Evidence from UK's National Crime Agency 'critical' in sentencing Koh Tao killers to death

[StealthEnergiser]

att : Greenchair it looks like experts disagree with you are you going to continue with your false accusations about the 25% match ?

Partington 23/9/2015

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.

Edited February 27, 2016 by StealthEnergiser

[greenchair]

DM07, on 26 Feb 2016 - 05:32, said:

IslandLover, on 26 Feb 2016 - 04:56, said:

greenchair, on 26 Feb 2016 - 04:29, said:greenchair, on 26 Feb 2016 - 04:29, said:

Rumour is that Muang Muang the dj is the one having the argument. He left the island immediately on the morning of the murders. Since it is a rumour, it is certainly possible, that the argument was between Muang Muang and david. The rumour was that someone was getting fresh with hannah and david stepped in. Although the rumour has 3 branches.

1.Muang Muang dj had an argument and david stepped in to help.

2.mon or nomsod were getting fresh with hannah and david stepped in.

3.Muang Muang motorbike had argument with nomsod /mon and david stepped in.

4.Muang Muang dj got fresh with hannah and david stepped in.

Try taking that to court lol.

I don't know why the noids think this in the b2 favour, once again, if even 1 of them is true, it shows a connection between the burmese and david.

Just like the noids think pornthip got a point because she showed an unknown man, but totally ignore that she found a 25 % match to Wei Phyo.

It all comes down to perspective I guess.

Could somebody versed in the science of DNA please explain to greenchair what a 25 percent DNA match actually means?

Again?

There was a poster on the Koh Tao threads who could explain the what the 25 percent DNA match actually means in layman's terms for those who misinterpret its meaning. I can't remember his/her user name and he/she has not posted for a while unfortunately.

That's right, he said its like having the number on a licence plate without the letters. Which means if your car had that number you neither be included nor excluded as said by the expert at the trial. However when looking at such a small island how many people would have a car with that number.

But then that partial number also match the full number that was in the victim, and that full number matched Wei Phyo. So it would be quite a coincidence for the police to have faked the dna number that also matched to pornthip findings.

Then we can say.

How many people had part of the number, that matched part of a number found in victim ,had the victims belongings, were on the island, at the or very near to the crime throughout the night,

Drank wine, and smoked that brand of ciggerettes that was also found to match the dna on the victim. Any one of us might match up to one of these things on any given day. But in the entire world there is only one person that matched all of these anomalies together.

Wei Phyo

[IslandLover]

Moonsterk, on 26 Feb 2016 - 07:59, said:

bannork, on 26 Feb 2016 - 07:16, said:

I wish posters would give up trying to link the 3 deaths of the Frenchman, the young woman and Luke Miller to the deaths of Hannah and David.

The Frenchman left a suicide note in French which the family were satisfied with, presumably they recognized his style of writing as well as his handwriting. Or was it written by the mafia who are all fluent in French no doubt?

The woman, Christine, was taking far too many drugs for her own good, all tragically documented on her facebook page prior to her death.

Luke Miller, high risk antics again, yolo! Sometimes it seems to me folks in the West, especially in the UK with its nanny state, seem to have forgotten life is fragile, sometimes there is no safety net if you do something stupid.

Is it a form of sordid entertainment?

Suicide is so blase you know, and how snore, some guy fell off a roof.

Annsely was just too attractive so you know no way she died of natural causes.

The conspiracy based on assumptions and erred info needs other murders to thrive. A one off murder just isn't enough.

and how snore, some guy fell off a roof.

I take it you are referring to the recent death of Luke Miller. Why do you refer to his death in such derogatory terms?

[greenchair]

And I see in your analogy stealy it says if the profile had a dna of 20 and the victim had a dna of 11 in that exact place, it would conclusively exclude him. But in this case the (example ) marker of 20 did match the marker in that place on the victim. That's why the expert could not exclude Wei Phyo. But could not include either because the other numbers were not there. There may well be 300 other people on the island that have that number. But they were not at the beach at 2am to 5am. They did not have the victims phone. They did not drink wine on that night. They did not smoke that brand of ciggerettes. They did not suddenly go swimming at 2 o'clock in the morning in the rain. They not leave their shoes a few meters from the crime.

Your analysis helped me a lot and just shows that it puts Wei Phyo right up there on the suspect list because he unequivocally could not be excluded.

[IslandLover]

Khun Han, on 26 Feb 2016 - 22:45, said:

With regard the method by which David's iphone was identified, this is what the court report stated:

"Pol. Col. Krisna Pattanacharoen verified the IMEI number of the exhibited mobile phone via coordination with officers at the British Embassy of Thailand, considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased, according to the Record of Testimony, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 55."

