Koh Tao Convicts 'Still Hopeful' as Appeal Looms

[Artisi]

Knowing all this, it amazes me that people still travel to LOS for holidays and still want to live there.

So where are you situated or is that too much of a telling question?

[partington]

The so called 2-hour DNA kits are experimental, not available to Thai labs, and have not been validated as acceptable evidence in any jurisdiction yet, and in any case DNA samples from a rape victim must be treated overnight to reduce the signal from the vast amount of contaminating DNA, which is the victim's, so this 2-hour nonsense red herring can be discounted.

However the original DNA data from the initial profiling is real permanent evidence and can be examined by all concerned, indefinitely, and this is what is done in western courts to validate that DNA evidence is, in fact, reliable.

All DNA sequences are read on a machine that collects real time readings from the DNA sequence passing in front of an optical reader which detects fluorescent dye emissions after laser light stimulation. This is the original data that is collected as a digital file on a computer in real time and can be kept indefinitely.

This data can be examined, and is almost impossible to fake. It is permanent and can be reproduced indefinitely, like a digital movie. It is a graph of data that looks a bit like an electrocardiogram, together with random noise , blips and so on that are not easy to simulate. Any expert looking at THE ORIGINAL FILE would be able to tell immediately several things that are almost impossible to simulate using artificial means:

1.Is it a really data collected over time from a mixture of DNAs from two or more people (including the victim)

2. What proportion of the DNA comes from each contributor to the mix

3. What is the maximum amount of reliable DNA fingerprinting data that can be read from each contributor (in a mixture, especially when the victims's DNA is there as well, 100% data is not easy to obtain).

Without going into details, this original trace data from the machine used in the DNA lab to produce the profile, together with a complete report of how the sample was treated, would be enough for an expert to tell if the data existed at all, if it is really from a DNA mix from a victim, and how reliable the profiling information presented was.

Faking this (for example by running a false sample made from DNA gathered from the suspects days after arrest) would be horrendously difficult, especially given the already impossibly short time after collection that this profiling data was apparently available.

Examination of a full report of the analysis would tell an expert everything they needed to know. As far as I can tell from accounts of the court case the "DNA report" was in fact a single sheet of paper with crossings out in pen on it, and about as far from an evidentiary western standard DNA profiling report as it was possible to get. In fact the original DNA data may well not have existed at all, because no lab reports were made available to the defence, merely a summary, which can be simply typed at will to say anything.

The fact that the defence did not insist on the original lab data being shown or call their defence expert to at least inform the court of what needed to be shown for the DNA evidence to be acceptable to international standard, and instead spent their time calling some blogger who was not an expert in anything to talk about gait analysis, Burmese working conditions and other BS makes me think the defence team were incompetent, and the appeal is a waste of effort if the same people are involved.

sorry need some links to back up your claims kits are experimental

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/rapid-dna-analysis

A rapid DNA system ( made by GE Lifescience https://promo.gelifesciences.com/gl/DNASCAN-RAPID-DNA/) was approved by the FBI for gathering routine reference DNA profiles only and specifically not for crime scene forensics just one month ago in March 2016, about 18 months after the Koh Tao murders. This is the ONLY rapid DNA method approved in the US, and is ONLY approved for collection of routine DNA profiles for reference purposes to populate National DNA Index System (NDIS) and not for forensic crime scene investigations.

The reference I give also states categorically it is not approved or validated for any law enforcement agency use in the US.

The suggestion that the Thai forensic DNA institutions are well over two years ahead of the criminal investigation agencies in the US is not credible, (and of course I would expect to see your links if you do claim this to be the case.)

Moreover as I said before rapid DNA cannot be used to successfully analyse rape kit DNA profiles, that are DNA mixtures, as these samples require specialised processing that takes at least overnight to render the sample analysable without excessive contamination from victim DNA.

Rapid DNA methods are only for routine collection of database reference samples from one person from simple cheek swabs, and not for complex forensic samples(multiple source mixtures from crime scenes) - the GE Lifesciences page describing the system states this absolutely unambiguously:

"DNA profiling from single-source, known reference samples

GE Healthcare offers DNAscan Rapid DNA Analysis System for performing DNA profiling from single-source, known reference samples"

and this system was only approved by one agency in the US for this purpose one month ago:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/rapid-dna-analysis

"Q: Are there any Rapid DNA systems approved for use at NDIS?

A: Yes. Effective March 16, 2016, the following Rapid DNA system has been approved for use by an accredited forensic laboratory for performing Rapid DNA Analysis:

• DNAscan Rapid DNA Analysis System with the following components:

Component Part/Version Number GE Part Number DNAscan Instrument NB-INST-0002-100 29022852 BioChipSet Cassette NB-BCS-0001 NB_BCS-0001 DNAscan System Software 1.3.55 Not Applicable DNAscan Expert System Software 1.0.6 Not Applicable

No Rapid DNA system has been approved for use in a law enforcement booking station or agency. For additional information, please refer to the question below concerning when law enforcement agencies will be able to use Rapid DNA."

Edited May 19, 2016 by partington

[Artisi]

Let's summarize: what does the "guilty"- brigade have?

The DNA- "evidence", which was named by the court as the No.1 cause for a conviction and that would have been slapped in the RTP's face, like a wet dead fish, in any other country in this Universe!

A phone of doubtful origin....

...aaaaaaand...nothing!

The real tragedy here is: even IF the B2 are guilty...no one will ever be free of doubt about that, thanks to the abysmal handling by the RTP and the courts!

...except for those, who hang on every word of the RTP...

Sad, really!

