding of the 25%.

Was the 25% match found by the police and pornthip. or just pornthip. I'll ask aleg to answer that, since he obviously is more knowledgeable than some of the posters, eh Khun Han.

[greenchair]

Sorry I'm still a bit confused by.

Cannot be ruled out.

But cannot be included either.

What does it mean? ?

[jayjay78]

Sorry I'm still a bit confused by.

Cannot be ruled out.

But cannot be included either.

What does it mean? ?

If you want to know what this 25% match really means have a peek over at this post http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/857515-forensic-team-to-testify-in-koh-tao-murder-trial/?p=9887220

[partington]

Sorry I'm still a bit confused by.

Cannot be ruled out.

But cannot be included either.

What does it mean? ?

It's not difficult.

If your number plate on your car is 3567 GFDE, and a witness reports that the getaway car at a bank robbery had the number 7 and the letter G in its plate, but he couldn't read the rest, that doesn't say it was your car and it doesn't exclude you either.

This is an EXACT analogy to what was reported about the match of 25%. In the DNA profile only 25% of the full profile could be read because of technical limitations. The 25% that was read was also in the suspect profile, but you cannot say it was him because 75% of the profile they were comparing him to was MISSING. However because none of the 25% that COULD be read was different from the suspect you can't say definitely it wasn't him either.

In any case the DNA profile being discussed was a Y-chromosome profile , which, even if they could have read 100% of the markers is not good enough to provide a definitive match, because Y-chromosome profiles are identical between all male relatives: father, son, uncle, brother, and in populations where there is little migration as few as 1 in 1000 unrelated males can have the same Y chromosome profile.

And as a final point, everything that has been said above about bananas DNA and chimps DNA and so on is utter ignorant nonsense, relying on a basic misunderstanding that so-called 25% matches between human and banana DNA (which is probably bs anyway) refers to the ENTIRE LENGTH OF ALL THE DNA IN EACH ORGANISM, more than 3 billion pairs in humans.

Criminal DNA profiles of humans are based on measuring 10 to 13 tiny areas (each ~200base pairs or letters) in HUMAN DNA ONLYwhich all together add up to only around 2500 pairs, scattered at random through the whole 3 billion letters. NONE of these areas are present in banana DNA which if run through a criminal DNA profile process would give a 0% match and no signal, because what a DNA profile detects is not in bananas anywhere!

[somo]

Sorry I'm still a bit confused by.

Cannot be ruled out.

But cannot be included either.

What does it mean? ?

If you want to know what this 25% match really means have a peek over at this post http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/857515-forensic-team-to-testify-in-koh-tao-murder-trial/?p=9887220

Thanks for the link.

The last sentence sums it up really

"this same match could have been obtained from any random man off the street"

Mind you the B2 seem to be excellent examples of "random (Burmese) man off the street" so I guess the RTP thought this was pretty damning evidence.

[AleG]

Kun Han and Boomerangutang have no idea what they are talking about, humans and bananas share part of their genome, DNA profiling for humans use specific human genes in specific locations in the human genome, they don't analyze the entire genome and talking about bananas only demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the subject.

What a partial profile matching 25% of the markers on an individual means is that, for example, if the DNA uses 16 locations in the genome to establish a match only 4 locations could be resolved from the sample, and those four locations match those of the suspect.

They also demonstrate they don't know what they are talking about when repeating that nobody knows to who the complete profile from the hoe corresponded to, it was David Miller's DNA; so the results was DNA from two males, one full profile for David Miller and one incomplete profile that did not exclude one of the two Burmese

Rockingrobin also doesn't know what she is talking about, as I explained the partial profile was that, a partial profile; it is not the case that they found a complete profile and 25% matched and 75% didn't; they got only the 25% that matched.

As always the testimony from the defense witness gets completely ignored in favour of muddling the issue (after it has been clarified multiple times):

"The prosecution asked Mr Waiyawuth if the third, incomplete, profile could belong to one of the suspects. He replied that only a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile.

The prosecution said: So his participation cannot be ruled out.

Mr Waiyawith replied: No, but he cannot be included either."

In other words, the results didn't exclude one of the suspects, if any of the indicators would had been different that would have excluded him, but they weren't and it didn't.

Finally, an answer that is factual, reasonable and informative.

Now I have a fair understanding of the 25%.

Was the 25% match found by the police and pornthip. or just pornthip. I'll ask aleg to answer that, since he obviously is more knowledgeable than some of the posters, eh Khun Han.

I only have a layman's knowledge of genetics, partington already gave an excellent explanation.