But media reports from the time of Pol Col Pattanacharoen's testimony refer to a sim card being identified:

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/08/28/thai-murders-trial-confusion-over-cctv-footage/

"Fellow Thai police Colonel Kissana Phathanacharoen also confirmed that Mr Miller’s phone had been found discarded near the lodgings of the defendants, and that the UK’s National Crime Agency had identified the SIM card as belonging to the Islander."

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/16198-thai-police-confirm-british-cooperation-in-koh-tao-case.html

"Royal Thai Police Colonel Kissana Phathanacharoen confirmed to the Koh Samui court that a phone owned by one of the deceased, David Miller, 24, had been found discarded near the lodgings of the defendants.

The UK National Crime Agency later identified the SIM card as being Mr Miller’s, he said."

Another report from the time in the Great Yarmouth Mercury appears to be syndicated from the same source as the Jersey Evening Post one.

Did Pol Col Kissana/Krisna take the stand more than once, confirming the sim card on one testimony and the IMEI on another? Is the sim card ID a mistake? Or is the IMEI ID a mistake?

"Pol. Col. Krisna Pattanacharoen verified the IMEI number of the exhibited mobile phone via coordination with officers at the British Embassy of Thailand, considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased, according to the Record of Testimony, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 55."

What testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware? The only time he was questioned by the RTP was immediately after the murders and all he could have confirmed was the make and model of David's phone (a common iPhone like millions of others).

[catsanddogs]

With regard the method by which David's iphone was identified, this is what the court report stated:

"Pol. Col. Krisna Pattanacharoen verified the IMEI number of the exhibited mobile phone via coordination with officers at the British Embassy of Thailand, considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased, according to the Record of Testimony, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 55."

But media reports from the time of Pol Col Pattanacharoen's testimony refer to a sim card being identified:

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/08/28/thai-murders-trial-confusion-over-cctv-footage/

"Fellow Thai police Colonel Kissana Phathanacharoen also confirmed that Mr Miller’s phone had been found discarded near the lodgings of the defendants, and that the UK’s National Crime Agency had identified the SIM card as belonging to the Islander."

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/16198-thai-police-confirm-british-cooperation-in-koh-tao-case.html

"Royal Thai Police Colonel Kissana Phathanacharoen confirmed to the Koh Samui court that a phone owned by one of the deceased, David Miller, 24, had been found discarded near the lodgings of the defendants.

The UK National Crime Agency later identified the SIM card as being Mr Miller’s, he said."

Another report from the time in the Great Yarmouth Mercury appears to be syndicated from the same source as the Jersey Evening Post one.

Did Pol Col Kissana/Krisna take the stand more than once, confirming the sim card on one testimony and the IMEI on another? Is the sim card ID a mistake? Or is the IMEI ID a mistake?

considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased,

And as highlighted on this thread before, how on earth could Chris Ware identify a phone to be David's weeks later when he was off the island of Koh Tao? Did David's phone have distinguishing marks on it that Chris Ware could say without dispute could only be David's phone? Did Chris verify it was David's phone via photos sent to him of an iphone 4 by the RTP? Surely that wouldn't hold up in court? Or did Chris identify the phone while he was still on Koh Tao, in which case David's phone couldn't be the one found at the lodgings of the B2.

Shame the bottles on the table are in the way on the last known photo of the group at Choppers. Looks like David has his phone on the table here as do Hannah and Matt Barratt.

[smedly]

There was a poster on the Koh Tao threads who could explain the what the 25 percent DNA match actually means in layman's terms for those who misinterpret its meaning. I can't remember his/her user name and he/she has not posted for a while unfortunately.

Partington.

found this post for Greenchair to argue with .

Partington wrote jan 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and just to add to this perfect solid case presented to the court and the perfectly justified verdict based on ...... well nothing at all

jucel, on 02 Jan 2016 - 18:56, said:

DNA Failings

1. It consists of a one page table replete with hand written amendments, date changes and data alterations. This document would NOT be admissible in any court in the UK, Australia, USA, EU, Hong Kong, Malaysia or Singapore.

2. It is NOT supported by any case notes, chain-of-custody records, nor statistics based on validated population data bases. The omission of that information is a COMPLETE abrogation of international ISO 17025 standards and would lead to a FULL audit of the police laboratory by an international accreditation agency!

3. The table has been used to match DNA components, which is an extreme oversimplification of the entire DNA process! It relies on single alleles rather than genotypes. (An allele is ONE of a pair of genes that appear in ONE part of a chromosome that help to determine heredity traits.)

4. Because there is NO statistical analysis to determine the probability of the stated frequencies in the table, it is absolutely NOT possible to determine the likelihood of the accused as being the contributors to the mixture! There, in fact, could be a VERY large number of other individuals who could NOT be ruled out as contributors!

5. It is, therefore, COMPLETELY erroneous (wrong) to claim a DNA match on the basis of the position of mere alleles on a DNA molecule without statistics to determine the probability!