Dna that was found in victim is what they were convicted thats the same DNA the defense did a u turn on retesting (cue excuses why they did u turn) they only person who claims testing did not meet standards is Super Jane, for people who do not know this is the person who the defense chose not to listen to or let her take the stand they same person who asked for documents relating to case while in Australia and received nothing,

The Dna results being no good are only based on her assumptions as she has not seen any evidence (cue more excuses)

When the defense asked the court at the start of the trial to retest the dna samples they could of also asked for the paperwork concerning dna match but they didn't only choosing to retest items that were not even part of the court case.

The truther brigade harped on about how it was impossible to get dna tests in under 24 hours we now know this is a lie and that labs have kits that can do tests in under 2 hours, so it just goes to show how much these experts really know.

You are so delusional, it almost hurts!

Even I (and I work in Tourism, nowhere near any police or DNA), know what a "chain of custody" is and what it means if that is broken.

Retesting and verifying couldn't be done, because the DNA was "used up" or "lost", depending on what source you chose to believe.

THAT is what makes the DNA- "evidence" questionable at least!

Paperwork means d!ck, because anyone can write anything onto a test- tube and some pieces of paper!

As long as the ORIGINAL DNA is not verifiable, there basically is no evidence!

Is that so hard to grasp?

The so called 2-hour DNA kits are experimental, not available to Thai labs, and have not been validated as acceptable evidence in any jurisdiction yet, and in any case DNA samples from a rape victim must be treated overnight to reduce the signal from the vast amount of contaminating DNA, which is the victim's, so this 2-hour nonsense red herring can be discounted.

However the original DNA data from the initial profiling is real permanent evidence and can be examined by all concerned, indefinitely, and this is what is done in western courts to validate that DNA evidence is, in fact, reliable.

All DNA sequences are read on a machine that collects real time readings from the DNA sequence passing in front of an optical reader which detects fluorescent dye emissions after laser light stimulation. This is the original data that is collected as a digital file on a computer in real time and can be kept indefinitely.

This data can be examined, and is almost impossible to fake. It is permanent and can be reproduced indefinitely, like a digital movie. It is a graph of data that looks a bit like an electrocardiogram, together with random noise , blips and so on that are not easy to simulate. Any expert looking at THE ORIGINAL FILE would be able to tell immediately several things that are almost impossible to simulate using artificial means:

1.Is it a really data collected over time from a mixture of DNAs from two or more people (including the victim)

2. What proportion of the DNA comes from each contributor to the mix

3. What is the maximum amount of reliable DNA fingerprinting data that can be read from each contributor (in a mixture, especially when the victims's DNA is there as well, 100% data is not easy to obtain).

Without going into details, this original trace data from the machine used in the DNA lab to produce the profile, together with a complete report of how the sample was treated, would be enough for an expert to tell if the data existed at all, if it is really from a DNA mix from a victim, and how reliable the profiling information presented was.

Faking this (for example by running a false sample made from DNA gathered from the suspects days after arrest) would be horrendously difficult, especially given the already impossibly short time after collection that this profiling data was apparently available.

Examination of a full report of the analysis would tell an expert everything they needed to know. As far as I can tell from accounts of the court case the "DNA report" was in fact a single sheet of paper with crossings out in pen on it, and about as far from an evidentiary western standard DNA profiling report as it was possible to get. In fact the original DNA data may well not have existed at all, because no lab reports were made available to the defence, merely a summary, which can be simply typed at will to say anything.

The fact that the defence did not insist on the original lab data being shown or call their defence expert to at least inform the court of what needed to be shown for the DNA evidence to be acceptable to international standard, and instead spent their time calling some blogger who was not an expert in anything to talk about gait analysis, Burmese working conditions and other BS makes me think the defence team were incompetent, and the appeal is a waste of effort if the same people are involved.

sorry need some links to back up your claims kits are experimental

If you don't believe it, do your own research, or maybe you can ask your mum if she can do it for you.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Artisi

[DiscoDan]

Nice try you do know there is a difference between FBI and the police ?

Rapid DNA Data Utilized in Court to Obtain a Conviction for the First Time

http://www.reuters.com/article/ca-integenx-idUSnBw106216a+100+BSW20151210

http://www.isciencetech.com/Human-Integenx.php

and maybe try and put a link to the actual kits the Thai labs claim to have on there website.

[AleG]

You are so delusional, it almost hurts!

Even I (and I work in Tourism, nowhere near any police or DNA), know what a "chain of custody" is and what it means if that is broken.

Retesting and verifying couldn't be done, because the DNA was "used up" or "lost", depending on what source you chose to believe.

THAT is what makes the DNA- "evidence" questionable at least!

Paperwork means d!ck, because anyone can write anything onto a test- tube and some pieces of paper!

As long as the ORIGINAL DNA is not verifiable, there basically is no evidence!

Is that so hard to grasp?

The so called 2-hour DNA kits are experimental, not available to Thai labs, and have not been validated as acceptable evidence in any jurisdiction yet, and in any case DNA samples from a rape victim must be treated overnight to reduce the signal from the vast amount of contaminating DNA, which is the victim's, so this 2-hour nonsense red herring can be discounted.

However the original DNA data from the initial profiling is real permanent evidence and can be examined by all concerned, indefinitely, and this is what is done in western courts to validate that DNA evidence is, in fact, reliable.

All DNA sequences are read on a machine that collects real time readings from the DNA sequence passing in front of an optical reader which detects fluorescent dye emissions after laser light stimulation. This is the original data that is collected as a digital file on a computer in real time and can be kept indefinitely.

This data can be examined, and is almost impossible to fake. It is permanent and can be reproduced indefinitely, like a digital movie. It is a graph of data that looks a bit like an electrocardiogram, together with random noise , blips and so on that are not easy to simulate. Any expert looking at THE ORIGINAL FILE would be able to tell immediately several things that are almost impossible to simulate using artificial means:

1.Is it a really data collected over time from a mixture of DNAs from two or more people (including the victim)

2. What proportion of the DNA comes from each contributor to the mix

3. What is the maximum amount of reliable DNA fingerprinting data that can be read from each contributor (in a mixture, especially when the victims's DNA is there as well, 100% data is not easy to obtain).