[seedy]

off topic and troll flaming post removed and edited

[boomerangutang]

The hoe was reported to have only Hannah's blood and none of David's by RTP's finest. That was the gospel for 11 months, until Ms Pontip found additional DNA. What are RTP's excuses for not finding what Pontip found? Also, how can RTP continue to say the hoe was the murder weapon used on David, when D's blood was not found on it? Perhaps even more indicative of RTP's screwed up forensics: How did they not notice the stab wounds on David's neck and torso? In the RTP report, the only mention of injuries to David was the blunt force trauma on the top of his head. Brit forensics is also remiss for publishing no forensics on David. What official, in Thailand or Britain, is doing a proper job re; the case? Maybe Pontip, though there were holes in what she testified - many things went unmentioned.

And still, no one has even a half baked explanation why some of Hannah's clothing went missing between the time they were gathered at the crime scene, and the trial. Same for the hair. Head cop Somyot, who put himself in charge of the investigation, said emphatically at a press conference in mid-July that "nothing was missing." Is he lying a little of lying big time? Probably the more important question is; 'why is he lying?'. Most of us know why, though it's hard to get statistics when Thai top brass are doing all they can to cover things up. We do know that Somyot was able, with his wife, to plop down a cool $12 million (to buy stocks) a few weeks after he put himself in charge of the investigation. Mr. "clean up corruption" self-appointed MP sees nothing wrong with that, apparently. If he did, he would have spoken up by now, as he's not shy about speaking his mind.

[KunMatt]

The hoe was reported to have only Hannah's blood and none of David's by RTP's finest. That was the gospel for 11 months, until Ms Pontip found additional DNA. What are RTP's excuses for not finding what Pontip found? Also, how can RTP continue to say the hoe was the murder weapon used on David, when D's blood was not found on it? Perhaps even more indicative of RTP's screwed up forensics: How did they not notice the stab wounds on David's neck and torso? In the RTP report, the only mention of injuries to David was the blunt force trauma on the top of his head. Brit forensics is also remiss for publishing no forensics on David. What official, in Thailand or Britain, is doing a proper job re; the case? Maybe Pontip, though there were holes in what she testified - many things went unmentioned.

And still, no one has even a half baked explanation why some of Hannah's clothing went missing between the time they were gathered at the crime scene, and the trial. Same for the hair. Head cop Somyot, who put himself in charge of the investigation, said emphatically at a press conference in mid-July that "nothing was missing." Is he lying a little of lying big time? Probably the more important question is; 'why is he lying?'. Most of us know why, though it's hard to get statistics when Thai top brass are doing all they can to cover things up. We do know that Somyot was able, with his wife, to plop down a cool $12 million (to buy stocks) a few weeks after he put himself in charge of the investigation. Mr. "clean up corruption" self-appointed MP sees nothing wrong with that, apparently. If he did, he would have spoken up by now, as he's not shy about speaking his mind.

Obviously the weapon that killed Hannah was different to the weapon that killed David. Not because of DNA evidence but because Hannah's horrific injuries from 1 or 2 hits by the hoe are completely different to David who was hit by a weapon about a dozen times.

I believe that the hoe was used to caused Hannah's severe injuries, it's the type of injury I would expect a Thai hoe to cause. David's multiple lesser injuries could not have been caused by the same weapon.

Anyone who argues that the same single weapon caused completely different injuries to each victim is clearly lying.

[Khun Han]

The hoe was reported to have only Hannah's blood and none of David's by RTP's finest. That was the gospel for 11 months, until Ms Pontip found additional DNA. What are RTP's excuses for not finding what Pontip found? Also, how can RTP continue to say the hoe was the murder weapon used on David, when D's blood was not found on it? Perhaps even more indicative of RTP's screwed up forensics: How did they not notice the stab wounds on David's neck and torso? In the RTP report, the only mention of injuries to David was the blunt force trauma on the top of his head. Brit forensics is also remiss for publishing no forensics on David. What official, in Thailand or Britain, is doing a proper job re; the case? Maybe Pontip, though there were holes in what she testified - many things went unmentioned.

And still, no one has even a half baked explanation why some of Hannah's clothing went missing between the time they were gathered at the crime scene, and the trial. Same for the hair. Head cop Somyot, who put himself in charge of the investigation, said emphatically at a press conference in mid-July that "nothing was missing." Is he lying a little of lying big time? Probably the more important question is; 'why is he lying?'. Most of us know why, though it's hard to get statistics when Thai top brass are doing all they can to cover things up. We do know that Somyot was able, with his wife, to plop down a cool $12 million (to buy stocks) a few weeks after he put himself in charge of the investigation. Mr. "clean up corruption" self-appointed MP sees nothing wrong with that, apparently. If he did, he would have spoken up by now, as he's not shy about speaking his mind.