For these reasons, it CANNOT be said (from any kind of scientific or legal standpoint) that there was a match between the DNA from the semen the police alleged to have and the DNA that was (forcibly, without consent or legal representation) retrieved from the two accused! Basing the conviction on COMPLETELY flawed DNA evidence has resulted in an EXTREME miscarriage of justice!

SiSePuede419, on 03 Jan 2016 - 07:00, said:

"therefore, COMPLETELY erroneous (wrong) to claim a DNA match on the basis of the position of mere alleles on a DNA molecule without statistics to determine the probability"

Exactly. Asian people are the most similar DNA phenotype (except for Native Americans).

Any two Americans (large ethnic mixture from all over the world) have about a 7% chance of matching any given loci on a chromosome.

I would guess any two Asians would be even higher.

Is it 100%? 90%? 80%? 70%?

This would change the interpretation of the DNA tests considerably.

I suggest to anyone interested that they should copy this text and post it every time a discussion about DNA appears on these threads

[Moonsterk]

And I see in your analogy stealy it says if the profile had a dna of 20 and the victim had a dna of 11 in that exact place, it would conclusively exclude him. But in this case the (example ) marker of 20 did match the marker in that place on the victim. That's why the expert could not exclude Wei Phyo. But could not include either because the other numbers were not there. There may well be 300 other people on the island that have that number. But they were not at the beach at 2am to 5am. They did not have the victims phone. They did not drink wine on that night. They did not smoke that brand of ciggerettes. They did not suddenly go swimming at 2 o'clock in the morning in the rain. They not leave their shoes a few meters from the crime.

Your analysis helped me a lot and just shows that it puts Wei Phyo right up there on the suspect list because he unequivocally could not be excluded.

Great summation ( and not at all " childish" ) The more the defenders write, the more they indict.

[AleG]

With regard the method by which David's iphone was identified, this is what the court report stated:

"Pol. Col. Krisna Pattanacharoen verified the IMEI number of the exhibited mobile phone via coordination with officers at the British Embassy of Thailand, considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased, according to the Record of Testimony, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 55."

But media reports from the time of Pol Col Pattanacharoen's testimony refer to a sim card being identified:

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/08/28/thai-murders-trial-confusion-over-cctv-footage/

"Fellow Thai police Colonel Kissana Phathanacharoen also confirmed that Mr Miller’s phone had been found discarded near the lodgings of the defendants, and that the UK’s National Crime Agency had identified the SIM card as belonging to the Islander."

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/16198-thai-police-confirm-british-cooperation-in-koh-tao-case.html

"Royal Thai Police Colonel Kissana Phathanacharoen confirmed to the Koh Samui court that a phone owned by one of the deceased, David Miller, 24, had been found discarded near the lodgings of the defendants.

The UK National Crime Agency later identified the SIM card as being Mr Miller’s, he said."

Another report from the time in the Great Yarmouth Mercury appears to be syndicated from the same source as the Jersey Evening Post one.

Did Pol Col Kissana/Krisna take the stand more than once, confirming the sim card on one testimony and the IMEI on another? Is the sim card ID a mistake? Or is the IMEI ID a mistake?

considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased,

And as highlighted on this thread before, how on earth could Chris Ware identify a phone to be David's weeks later when he was off the island of Koh Tao? Did David's phone have distinguishing marks on it that Chris Ware could say without dispute could only be David's phone? Did Chris verify it was David's phone via photos sent to him of an iphone 4 by the RTP? Surely that wouldn't hold up in court? Or did Chris identify the phone while he was still on Koh Tao, in which case David's phone couldn't be the one found at the lodgings of the B2.

Shame the bottles on the table are in the way on the last known photo of the group at Choppers. Looks like David has his phone on the table here as do Hannah and Matt Barratt.

Or, as anyone not too desperate to not understand things could see, he provided a description of the phone which was used by the police to look for it; they found a phone that matched that description and further investigations proved it was David Miller's phone.

It's not all that hard to understand it, is it? If tomorrow I witness a crime and I tell the police that the getaway car had X license plate and the police use that information to search for the suspect, I've already provided information that helps identify the suspect even if they never talk with me ever again.

[smedly]

There was a poster on the Koh Tao threads who could explain the what the 25 percent DNA match actually means in layman's terms for those who misinterpret its meaning. I can't remember his/her user name and he/she has not posted for a while unfortunately.

Partington.

found this post for Greenchair to argue with .

Partington wrote jan 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and just to add to this perfect solid case presented to the court and the perfectly justified verdict based on ...... well nothing at all

jucel, on 02 Jan 2016 - 18:56, said:

DNA Failings

1. It consists of a one page table replete with hand written amendments, date changes and data alterations. This document would NOT be admissible in any court in the UK, Australia, USA, EU, Hong Kong, Malaysia or Singapore.