Without going into details, this original trace data from the machine used in the DNA lab to produce the profile, together with a complete report of how the sample was treated, would be enough for an expert to tell if the data existed at all, if it is really from a DNA mix from a victim, and how reliable the profiling information presented was.

Faking this (for example by running a false sample made from DNA gathered from the suspects days after arrest) would be horrendously difficult, especially given the already impossibly short time after collection that this profiling data was apparently available.

Examination of a full report of the analysis would tell an expert everything they needed to know. As far as I can tell from accounts of the court case the "DNA report" was in fact a single sheet of paper with crossings out in pen on it, and about as far from an evidentiary western standard DNA profiling report as it was possible to get. In fact the original DNA data may well not have existed at all, because no lab reports were made available to the defence, merely a summary, which can be simply typed at will to say anything.

The fact that the defence did not insist on the original lab data being shown or call their defence expert to at least inform the court of what needed to be shown for the DNA evidence to be acceptable to international standard, and instead spent their time calling some blogger who was not an expert in anything to talk about gait analysis, Burmese working conditions and other BS makes me think the defence team were incompetent, and the appeal is a waste of effort if the same people are involved.

As far as I know the complaint that the DNA results were done too quickly to be legitimate is about the samples they took from the two Burmese when they were arrested, so no mixed samples to contend with; from what I've found out under those conditions the police does indeed have the capability to produce DNA IDs in a few hours.

The thing is, what you say is true, faking the data is simply not the easy deal some would like to believe, on top of that the forgery would had to had been made a few days after the murders, so in that scenario the police was already working to frame Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin from the start, somehow they got hold of DNA samples, get all the labs working on the analysis onboard with the conspiracy and for some reason for almost three weeks they carried out an unflattering pantomime only then to turn around and say "We got them!". Anyone who would actually take the time to think things through about how such a framing would had to had been orchestrated would see that it is a preposterous scenario.

The only realistic scenario for a frame up is that they had the results from the initial analysis, got those two guys, simply declared them a match and schnapps for everyone. This is where the events of the trial hint at where the truth lays: I believe the defense knew that was how a supposed framing must had happened, so they requested to have the DNA of the two men retested in the hopes that they could then show that it didn't match the original data. They did a PR stunt in court of getting the samples righ there, and then... nothing, they never divulged what the results were, then they dropped the request to have the original DNA retested (granted under the condition that the defense would not be able to withhold the results).

What I think happened there is that they found out they had no case, the match was positive so instead of having the DNA verified and sinking their own case they decided to play the "International standards" card, they don't want to touch the original data with a ten foot pole, they know it confirms the guilt of the two men.

The defense consulted at least two DNA experts, I don't believe for a second that they weren't made aware that if the DNA data had been tampered with it would be easy to demonstrate it, so even more reason to reexamine it; instead they chose to drop the matter like a hot potato and I don't buy stupidity as the reason.

Mark my words, the appeal will have no request whatsoever to see the original samples or data, it will all be based on dismissing the evidence altogether, their work is not to find the truth and get justice done, it is to get those two free, period.

Then what will happen (supposing the judge doesn't just say "nope, no grounds for acquittal") is that, since Thailand uses an inquisitorial system, the judge will ask to get the matter sorted out, the data will be brought up and that's curtains for those two Burmese.

The same team is doing the appeal; I'm quite sure it will be rejected but then they just can spin it (again) as the result of an unfair system and/or some nefarious yet vague machinations, which works just fine for those using the case to push their particular agendas.

All the absurd tales and "facts" circulating online will amount for diddly squat, the people working on the defense know this, but are quite OK to keep the misinformation making the rounds.

[partington]

Nice try you do know there is a difference between FBI and the police ?

Rapid DNA Data Utilized in Court to Obtain a Conviction for the First Time

http://www.reuters.com/article/ca-integenx-idUSnBw106216a+100+BSW20151210

http://www.isciencetech.com/Human-Integenx.php

and maybe try and put a link to the actual kits the Thai labs claim to have on there website.

I accept your finding that these machines are in use in the US in local police departments, and were used for the first time to provide identification evidence in a US court earlier than I thought, in July 2014.

Nevertheless my original point still stands.

Firstly these machines are for generating profiles from simple single-source DNA samples - cheek cells or blood cells only - and cannot be used to process complex rape kit samples containing mixtures of DNA. They are automated machines that cannot be used to do non-routine processing of complex forensic samples from a crime scene. This is just fact, as a perusal of the information about the GE and the Integenex machines on their websites will tell you. Therefore it doesn't matter in the unlikely event that only two months after their first use ever in the US in a court case they were in also used in the Thai forensic lab that analysed the Koh Tao DNA. They cannot be used to produce the data that the prosecution used to convict.

In any case, though these machines are not relevant, without evidence I don't see a strong reason to accept in the first place that they actually were in use in Thailand in the unaccredited Thai lab that did the forensics, within a few months of their first use in a local jurisdiction in the US. It would be extraordinary if this were the case.

Edited May 19, 2016 by partington

[AleG]

Nice try you do know there is a difference between FBI and the police ?

Rapid DNA Data Utilized in Court to Obtain a Conviction for the First Time

http://www.reuters.com/article/ca-integenx-idUSnBw106216a+100+BSW20151210

http://www.isciencetech.com/Human-Integenx.php

and maybe try and put a link to the actual kits the Thai labs claim to have on there website.

I accept your finding that these machines are in use in the US in local police departments, and were used for the first time to provide identification evidence in a US court earlier than I thought, in July 2014.

Nevertheless my original point still stands.