"Mr. "clean up corruption" self-appointed MP sees nothing wrong with that, apparently. If he did, he would have spoken up by now, as he's not shy about speaking his mind."

The Tuvichiens are 'good people'. They helped overthrow those selfish Shins, who were keeping too many 'good people' away from the trough. They are a minor faction of one of the favoured cliques. They are to be looked after in times of trouble (for a fee, of course).

Edited January 19, 2016 by Khun Han

[Thesticle]

I recently noticed that leo beer are sponsoring the " World Famous Koh Tao Pub crawl" and its advertised on FB.. This is the event that David and Hannah attended on the night of their murder. As a way of keeping this in the lime light I urge people to go to the page and voice their opinion. This forum is for the most part in agreement and has a general grasp of what has occured. The Leo/Koh Tao page has over three thousand likes this is a chance to reveal a bit aboit what goes on in Koh Tao to people who might be unaware. Also highlighting the link between Koh Tao and Leo might lead to some corporate rethinking if enough people get on board. Be pro active and check the page out , thanks

Edited January 19, 2016 by Thesticle

[Khun Han]

Sorry I'm still a bit confused by.

Cannot be ruled out.

But cannot be included either.

What does it mean? ?

It's not difficult.

If your number plate on your car is 3567 GFDE, and a witness reports that the getaway car at a bank robbery had the number 7 and the letter G in its plate, but he couldn't read the rest, that doesn't say it was your car and it doesn't exclude you either.

This is an EXACT analogy to what was reported about the match of 25%. In the DNA profile only 25% of the full profile could be read because of technical limitations. The 25% that was read was also in the suspect profile, but you cannot say it was him because 75% of the profile they were comparing him to was MISSING. However because none of the 25% that COULD be read was different from the suspect you can't say definitely it wasn't him either.

In any case the DNA profile being discussed was a Y-chromosome profile , which, even if they could have read 100% of the markers is not good enough to provide a definitive match, because Y-chromosome profiles are identical between all male relatives: father, son, uncle, brother, and in populations where there is little migration as few as 1 in 1000 unrelated males can have the same Y chromosome profile.

And as a final point, everything that has been said above about bananas DNA and chimps DNA and so on is utter ignorant nonsense, relying on a basic misunderstanding that so-called 25% matches between human and banana DNA (which is probably bs anyway) refers to the ENTIRE LENGTH OF ALL THE DNA IN EACH ORGANISM, more than 3 billion pairs in humans.

Criminal DNA profiles of humans are based on measuring 10 to 13 tiny areas (each ~200base pairs or letters) in HUMAN DNA ONLYwhich all together add up to only around 2500 pairs, scattered at random through the whole 3 billion letters. NONE of these areas are present in banana DNA which if run through a criminal DNA profile process would give a 0% match and no signal, because what a DNA profile detects is not in bananas anywhere!

The police forensics department report in this case is so poor, they might as well have tested a banana (if they actually tested anything at all, which is debatable).

[greenchair]

Sorry I'm still a bit confused by.

Cannot be ruled out.

But cannot be included either.

What does it mean? ?

It's not difficult.

If your number plate on your car is 3567 GFDE, and a witness reports that the getaway car at a bank robbery had the number 7 and the letter G in its plate, but he couldn't read the rest, that doesn't say it was your car and it doesn't exclude you either.

This is an EXACT analogy to what was reported about the match of 25%. In the DNA profile only 25% of the full profile could be read because of technical limitations. The 25% that was read was also in the suspect profile, but you cannot say it was him because 75% of the profile they were comparing him to was MISSING. However because none of the 25% that COULD be read was different from the suspect you can't say definitely it wasn't him either.

In any case the DNA profile being discussed was a Y-chromosome profile , which, even if they could have read 100% of the markers is not good enough to provide a definitive match, because Y-chromosome profiles are identical between all male relatives: father, son, uncle, brother, and in populations where there is little migration as few as 1 in 1000 unrelated males can have the same Y chromosome profile.

And as a final point, everything that has been said above about bananas DNA and chimps DNA and so on is utter ignorant nonsense, relying on a basic misunderstanding that so-called 25% matches between human and banana DNA (which is probably bs anyway) refers to the ENTIRE LENGTH OF ALL THE DNA IN EACH ORGANISM, more than 3 billion pairs in humans.

Criminal DNA profiles of humans are based on measuring 10 to 13 tiny areas (each ~200base pairs or letters) in HUMAN DNA ONLYwhich all together add up to only around 2500 pairs, scattered at random through the whole 3 billion letters. NONE of these areas are present in banana DNA which if run through a criminal DNA profile process would give a 0% match and no signal, because what a DNA profile detects is not in bananas anywhere!