2. It is NOT supported by any case notes, chain-of-custody records, nor statistics based on validated population data bases. The omission of that information is a COMPLETE abrogation of international ISO 17025 standards and would lead to a FULL audit of the police laboratory by an international accreditation agency!

3. The table has been used to match DNA components, which is an extreme oversimplification of the entire DNA process! It relies on single alleles rather than genotypes. (An allele is ONE of a pair of genes that appear in ONE part of a chromosome that help to determine heredity traits.)

4. Because there is NO statistical analysis to determine the probability of the stated frequencies in the table, it is absolutely NOT possible to determine the likelihood of the accused as being the contributors to the mixture! There, in fact, could be a VERY large number of other individuals who could NOT be ruled out as contributors!

5. It is, therefore, COMPLETELY erroneous (wrong) to claim a DNA match on the basis of the position of mere alleles on a DNA molecule without statistics to determine the probability!

For these reasons, it CANNOT be said (from any kind of scientific or legal standpoint) that there was a match between the DNA from the semen the police alleged to have and the DNA that was (forcibly, without consent or legal representation) retrieved from the two accused! Basing the conviction on COMPLETELY flawed DNA evidence has resulted in an EXTREME miscarriage of justice!

SiSePuede419, on 03 Jan 2016 - 07:00, said:

"therefore, COMPLETELY erroneous (wrong) to claim a DNA match on the basis of the position of mere alleles on a DNA molecule without statistics to determine the probability"

Exactly. Asian people are the most similar DNA phenotype (except for Native Americans).

Any two Americans (large ethnic mixture from all over the world) have about a 7% chance of matching any given loci on a chromosome.

I would guess any two Asians would be even higher.

Is it 100%? 90%? 80%? 70%?

This would change the interpretation of the DNA tests considerably.

I suggest to anyone interested that they should copy this text and post it every time a discussion about DNA appears on these threads

and just to add

we are talking about DNA were the original samples which would have been plentiful and taken several times both at the crime scene and autopsy have yet to be produced

I wonder why

[Moonsterk]

and just to add to this perfect solid case presented to the court and the perfectly justified verdict based on ...... well nothing at all

jucel, on 02 Jan 2016 - 18:56, said:

DNA Failings

1. It consists of a one page table replete with hand written amendments, date changes and data alterations. This document would NOT be admissible in any court in the UK, Australia, USA, EU, Hong Kong, Malaysia or Singapore.

2. It is NOT supported by any case notes, chain-of-custody records, nor statistics based on validated population data bases. The omission of that information is a COMPLETE abrogation of international ISO 17025 standards and would lead to a FULL audit of the police laboratory by an international accreditation agency!

3. The table has been used to match DNA components, which is an extreme oversimplification of the entire DNA process! It relies on single alleles rather than genotypes. (An allele is ONE of a pair of genes that appear in ONE part of a chromosome that help to determine heredity traits.)

4. Because there is NO statistical analysis to determine the probability of the stated frequencies in the table, it is absolutely NOT possible to determine the likelihood of the accused as being the contributors to the mixture! There, in fact, could be a VERY large number of other individuals who could NOT be ruled out as contributors!

5. It is, therefore, COMPLETELY erroneous (wrong) to claim a DNA match on the basis of the position of mere alleles on a DNA molecule without statistics to determine the probability!

For these reasons, it CANNOT be said (from any kind of scientific or legal standpoint) that there was a match between the DNA from the semen the police alleged to have and the DNA that was (forcibly, without consent or legal representation) retrieved from the two accused! Basing the conviction on COMPLETELY flawed DNA evidence has resulted in an EXTREME miscarriage of justice!

SiSePuede419, on 03 Jan 2016 - 07:00, said:

"therefore, COMPLETELY erroneous (wrong) to claim a DNA match on the basis of the position of mere alleles on a DNA molecule without statistics to determine the probability"

Exactly. Asian people are the most similar DNA phenotype (except for Native Americans).

Any two Americans (large ethnic mixture from all over the world) have about a 7% chance of matching any given loci on a chromosome.

I would guess any two Asians would be even higher.

Is it 100%? 90%? 80%? 70%?

This would change the interpretation of the DNA tests considerably.

I suggest to anyone interested that they should copy this text and post it every time a discussion about DNA appears on these threads

and just to add

we are talking about DNA were the original samples which would have been plentiful and taken several times both at the crime scene and autopsy have yet to be produced

I wonder why

I thought we were going to stick to the topic from now on? But that c/p above sure goes in the " baffle 'em with techno BS" category of defense.

OK troops, c/p it whenever a point is made you can't think of an answer for.

Yeah, stick with that on a defense. So how does Thailand put convicts to death these day? It's been, since....what 2009?