Firstly these machines are for generating profiles from simple single-source DNA samples - cheek cells or blood cells only - and cannot be used to process complex rape kit samples containing mixtures of DNA. They are automated machines that cannot be used to do non-routine processing of complex forensic samples from a crime scene. This is just fact, as a perusal of the information about the GE and the Integenex machines on their websites will tell you. Therefore it doesn't matter in the unlikely event that only two months after their first use ever in the US in a court case they were in also used in the Thai forensic lab that analysed the Koh Tao DNA. They cannot be used to produce the data that the prosecution used to convict.

In any case, though these machines are not relevant, without evidence I don't see a strong reason to accept in the first place that they actually were in use in Thailand in the unaccredited Thai lab that did the forensics, within a few months of their first use in a local jurisdiction in the US. It would be extraordinary if this were the case.

The lab was and is accredited, what's more when I checked on that this is what I found:

1. As I said the lab is accredited:

(Note that the accreditation date is in fact the last time it was renewed)

2. There's a list of the techniques and equipment they are accredited to use (Accredited scope of testing):

3. That the IDPlex Plus can produce results in very short time.

Of course that doesn't mean that it was the only form of analysis used to process the evidence, that could had been sorted out with an independent examination of the evidence which, again, the defense refused even though it was a golden opportunity to prove their case... if it had any merit.

What is clear is that the notion that the police couldn't possibly announce that the two Burmese DNA was a match in a short time doesn't match with reality.

[Khun Han]

All these attempts to big up the Thai forensic labs, and look what those labs produced as 'evidence' at the trial .

[StealthEnergiser]

All these attempts to big up the Thai forensic labs, and look what those labs produced as 'evidence' at the trial .

You are correct Khun Han the same old spin doctors continue trying to convince the majority of us that have not seen a single bit of solid evidence that the b2 are guilty.

One of them mentioned that it would be impossible for the B2 to be framed up .

Maybe he should pull the chain of custody documents out of his collection and post it for us all to see.

[DiscoDan]

Nice try you do know there is a difference between FBI and the police ?

Rapid DNA Data Utilized in Court to Obtain a Conviction for the First Time

http://www.reuters.com/article/ca-integenx-idUSnBw106216a+100+BSW20151210

http://www.isciencetech.com/Human-Integenx.php

and maybe try and put a link to the actual kits the Thai labs claim to have on there website.

I accept your finding that these machines are in use in the US in local police departments, and were used for the first time to provide identification evidence in a US court earlier than I thought, in July 2014.

Nevertheless my original point still stands.

Firstly these machines are for generating profiles from simple single-source DNA samples - cheek cells or blood cells only - and cannot be used to process complex rape kit samples containing mixtures of DNA. They are automated machines that cannot be used to do non-routine processing of complex forensic samples from a crime scene. This is just fact, as a perusal of the information about the GE and the Integenex machines on their websites will tell you. Therefore it doesn't matter in the unlikely event that only two months after their first use ever in the US in a court case they were in also used in the Thai forensic lab that analysed the Koh Tao DNA. They cannot be used to produce the data that the prosecution used to convict.

In any case, though these machines are not relevant, without evidence I don't see a strong reason to accept in the first place that they actually were in use in Thailand in the unaccredited Thai lab that did the forensics, within a few months of their first use in a local jurisdiction in the US. It would be extraordinary if this were the case.

Thank you for accepting your mistake

as I have said before this is not the tech they have to do tests they have something else.

The lab is accredited even a defense witness confirmed this in court

link to accreditation

http://webdb.dmsc.moph.go.th/ifc_qa/dbqa/default.asp?iID=FDDJLL

http://webdb.dmsc.moph.go.th/ifc_qa/dbqa/default.asp?iID=LEFIF

[partington]

Nice try you do know there is a difference between FBI and the police ?

Rapid DNA Data Utilized in Court to Obtain a Conviction for the First Time

http://www.reuters.com/article/ca-integenx-idUSnBw106216a+100+BSW20151210

http://www.isciencetech.com/Human-Integenx.php

and maybe try and put a link to the actual kits the Thai labs claim to have on there website.

I accept your finding that these machines are in use in the US in local police departments, and were used for the first time to provide identification evidence in a US court earlier than I thought, in July 2014.

Nevertheless my original point still stands.

Firstly these machines are for generating profiles from simple single-source DNA samples - cheek cells or blood cells only - and cannot be used to process complex rape kit samples containing mixtures of DNA. They are automated machines that cannot be used to do non-routine processing of complex forensic samples from a crime scene. This is just fact, as a perusal of the information about the GE and the Integenex machines on their websites will tell you. Therefore it doesn't matter in the unlikely event that only two months after their first use ever in the US in a court case they were in also used in the Thai forensic lab that analysed the Koh Tao DNA. They cannot be used to produce the data that the prosecution used to convict.

In any case, though these machines are not relevant, without evidence I don't see a strong reason to accept in the first place that they actually were in use in Thailand in the unaccredited Thai lab that did the forensics, within a few months of their first use in a local jurisdiction in the US. It would be extraordinary if this were the case.

The lab was and is accredited, what's more when I checked on that this is what I found:

1. As I said the lab is accredited:

QAIC.jpg

(Note that the accreditation date is in fact the last time it was renewed)

2. There's a list of the techniques and equipment they are accredited to use (Accredited scope of testing):

MethodsIDplexPlusKit.jpg

3. That the IDPlex Plus can produce results in very short time.

IDplexPlusKit.jpg

Of course that doesn't mean that it was the only form of analysis used to process the evidence, that could had been sorted out with an independent examination of the evidence which, again, the defense refused even though it was a golden opportunity to prove their case... if it had any merit.

What is clear is that the notion that the police couldn't possibly announce that the two Burmese DNA was a match in a short time doesn't match with reality.