The police forensics department report in this case is so poor, they might as well have tested a banana (if they actually tested anything at all, which is debatable).

So now the police didn't even do a test. Just wrote some made up information on a bit of paper.

Except that this test was by pornthip.

I understand better now.

So if someone robbed a bank, but only part of the licence was seen. Then if it was on an island of maybe a thousand people , and of those thousand people 5 had license plates with that number and that letter. If the police went to search each of those 5 people houses. Then in the bushes behind 1 of those houses was a torn up bank bag, from the same bank that had just been robbed. And there was video footage of the plate owner near the bank running around half naked . And none of the other houses had any connection at all to the bank.

Then would it be fair to say, it is highly probable that the person in possession of the bank bag would be a prime suspect.

[tomacht8]

Sorry I'm still a bit confused by.

Cannot be ruled out.

But cannot be included either.

What does it mean? ?

It's not difficult.

If your number plate on your car is 3567 GFDE, and a witness reports that the getaway car at a bank robbery had the number 7 and the letter G in its plate, but he couldn't read the rest, that doesn't say it was your car and it doesn't exclude you either.

This is an EXACT analogy to what was reported about the match of 25%. In the DNA profile only 25% of the full profile could be read because of technical limitations. The 25% that was read was also in the suspect profile, but you cannot say it was him because 75% of the profile they were comparing him to was MISSING. However because none of the 25% that COULD be read was different from the suspect you can't say definitely it wasn't him either.

In any case the DNA profile being discussed was a Y-chromosome profile , which, even if they could have read 100% of the markers is not good enough to provide a definitive match, because Y-chromosome profiles are identical between all male relatives: father, son, uncle, brother, and in populations where there is little migration as few as 1 in 1000 unrelated males can have the same Y chromosome profile.

And as a final point, everything that has been said above about bananas DNA and chimps DNA and so on is utter ignorant nonsense, relying on a basic misunderstanding that so-called 25% matches between human and banana DNA (which is probably bs anyway) refers to the ENTIRE LENGTH OF ALL THE DNA IN EACH ORGANISM, more than 3 billion pairs in humans.

Criminal DNA profiles of humans are based on measuring 10 to 13 tiny areas (each ~200base pairs or letters) in HUMAN DNA ONLYwhich all together add up to only around 2500 pairs, scattered at random through the whole 3 billion letters. NONE of these areas are present in banana DNA which if run through a criminal DNA profile process would give a 0% match and no signal, because what a DNA profile detects is not in bananas anywhere!

The police forensics department report in this case is so poor, they might as well have tested a banana (if they actually tested anything at all, which is debatable).

So now the police didn't even do a test. Just wrote some made up information on a bit of paper.

Except that this test was by pornthip.

I understand better now.

So if someone robbed a bank, but only part of the licence was seen. Then if it was on an island of maybe a thousand people , and of those thousand people 5 had license plates with that number and that letter. If the police went to search each of those 5 people houses. Then in the bushes behind 1 of those houses was a torn up bank bag, from the same bank that had just been robbed. And there was video footage of the plate owner near the bank running around half naked . And none of the other houses had any connection at all to the bank.

Then would it be fair to say, it is highly probable that the person in possession of the bank bag would be a prime suspect.

25% from 1000 people are 250 people and not 5.

Mathematics and logic are not well your strength ?

Edited January 19, 2016 by tomacht8

[KunMatt]

Sorry I'm still a bit confused by.

Cannot be ruled out.

But cannot be included either.

What does it mean? ?

It's not difficult.

If your number plate on your car is 3567 GFDE, and a witness reports that the getaway car at a bank robbery had the number 7 and the letter G in its plate, but he couldn't read the rest, that doesn't say it was your car and it doesn't exclude you either.

This is an EXACT analogy to what was reported about the match of 25%. In the DNA profile only 25% of the full profile could be read because of technical limitations. The 25% that was read was also in the suspect profile, but you cannot say it was him because 75% of the profile they were comparing him to was MISSING. However because none of the 25% that COULD be read was different from the suspect you can't say definitely it wasn't him either.

In any case the DNA profile being discussed was a Y-chromosome profile , which, even if they could have read 100% of the markers is not good enough to provide a definitive match, because Y-chromosome profiles are identical between all male relatives: father, son, uncle, brother, and in populations where there is little migration as few as 1 in 1000 unrelated males can have the same Y chromosome profile.