[boomerangutang]

Robert Holmes isn't the one who has been attacking AH, its certain activists who used to be close to AH along with Ian Yarwood who even questioned AH's university degree, with the help of these activists Ian Yarwood's open letter was spread all over the internet, against the wishes of some who thought it might damage the B2 chance of a retrial.

Making AH lose face was more important than trying to get freedom for the B2 for a certain activist, which just goes to show how egotistical and self serving some of these people are.

The cat is out the bag and the faults of AH and defense team have been spread all over social media and a photo of RH & AH isn't going to change that.

Personality stuff, so what? Most of us here are trying to gauge what really happened at the crime. If you want to go around the neighborhood, looking into windows at night to see what people are squabbling about, that's your choice. But it's a waste of calories for the rest of us to read.

Anyone want to post a list of translators available on Samui ?

Lucky for activists there friend Sarah Yeun was not threatened and seems she had no trouble sourcing a translator while reporting,

You would of thought she would of been more of a target, If we want to talk conspiracies, maybe she got someone to make the mafia threat, she lives in Samui so would of been possible to pay someone to do it, even though Jonathan left the Samui Sarah Kept reporting & one of the media outlets she was reporting for was Sky news (Jonathan's job) so this could have been a form of media control by activists and there cohorts, making sure only there version of events in the courthouse was released to the media.

And still zero evidence of this Mafia man no photo, no description, no details of car bike he was driving,

You should change your username to 'Diversion Dan'. You make up hypothetical scenarios ("you would have thought....." or "maybe she got someone to......"), then go rambling on with all sorts of put-downs and judgements on those hypotheticals. Here's a suggestion: try sticking to the topic and discussing things that happened, or discuss why Thai and British officials are consistently not doing their taxpayer-paid jobs.

[smedly]

Great summation ( and not at all " childish" ) The more the defenders write, the more they indict.

I am not a defender as you have labeled, I post what I see is wrong with the prosecution case and court judgement, I am a defender of nothing and don't like being labelled as such, if I thought the case against B2 was solid I would be very happy with that, as it turns out I am not and have always given valid reasons why

you know there are rules on this forum regarding comments about other posters

[greenchair]

It comes down to nobody trusts the dna match of the rtp. I can accept that. But can ask, do people trust the dna analysis of the defense expert pornthip.

Her analysis matched part of the numbers found on the victim.

Which matched part of the dna of the suspect. There obviously were not a billion people on the island. Amongst the thousand or people on the island, none of them were on the video through the night nor had the victim belongings. Whether the dna is right or wrong.

I am saying that pornthip testimony was not a plus for the defense.

The wine bottle on the beach is not a plus for the defense.

And finding any phone on the beach at 4am is not a plus for the defense.

[smedly]

and just to add to this perfect solid case presented to the court and the perfectly justified verdict based on ...... well nothing at all

jucel, on 02 Jan 2016 - 18:56, said:

DNA Failings

1. It consists of a one page table replete with hand written amendments, date changes and data alterations. This document would NOT be admissible in any court in the UK, Australia, USA, EU, Hong Kong, Malaysia or Singapore.

2. It is NOT supported by any case notes, chain-of-custody records, nor statistics based on validated population data bases. The omission of that information is a COMPLETE abrogation of international ISO 17025 standards and would lead to a FULL audit of the police laboratory by an international accreditation agency!

3. The table has been used to match DNA components, which is an extreme oversimplification of the entire DNA process! It relies on single alleles rather than genotypes. (An allele is ONE of a pair of genes that appear in ONE part of a chromosome that help to determine heredity traits.)

4. Because there is NO statistical analysis to determine the probability of the stated frequencies in the table, it is absolutely NOT possible to determine the likelihood of the accused as being the contributors to the mixture! There, in fact, could be a VERY large number of other individuals who could NOT be ruled out as contributors!

5. It is, therefore, COMPLETELY erroneous (wrong) to claim a DNA match on the basis of the position of mere alleles on a DNA molecule without statistics to determine the probability!

For these reasons, it CANNOT be said (from any kind of scientific or legal standpoint) that there was a match between the DNA from the semen the police alleged to have and the DNA that was (forcibly, without consent or legal representation) retrieved from the two accused! Basing the conviction on COMPLETELY flawed DNA evidence has resulted in an EXTREME miscarriage of justice!

SiSePuede419, on 03 Jan 2016 - 07:00, said:

"therefore, COMPLETELY erroneous (wrong) to claim a DNA match on the basis of the position of mere alleles on a DNA molecule without statistics to determine the probability"

Exactly. Asian people are the most similar DNA phenotype (except for Native Americans).

Any two Americans (large ethnic mixture from all over the world) have about a 7% chance of matching any given loci on a chromosome.

I would guess any two Asians would be even higher.