OK, I seem to remember reading at the time of the analysis that the lab had not had its accreditation renewed but I'm not going to look it up so I accept I may be wrong about that.

However you are confusing the Qiagen IDplex kit with the 'Rapid DNA' methods mentioned above and this is not correct.

The Qiagen IDplex kit is not a Rapid DNA method, and the time that is referred to in this kit is only the time taken to do the PCR, which is an individual step in the multiple steps of the traditional (non-rapid) method used to generate a DNA profile. Most PCRs take about 90 -150 minutes, this is not unusual.

In the Rapid DNA methods referred to above, a swab containing cheek cells or blood is simply collected, stuck in the machine with no preparation and a profile comes out in about 90 minutes.

With the Qiagen kit there are multiple steps of processing, preparation, and analysis to generate the profile-this is the "traditional method" With the Qiagen kit you must first:

1. prepare pure isolated DNA from your sample, be it blood, cells, or swabs. This can take an hour to overnight depending on what preparation methods you need to do.

2. Quantitate the DNA so you know how much you have, this can take anything from 20 minutes to an hour or more.

3. Do the PCR with the Qiagen kit by adding 0.5ng of all the DNAs you have prepared to the different wells of the kit, and run the PCR-this is the 90 minute step.

4. Heat and freeze the samples, then run them in an ABI DNA sequence analyser to read the profile. Each sample needs to run through a sequencer capillary taking 20 minutes or so, so a tray with multiple samples can take many hours to complete.

5. Data peaks must be read off the computer file and manually checked.

This takes an absolute minimum of six to eight hours, depending mostly on the DNA preparation time, which if complex can take eight hours by itself. This is not an instant rapid DNA method-the Qiagen kit you refer to is the traditional "long form " method still used in most forensic laboratories.

[DiscoDan]

The prosecution did not say they got there results back in 90 minutes, I think the defense claimed they said 8 hours and we also don't know what kits or machines they used.

btw the defense did not let Jane Taupin take the stand they also decided not to use the services of a British Dna expert.

"At this late stage the prosecution had already presented a great deal of its evidence. Andy has told me that he had previously been in contact with a British DNA expert. As it transpired though the defence team did not use the services of the British DNA expert. I do not know the reason(s)."

http://thailandjustice.com/insights-into-the-murders-of-british-backpackers-on-koh-tao/

[Khun Han]

^You should change your user name to Desperate Dan. The key reason why Jane Taupin was not used as a defence witness was because the prosecution wouldn't provide any proper DNA evidence for her to analyse (wonder why???), as explained by herself and others to the Sydney Morning Herald here:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/australian-scientist-jane-taupin-questions-koh-tao-death-penalty-evidence-20160106-gm05af.html

Bottom line: The DNA evidence was crap, so the prosecution wouldn't produce it, so the defence coudn't analyse it.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Khun Han

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 19 May 2016 - 08:50, said:DiscoDan, on 19 May 2016 - 08:50, said:DiscoDan, on 19 May 2016 - 08:50, said:DiscoDan, on 19 May 2016 - 08:50, said:

IslandLover, on 18 May 2016 - 21:58, said:IslandLover, on 18 May 2016 - 21:58, said:IslandLover, on 18 May 2016 - 21:58, said:IslandLover, on 18 May 2016 - 21:58, said:

DiscoDan, on 18 May 2016 - 18:40, said:DiscoDan, on 18 May 2016 - 18:40, said:DiscoDan, on 18 May 2016 - 18:40, said:DiscoDan, on 18 May 2016 - 18:40, said:DiscoDan, on 18 May 2016 - 18:40, said:

IslandLover, on 18 May 2016 - 18:21, said:IslandLover, on 18 May 2016 - 18:21, said:IslandLover, on 18 May 2016 - 18:21, said:IslandLover, on 18 May 2016 - 18:21, said:IslandLover, on 18 May 2016 - 18:21, said:

I suppose you know they were British Embassy officials/spokespeople and not forensic experts or police? It is quite normal for Embassy officials to be present in a situation like this to talk to the press. They would not have been present at the actual autopsy though.

So you think the British government sent spokespeople down there to say no comment ? come on you are going to have to do better than that,

Diplomats frequently say "no comment". Nothing unusual about that.

They are diplomats now ? so not spokespeople anymore? you story keeps changing a bit like the convicts alibis

British Embassy officials, and not just the Ambassador, are usually referred to as diplomats - as Embassy staff, they are in the Diplomatic Service. Or, they could be MI6 operatives of course, in which case a "no comment" is also the norm.

BTW it is not a story, I'm just explaining how it works with Embassy personnel.

Edited May 20, 2016 by IslandLover

[IslandLover]

partington, on 19 May 2016 - 10:38, said:

The so called 2-hour DNA kits are experimental, not available to Thai labs, and have not been validated as acceptable evidence in any jurisdiction yet, and in any case DNA samples from a rape victim must be treated overnight to reduce the signal from the vast amount of contaminating DNA, which is the victim's, so this 2-hour nonsense red herring can be discounted.

However the original DNA data from the initial profiling is real permanent evidence and can be examined by all concerned, indefinitely, and this is what is done in western courts to validate that DNA evidence is, in fact, reliable.

All DNA sequences are read on a machine that collects real time readings from the DNA sequence passing in front of an optical reader which detects fluorescent dye emissions after laser light stimulation. This is the original data that is collected as a digital file on a computer in real time and can be kept indefinitely.

This data can be examined, and is almost impossible to fake. It is permanent and can be reproduced indefinitely, like a digital movie. It is a graph of data that looks a bit like an electrocardiogram, together with random noise , blips and so on that are not easy to simulate. Any expert looking at THE ORIGINAL FILE would be able to tell immediately several things that are almost impossible to simulate using artificial means:

1.Is it a really data collected over time from a mixture of DNAs from two or more people (including the victim)

2. What proportion of the DNA comes from each contributor to the mix

3. What is the maximum amount of reliable DNA fingerprinting data that can be read from each contributor (in a mixture, especially when the victims's DNA is there as well, 100% data is not easy to obtain).