And as a final point, everything that has been said above about bananas DNA and chimps DNA and so on is utter ignorant nonsense, relying on a basic misunderstanding that so-called 25% matches between human and banana DNA (which is probably bs anyway) refers to the ENTIRE LENGTH OF ALL THE DNA IN EACH ORGANISM, more than 3 billion pairs in humans.

Criminal DNA profiles of humans are based on measuring 10 to 13 tiny areas (each ~200base pairs or letters) in HUMAN DNA ONLYwhich all together add up to only around 2500 pairs, scattered at random through the whole 3 billion letters. NONE of these areas are present in banana DNA which if run through a criminal DNA profile process would give a 0% match and no signal, because what a DNA profile detects is not in bananas anywhere!

The police forensics department report in this case is so poor, they might as well have tested a banana (if they actually tested anything at all, which is debatable).

So now the police didn't even do a test. Just wrote some made up information on a bit of paper.

Except that this test was by pornthip.

I understand better now.

So if someone robbed a bank, but only part of the licence was seen. Then if it was on an island of maybe a thousand people , and of those thousand people 5 had license plates with that number and that letter. If the police went to search each of those 5 people houses. Then in the bushes behind 1 of those houses was a torn up bank bag, from the same bank that had just been robbed. And there was video footage of the plate owner near the bank running around half naked . And none of the other houses had any connection at all to the bank.

Then would it be fair to say, it is highly probable that the person in possession of the bank bag would be a prime suspect.

So do you think the B2 are solely guilty of the 2 murders?

[berybert]

Sorry I'm still a bit confused by.

Cannot be ruled out.

But cannot be included either.

What does it mean? ?

It's not difficult.

If your number plate on your car is 3567 GFDE, and a witness reports that the getaway car at a bank robbery had the number 7 and the letter G in its plate, but he couldn't read the rest, that doesn't say it was your car and it doesn't exclude you either.

This is an EXACT analogy to what was reported about the match of 25%. In the DNA profile only 25% of the full profile could be read because of technical limitations. The 25% that was read was also in the suspect profile, but you cannot say it was him because 75% of the profile they were comparing him to was MISSING. However because none of the 25% that COULD be read was different from the suspect you can't say definitely it wasn't him either.

In any case the DNA profile being discussed was a Y-chromosome profile , which, even if they could have read 100% of the markers is not good enough to provide a definitive match, because Y-chromosome profiles are identical between all male relatives: father, son, uncle, brother, and in populations where there is little migration as few as 1 in 1000 unrelated males can have the same Y chromosome profile.

And as a final point, everything that has been said above about bananas DNA and chimps DNA and so on is utter ignorant nonsense, relying on a basic misunderstanding that so-called 25% matches between human and banana DNA (which is probably bs anyway) refers to the ENTIRE LENGTH OF ALL THE DNA IN EACH ORGANISM, more than 3 billion pairs in humans.

Criminal DNA profiles of humans are based on measuring 10 to 13 tiny areas (each ~200base pairs or letters) in HUMAN DNA ONLYwhich all together add up to only around 2500 pairs, scattered at random through the whole 3 billion letters. NONE of these areas are present in banana DNA which if run through a criminal DNA profile process would give a 0% match and no signal, because what a DNA profile detects is not in bananas anywhere!

The police forensics department report in this case is so poor, they might as well have tested a banana (if they actually tested anything at all, which is debatable).

So now the police didn't even do a test. Just wrote some made up information on a bit of paper.

Except that this test was by pornthip.

I understand better now.

So if someone robbed a bank, but only part of the licence was seen. Then if it was on an island of maybe a thousand people , and of those thousand people 5 had license plates with that number and that letter. If the police went to search each of those 5 people houses. Then in the bushes behind 1 of those houses was a torn up bank bag, from the same bank that had just been robbed. And there was video footage of the plate owner near the bank running around half naked . And none of the other houses had any connection at all to the bank.

Then would it be fair to say, it is highly probable that the person in possession of the bank bag would be a prime suspect.

Greenchair can you explain how you went from spending hours trying to work out who the running man was, and you were 100% sure it was neither of the Burmese back in the not so long ago. To being 100% convinced it is one of the Burmese because a policeman said it was. Not forgetting that a man called Mon said he was running man. Do you think Mon was lying because he was trying to cover for the Burmses guys ? Maybe he had hoped if he lied they would get away with the murders ?

[iReason]

#1. Is the broken hoe allegedly found at the brutal double murder scene.

#2. Is the hoe presented as evidence.

Edited January 19, 2016 by iReason

[AleG]

#1. Is the broken hoe allegedly found at the brutal double murder scene.

#2. Is the hoe presented as evidence.

#2 is not the hoe presented as evidence; you are, quite simply, spreading false information.