Is it 100%? 90%? 80%? 70%?

This would change the interpretation of the DNA tests considerably.

I suggest to anyone interested that they should copy this text and post it every time a discussion about DNA appears on these threads

and just to add

we are talking about DNA were the original samples which would have been plentiful and taken several times both at the crime scene and autopsy have yet to be produced

I wonder why

I thought we were going to stick to the topic from now on? But that c/p above sure goes in the " baffle 'em with techno BS" category of defense.

OK troops, c/p it whenever a point is made you can't think of an answer for.

Yeah, stick with that on a defense. So how does Thailand put convicts to death these day? It's been, since....what 2009?

so now I am a bull shi tter

[Moonsterk]

and just to add to this perfect solid case presented to the court and the perfectly justified verdict based on ...... well nothing at all

jucel, on 02 Jan 2016 - 18:56, said:

DNA Failings

1. It consists of a one page table replete with hand written amendments, date changes and data alterations. This document would NOT be admissible in any court in the UK, Australia, USA, EU, Hong Kong, Malaysia or Singapore.

2. It is NOT supported by any case notes, chain-of-custody records, nor statistics based on validated population data bases. The omission of that information is a COMPLETE abrogation of international ISO 17025 standards and would lead to a FULL audit of the police laboratory by an international accreditation agency!

3. The table has been used to match DNA components, which is an extreme oversimplification of the entire DNA process! It relies on single alleles rather than genotypes. (An allele is ONE of a pair of genes that appear in ONE part of a chromosome that help to determine heredity traits.)

4. Because there is NO statistical analysis to determine the probability of the stated frequencies in the table, it is absolutely NOT possible to determine the likelihood of the accused as being the contributors to the mixture! There, in fact, could be a VERY large number of other individuals who could NOT be ruled out as contributors!

5. It is, therefore, COMPLETELY erroneous (wrong) to claim a DNA match on the basis of the position of mere alleles on a DNA molecule without statistics to determine the probability!

For these reasons, it CANNOT be said (from any kind of scientific or legal standpoint) that there was a match between the DNA from the semen the police alleged to have and the DNA that was (forcibly, without consent or legal representation) retrieved from the two accused! Basing the conviction on COMPLETELY flawed DNA evidence has resulted in an EXTREME miscarriage of justice!

SiSePuede419, on 03 Jan 2016 - 07:00, said:

"therefore, COMPLETELY erroneous (wrong) to claim a DNA match on the basis of the position of mere alleles on a DNA molecule without statistics to determine the probability"

Exactly. Asian people are the most similar DNA phenotype (except for Native Americans).

Any two Americans (large ethnic mixture from all over the world) have about a 7% chance of matching any given loci on a chromosome.

I would guess any two Asians would be even higher.

Is it 100%? 90%? 80%? 70%?

This would change the interpretation of the DNA tests considerably.

I suggest to anyone interested that they should copy this text and post it every time a discussion about DNA appears on these threads

and just to add

we are talking about DNA were the original samples which would have been plentiful and taken several times both at the crime scene and autopsy have yet to be produced

I wonder why

I thought we were going to stick to the topic from now on? But that c/p above sure goes in the " baffle 'em with techno BS" category of defense.

OK troops, c/p it whenever a point is made you can't think of an answer for.

Yeah, stick with that on a defense. So how does Thailand put convicts to death these day? It's been, since....what 2009?

so now I am a bull shi tter

I think you are posting up super complicated c/p DNA jargon to divert from not really having a defense. If you now wish to feign offense as a tactic, it's really to my argument's advantage.

[boomerangutang]

Then they (seekers of truth & justice) complain that people connected in any way to the murders are not made public...

AleG, are you now admitting that Mon and Nomsod should be investigated? .....that they shouldn't have been permanently cleared so quickly by subjective authorities?

In the US, there is no statute of limitations for murder. In Thailand it's 20 years. The real murderers are 1/14th the way to being totally cleared - cementing their untouchability. Another difference between western countries and Thailand in regard to serious crime investigations: Farang cops will sometimes pull out a 'cold case' and carefully comb through the evidence to gauge whether something was missed - in order to nail the real perpetrators. That doesn't happen in 'Land of Cover-Ups'.

[Moonsterk]

It comes down to nobody trusts the dna match of the rtp. I can accept that. But can ask, do people trust the dna analysis of the defense expert pornthip.

Her analysis matched part of the numbers found on the victim.

Which matched part of the dna of the suspect. There obviously were not a billion people on the island. Amongst the thousand or people on the island, none of them were on the video through the night nor had the victim belongings. Whether the dna is right or wrong.

I am saying that pornthip testimony was not a plus for the defense.

The wine bottle on the beach is not a plus for the defense.

And finding any phone on the beach at 4am is not a plus for the defense.