Without going into details, this original trace data from the machine used in the DNA lab to produce the profile, together with a complete report of how the sample was treated, would be enough for an expert to tell if the data existed at all, if it is really from a DNA mix from a victim, and how reliable the profiling information presented was.

Faking this (for example by running a false sample made from DNA gathered from the suspects days after arrest) would be horrendously difficult, especially given the already impossibly short time after collection that this profiling data was apparently available.

Examination of a full report of the analysis would tell an expert everything they needed to know. As far as I can tell from accounts of the court case the "DNA report" was in fact a single sheet of paper with crossings out in pen on it, and about as far from an evidentiary western standard DNA profiling report as it was possible to get. In fact the original DNA data may well not have existed at all, because no lab reports were made available to the defence, merely a summary, which can be simply typed at will to say anything.

The fact that the defence did not insist on the original lab data being shown or call their defence expert to at least inform the court of what needed to be shown for the DNA evidence to be acceptable to international standard, and instead spent their time calling some blogger who was not an expert in anything to talk about gait analysis, Burmese working conditions and other BS makes me think the defence team were incompetent, and the appeal is a waste of effort if the same people are involved.

Finally, somebody who knows something about DNA. Thank you for your insightful post, partington.

[DM07]

It is not easy to fake DNA- evidence?

In Thailand?

Watch me!

I am an (almost) all powerful organisation called the RTP. Super- corrupt in a nation, where corruption rules!

There has been a murder- case and I ALONE decide, who the suspects are.

In this case, I decide it must have been a white male (farang), because a Thai could never do such a thing!

I line you up and take some sample from you.

I may or may not, send the sample to a laboratory and tell them, what result I need...or I just make up something.

Then I present a paper by some laboratory, stating that this sample is a match to some DNA, I found on the body of the victim.

I arrest you, with no lawyer present and beat you up for a few hours.

When finally your lawyer or defense team arrives, I state, the DNA- sample is lost...used up...stolen by aliens...so it can never be tested and verified!

See?!

I did it!

[partington]

It is not easy to fake DNA- evidence?

In Thailand?

Watch me!

I am an (almost) all powerful organisation called the RTP. Super- corrupt in a nation, where corruption rules!

There has been a murder- case and I ALONE decide, who the suspects are.

In this case, I decide it must have been a white male (farang), because a Thai could never do such a thing!

I line you up and take some sample from you.

I may or may not, send the sample to a laboratory and tell them, what result I need...or I just make up something.

Then I present a paper by some laboratory, stating that this sample is a match to some DNA, I found on the body of the victim.

I arrest you, with no lawyer present and beat you up for a few hours.

When finally your lawyer or defense team arrives, I state, the DNA- sample is lost...used up...stolen by aliens...so it can never be tested and verified!

See?!

I did it!

You completely misunderstand or ignore the point I am making, which is that data from DNA profiling run in a lab is ACTUAL evidence, and is a digital file that can be examined and assessed forever, even if the original sample is gone.

The DNA run file from the computer used to generate the profiles is permanent evidence, and can be used in a court case, just as an X-ray of a fractured skull can be used as evidence of injuries in a murder trial long after the subject of the X-ray is buried or cremated.

The point is that the DNA report used in the Koh Tao trial was not original data, it was a typed summary of what those computer files were said to contain ( a sketch of the X-ray). What should be made available is the original data- the computer files that ARE the evidence.

The prosecution's actions as regards this lab data is very odd indeed if it represents hugely incriminating evidence that would pretty much settle their case. They refused to make it available to the defence in a case that gathered huge international attention and where the verdict was always going to generate controversy. What possible reason could there be for this?

The idea suggested above that the defence have somehow seen these original lab files after all and they are so incriminating that they convinced them not to focus on DNA evidence is beyond belief. They insist they have not seen this data, they asked for it, and there has been no denial from the prosecution that the defence have not seen the original files. Again if true, why would the prosecution not just issue a statement that the defence have been given access to all relevant files, and here they are? This would settle it once and for all.

For what it's worth no massive difficult conspiracy and preparation,no elaborate forging, or more than an hour or so of easy work could account for all of what has been observed here.

Firstly, the original lab data DNA profiles from the victim will no longer exist because they have all been deleted, and will not be recoverable or presentable at an appeal. This only requires pressing a delete button a number of times once the decision has been made, and perhaps tearing out some pages in notebooks. Time and difficulty 30 minutes, easy.

Secondly the original lab data on the DNA profiles did not show a match with the Burmese victims, either because the data itself was too bad to generate reliable identification information on anyone (this can happen often with DNA mixtures and is not necessarily the lab's fault) or the profile was of other subjects and perfectly clear.

A political decision is taken that the Burmese need to be guilty many weeks after the victim DNA profiling analysis was done. After the results of the Burmese DNA profiling are available (let's say on the morning following the afternoon their cheek swab samples were taken (charitably, the lab personnel worked all night on it on overtime using the "long method" of DNA profiling"), a summary report is typed up filling in the Burmese profiles in a column, and filling in the same numbers for the profiles found on the victim. Time and difficulty 15 minutes cut and paste, easy.

It is now necessary to delete the original data files from the forensic lab machines because they show the summary report is not true, and their existence (if they really contain good usable data and not just an unreadable mess) raises the possibility of future identification and conviction of others.

This would completely account for the prosecution's odd attitude to distributing their best evidence (we won't!), and could, with simple ineptitude, account for the defence's odd unwillingness to press on the only important evidence against their clients-to do so would necessarily raise the prospect of perjury and destruction of evidence and they were to scared to do this.