OK so to remain OT (shall all agree...?) Dr Porntip was a mistake- I love her but she's a famous radical activist with nutty hair, notoriously anti- police. Was she really a good choice? Wouldn't have someone a bit more conservative and less offensive to possible sensitivities been a better choice? I also understand her expertise is forensics, not DNA analysis.

And adding, why does anyone think it is a defense that B-2 DNA was not found on the hoe, anyone ever heard of a cloth to hold it?

[boomerangutang]

Great summation ( and not at all " childish" ) The more the defenders write, the more they indict.

I am not a defender as you have labeled, I post what I see is wrong with the prosecution case and court judgement, I am a defender of nothing and don't like being labelled as such, if I thought the case against B2 was solid I would be very happy with that, as it turns out I am not and have always given valid reasons why

you know there are rules on this forum regarding comments about other posters

The label "defenders" could apply to either side. One side is defending the scapegoats from being killed for things they didn't do. The other side is defending everything the RTP say and do. Let aspersions go like water off a duck's back.

[Moonsterk]

Great summation ( and not at all " childish" ) The more the defenders write, the more they indict.

I am not a defender as you have labeled, I post what I see is wrong with the prosecution case and court judgement, I am a defender of nothing and don't like being labelled as such, if I thought the case against B2 was solid I would be very happy with that, as it turns out I am not and have always given valid reasons why

you know there are rules on this forum regarding comments about other posters

You're defending the B-2, and so are several others. Collectively, you're defenders. If you wish to feign offense at an innocuous term, possibly in lieu of an argument, it supports my position more than yours.

However I will refrain from including you in the term in interests of forum civility.

Could I ask if you would please use my posts in entirety when responding to them, or at least the complete sentence as I do not appreciate having the meaning changed by omitting portions. ( I do believe there is a rule about it, too.)

Thank you

Edited February 27, 2016 by Moonsterk

[boomerangutang]

It comes down to nobody trusts the dna match of the rtp. I can accept that. But can ask, do people trust the dna analysis of the defense expert pornthip.

Her analysis matched part of the numbers found on the victim.

Which matched part of the dna of the suspect. There obviously were not a billion people on the island. Amongst the thousand or people on the island, none of them were on the video through the night nor had the victim belongings. Whether the dna is right or wrong.

I am saying that pornthip testimony was not a plus for the defense.

The wine bottle on the beach is not a plus for the defense.

And finding any phone on the beach at 4am is not a plus for the defense.

Regardless of what you think of Pontip's expertise (note: she's considered the best Thai forensic expert), it's not up to the defense to solve the case. It's up to the RTP (the ONLY entity allowed to investigate). The defense's prime responsibility: to get justice for the defendants. RTP have been shown, in hundreds of ways, to have a thick agenda to shield people connected to the Headman. Everything RTP have said and done, since Panya, has shown that clearly. Indeed, most of what RTP have done since mid-October 2014 is NOTHING. If you want to get an idea of the many things RTP has not done, please go and read up on some of the thousands of posts since the crime. My posts, in particular, are rife with such lists.

[StealthEnergiser]

Then they (seekers of truth & justice) complain that people connected in any way to the murders are not made public...

AleG, are you now admitting that Mon and Nomsod should be investigated? .....that they shouldn't have been permanently cleared so quickly by subjective authorities?

In the US, there is no statute of limitations for murder. In Thailand it's 20 years. The real murderers are 1/14th the way to being totally cleared - cementing their untouchability. Another difference between western countries and Thailand in regard to serious crime investigations: Farang cops will sometimes pull out a 'cold case' and carefully comb through the evidence to gauge whether something was missed - in order to nail the real perpetrators. That doesn't happen in 'Land of Cover-Ups'.

Good post boomer it now looks like AleG who has been shot down on all of his comments thai visa and and twitter now agrees Mon and Nomsod should be investigated .

what took him so long to see the light ?

[catsanddogs]

With regard the method by which David's iphone was identified, this is what the court report stated:

"Pol. Col. Krisna Pattanacharoen verified the IMEI number of the exhibited mobile phone via coordination with officers at the British Embassy of Thailand, considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased, according to the Record of Testimony, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 55."

But media reports from the time of Pol Col Pattanacharoen's testimony refer to a sim card being identified:

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/08/28/thai-murders-trial-confusion-over-cctv-footage/

"Fellow Thai police Colonel Kissana Phathanacharoen also confirmed that Mr Miller’s phone had been found discarded near the lodgings of the defendants, and that the UK’s National Crime Agency had identified the SIM card as belonging to the Islander."

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/16198-thai-police-confirm-british-cooperation-in-koh-tao-case.html

"Royal Thai Police Colonel Kissana Phathanacharoen confirmed to the Koh Samui court that a phone owned by one of the deceased, David Miller, 24, had been found discarded near the lodgings of the defendants.