[DM07]

It is not easy to fake DNA- evidence?

In Thailand?

Watch me!

I am an (almost) all powerful organisation called the RTP. Super- corrupt in a nation, where corruption rules!

There has been a murder- case and I ALONE decide, who the suspects are.

In this case, I decide it must have been a white male (farang), because a Thai could never do such a thing!

I line you up and take some sample from you.

I may or may not, send the sample to a laboratory and tell them, what result I need...or I just make up something.

Then I present a paper by some laboratory, stating that this sample is a match to some DNA, I found on the body of the victim.

I arrest you, with no lawyer present and beat you up for a few hours.

When finally your lawyer or defense team arrives, I state, the DNA- sample is lost...used up...stolen by aliens...so it can never be tested and verified!

See?!

I did it!

You completely misunderstand or ignore the point I am making, which is that data from DNA profiling run in a lab is ACTUAL evidence, and is a digital file that can be examined and assessed forever, even if the original sample is gone.

The DNA run file from the computer used to generate the profiles is permanent evidence, and can be used in a court case, just as an X-ray of a fractured skull can be used as evidence of injuries in a murder trial long after the subject of the X-ray is buried or cremated.

The point is that the DNA report used in the Koh Tao trial was not original data, it was a typed summary of what those computer files were said to contain ( a sketch of the X-ray). What should be made available is the original data- the computer files that ARE the evidence.

The prosecution's actions as regards this lab data is very odd indeed if it represents hugely incriminating evidence that would pretty much settle their case. They refused to make it available to the defence in a case that gathered huge international attention and where the verdict was always going to generate controversy. What possible reason could there be for this?

The idea suggested above that the defence have somehow seen these original lab files after all and they are so incriminating that they convinced them not to focus on DNA evidence is beyond belief. They insist they have not seen this data, they asked for it, and there has been no denial from the prosecution that the defence have not seen the original files. Again if true, why would the prosecution not just issue a statement that the defence have been given access to all relevant files, and here they are? This would settle it once and for all.

For what it's worth no massive difficult conspiracy and preparation,no elaborate forging, or more than an hour or so of easy work could account for all of what has been observed here.

Firstly, the original lab data DNA profiles from the victim will no longer exist because they have all been deleted, and will not be recoverable or presentable at an appeal. This only requires pressing a delete button a number of times once the decision has been made, and perhaps tearing out some pages in notebooks. Time and difficulty 30 minutes, easy.

Secondly the original lab data on the DNA profiles did not show a match with the Burmese victims, either because the data itself was too bad to generate reliable identification information on anyone (this can happen often with DNA mixtures and is not necessarily the lab's fault) or the profile was of other subjects and perfectly clear.

A political decision is taken that the Burmese need to be guilty many weeks after the victim DNA profiling analysis was done. After the results of the Burmese DNA profiling are available (let's say on the morning following the afternoon their cheek swab samples were taken (charitably, the lab personnel worked all night on it on overtime using the "long method" of DNA profiling"), a summary report is typed up filling in the Burmese profiles in a column, and filling in the same numbers for the profiles found on the victim. Time and difficulty 15 minutes cut and paste, easy.

It is now necessary to delete the original data files from the forensic lab machines because they show the summary report is not true, and their existence (if they really contain good usable data and not just an unreadable mess) raises the possibility of future identification and conviction of others.

This would completely account for the prosecution's odd attitude to distributing their best evidence (we won't!), and could, with simple ineptitude, account for the defence's odd unwillingness to press on the only important evidence against their clients-to do so would necessarily raise the prospect of perjury and destruction of evidence and they were to scared to do this.

I wasnt even talking to you, dude!

I accept you opinion and knowledge...I am aiming at people, who still believe that the dna-evidence is even evidence, although it was flawed all the way.

[Yann55]

Back in my day it was the Blue Diamond affair, later it was Chalerm's son, a year ago the Koh Tao. Just part of the learning curve of living serenely in Thailand.

Serenity to accept the things I cannot change!

Move on, this is history.

Your post is nothing short of obscene, Mr Serene.

Apparently you have no sense of empathy, and that's your problem, but telling those who do have a sense of empathy to 'move on' is repugnant.

Most people on this forum and in this country are convinced that the 2 Burmese guys are innocent, and those people naturally imagine what it's like for them to be in a Thai jail. What goes on in their heads, as their life went from 'lucky to get a job in Koh Tao and being able to send some cash to my family back home' to 'living in hell and with the constant thought that perhaps my life will be put to end for a crime I didn't commit'.

Apparently you are trying to 'teach' Forum members to understand and apply some Buddhist rules here. Well, nothing wrong with Buddhist principles, the real ones, especially the one called compassion. You may have heard of it.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Yann55

[PaPiPuPePo]

Interesting, once again one or two people can tie up the whole thread and narrow the issues to be debated to those they can claim some certainty about or bandy back arguments against their points.

Disco Dan the fact is, the DNA wasn't handled in ways conforming to int'l standards. This is important because unlike fingerprints or other physical evidence DNA evidence can be manipulated easily. If you argue that point because you don't know what I mean then you're really just being a troll.

The chain of custody was revealed to have been broken. Their were claims by the RTP about processing and clearing individuals, who just happened to be from the #1 family on KT, that were impossible or incredibly implausible.

The RTPs explanation of the B2's motive is laughable and easily discredited by anyone with education or experience in criminology/policing. Even armchair detectives know that means, motive, and opportunity are the three keys, and this explanation doesn't satisfy that for motivation, while the other two have major weaknesses in terms of making a case against the B2.

Any attempt to "solve" this case that denies or ignores the social and power contexts is disingenuous. I'd suggest that anyone who hasn't been to KT and had a good look at the social situation there doesn't have much standing to comment on the case unless they accept the fact of the enormous imbalance that exists there.