The UK National Crime Agency later identified the SIM card as being Mr Miller’s, he said."

Another report from the time in the Great Yarmouth Mercury appears to be syndicated from the same source as the Jersey Evening Post one.

Did Pol Col Kissana/Krisna take the stand more than once, confirming the sim card on one testimony and the IMEI on another? Is the sim card ID a mistake? Or is the IMEI ID a mistake?

considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased,

And as highlighted on this thread before, how on earth could Chris Ware identify a phone to be David's weeks later when he was off the island of Koh Tao? Did David's phone have distinguishing marks on it that Chris Ware could say without dispute could only be David's phone? Did Chris verify it was David's phone via photos sent to him of an iphone 4 by the RTP? Surely that wouldn't hold up in court? Or did Chris identify the phone while he was still on Koh Tao, in which case David's phone couldn't be the one found at the lodgings of the B2.

Shame the bottles on the table are in the way on the last known photo of the group at Choppers. Looks like David has his phone on the table here as do Hannah and Matt Barratt.

Or, as anyone not too desperate to not understand things could see, he provided a description of the phone which was used by the police to look for it; they found a phone that matched that description and further investigations proved it was David Miller's phone.

It's not all that hard to understand it, is it? If tomorrow I witness a crime and I tell the police that the getaway car had X license plate and the police use that information to search for the suspect, I've already provided information that helps identify the suspect even if they never talk with me ever again.

An iphone 4 does not have a whacking great number plate on it to to distinguish it from another. That's a stupid example. If my friend is taken to the police for committing a crime and I'm asked to identify their phone how would I know it was their phone unless there was something that distinguished it from any other of the same make and model? Did David's phone maybe have Batman stickers all over it so that it was obvious to Chris Ware it was his?

'They found a phone that matched the description'. So it seems. Clever police.

[AleG]

It comes down to nobody trusts the dna match of the rtp. I can accept that. But can ask, do people trust the dna analysis of the defense expert pornthip.

Her analysis matched part of the numbers found on the victim.

Which matched part of the dna of the suspect. There obviously were not a billion people on the island. Amongst the thousand or people on the island, none of them were on the video through the night nor had the victim belongings. Whether the dna is right or wrong.

I am saying that pornthip testimony was not a plus for the defense.

The wine bottle on the beach is not a plus for the defense.

And finding any phone on the beach at 4am is not a plus for the defense.

OK so to remain OT (shall all agree...?) Dr Porntip was a mistake- I love her but she's a famous radical activist with nutty hair, notoriously anti- police. Was she really a good choice? Wouldn't have someone a bit more conservative and less offensive to possible sensitivities been a better choice? I also understand her expertise is forensics, not DNA analysis.

And adding, why does anyone think it is a defense that B-2 DNA was not found on the hoe, anyone ever heard of a cloth to hold it?

Even the Australian DNA expert that the defense didn't call contradicted Pornthip's (and subordinates) testimony, in particular when they said that DNA from the victim's in the hoe handle meant that they must had held it for at least 15 seconds; that is nonsense.

As I pointed out long ago, even under ideal conditions the chances of getting DNA transferred to an object just by holding it are relatively low, under ideal conditions 36% according to this paper: Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions

Obviously in the case of that hoe the conditions were not ideal, to begin with there was a very large ratio of victim's DNA to perpetrator's that would drown out their contribution to the mix, then of course the hoe was left out in the elements for hours after the crimes, for all we know it may had even been in the water at some point.

I raised this point before and never got an answer from the people that think the absence of DNA from the B2 in the hoe proves they didn't use it: where is the DNA from the owner of the hoe? We know for certain he used it probably for months before the crimes and definitely handled it on the morning the bodies were found; yet no profile from that man.

What does that mean? It means that there's no guarantee that an identifiable amount of DNA must be present from anyone and that claiming that absence of DNA proves they didn't use it is a fallacy.

[Moonsterk]

Great summation ( and not at all " childish" ) The more the defenders write, the more they indict.

I am not a defender as you have labeled, I post what I see is wrong with the prosecution case and court judgement, I am a defender of nothing and don't like being labelled as such, if I thought the case against B2 was solid I would be very happy with that, as it turns out I am not and have always given valid reasons why

you know there are rules on this forum regarding comments about other posters

The label "defenders" could apply to either side. One side is defending the scapegoats from being killed for things they didn't do. The other side is defending everything the RTP say and do. Let aspersions go like water off a duck's back.

The " scapegoats" have been duly prosecuted and convicted, so your view is subjective. Never the less, I have no problem with being called a defender as my interest is to expose use of misinformation, propaganda through mass c/p meme'ism to make arguments and sway opinion.

[seedy]

45 Pages - all that can be said has been said

Turning into Troll / Flaming / Bickering central

CLOSED