If you don't believe me, maybe you should go there and try really testing the local boys' power, like make one of them lose face. They're easy to find. Then we'll know if you have multiple accounts here as has been suggested by how many go permanently dark lol.

It's not a normal society there (well I've only been to about 3 dozen countries and lived in half a dozen, but based on that sample) and the way this whole thing has played out is a perfect reflection of the feudal situation there.

If you have a need or strong desire to be convinced and convince others the B2 are guilty, then that's really your own problem to solve. I guess it's worth spending hours on the attempt. But know that even if you engage or convince a peanut gallery of TV members there's a silent majority (that I'll join, my time is valuable) that's not fooled in the least. Good luck.

Edited May 20, 2016 by PaPiPuPePo

[AleG]

The lab was and is accredited, what's more when I checked on that this is what I found:

1. As I said the lab is accredited:

QAIC.jpg

(Note that the accreditation date is in fact the last time it was renewed)

2. There's a list of the techniques and equipment they are accredited to use (Accredited scope of testing):

MethodsIDplexPlusKit.jpg

3. That the IDPlex Plus can produce results in very short time.

IDplexPlusKit.jpg

Of course that doesn't mean that it was the only form of analysis used to process the evidence, that could had been sorted out with an independent examination of the evidence which, again, the defense refused even though it was a golden opportunity to prove their case... if it had any merit.

What is clear is that the notion that the police couldn't possibly announce that the two Burmese DNA was a match in a short time doesn't match with reality.

OK, I seem to remember reading at the time of the analysis that the lab had not had its accreditation renewed but I'm not going to look it up so I accept I may be wrong about that.

However you are confusing the Qiagen IDplex kit with the 'Rapid DNA' methods mentioned above and this is not correct.

The Qiagen IDplex kit is not a Rapid DNA method, and the time that is referred to in this kit is only the time taken to do the PCR, which is an individual step in the multiple steps of the traditional (non-rapid) method used to generate a DNA profile. Most PCRs take about 90 -150 minutes, this is not unusual.

In the Rapid DNA methods referred to above, a swab containing cheek cells or blood is simply collected, stuck in the machine with no preparation and a profile comes out in about 90 minutes.

With the Qiagen kit there are multiple steps of processing, preparation, and analysis to generate the profile-this is the "traditional method" With the Qiagen kit you must first:

1. prepare pure isolated DNA from your sample, be it blood, cells, or swabs. This can take an hour to overnight depending on what preparation methods you need to do.

2. Quantitate the DNA so you know how much you have, this can take anything from 20 minutes to an hour or more.

3. Do the PCR with the Qiagen kit by adding 0.5ng of all the DNAs you have prepared to the different wells of the kit, and run the PCR-this is the 90 minute step.

4. Heat and freeze the samples, then run them in an ABI DNA sequence analyser to read the profile. Each sample needs to run through a sequencer capillary taking 20 minutes or so, so a tray with multiple samples can take many hours to complete.

5. Data peaks must be read off the computer file and manually checked.

This takes an absolute minimum of six to eight hours, depending mostly on the DNA preparation time, which if complex can take eight hours by itself. This is not an instant rapid DNA method-the Qiagen kit you refer to is the traditional "long form " method still used in most forensic laboratories.

Thanks to a news media more interested in getting views by peddling titillating narratives (often spoon fed by the defense PR machine) and the brigading efforts of Internet activists the facts of the case are lost in a cloud of obfuscation.

Everyone knows that the lab was not accredited, it just so happens that's not true; this stems from the constant stream of misinformation the defense and useful... helpers have pushed into the public and media, same as the supposed expert gait analysis, the long list of supposed witnesses that saw what really happened, the false claim that the DNA recovered from the hoe proves innocence, the supposed large inconsistencies between the Thai and UK autopsy reports, the alleged torture, and the least said about the string of conspiracy theories bandied about the better. Just throw BS around and it doesn't even need to stick, just let the smell linger on to create an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty.

Most people don't seem to have the predisposition to check facts and sources so it all goes uncontested, and if it is contested you can see right here the sort of vicious personal attacks anyone who doesn't buy the narrative gets, ie. accusations of working to protect the "real murderers". I don't know you but that behaviour, constant and systematic, doesn't inspire me to trust the people pushing said narrative since they obviously have no qualms whatsoever in making false claims to prop up their arguments. They lie about that, what else are they lying about?

For example just yesterday I saw a press release that claimed that Jane Taupin was called as a witness to discredit the DNA evidence, which is of course entirely false but par for the course for what is fed to the public. Do you think the people not acquainted with the case would see any reason to check the veracity of statements like that, or would they just have their belief that this is a stitch up reaffirmed? "Court dismisses testimony of international DNA expert, harrumph! Stitch up!"

There's 1001 examples of similar tendentious misinformation that has been spread far and wide.

Going back the DNA times the claim was that the DNA results were done in 16 or 12 hours, that was impossible therefore the two Burmese are scapegoats; well, it's not impossible; and again those times are coming from the same people that have been pushing all sorts of unsubstantiated claims, like the claims that it's impossible for the police to have determined that the DNA recovered was from Asian men. Don't you see the pattern of making unsupported or outright false claims left right and center? Yet their (hear)say so is taken as gospel, it boggles the mind that even though it's been seen time and time again that they have a penchant for gilding the lily, to put it mildly, this is just brushed aside; I suppose the means justify the ends? Everyone knows those two are innocence therefore it's acceptable to stretch the truth, or make it up along the way in order to prove it?

The chief of police explicitly said that the evidence was not lost or used up and all the defense had to do to get it for reexamination was to request a court order to do so, which the court granted (as it granted all the other requests from the defense), it was the defense that declined to reexamine it. I don't recall ever reading or hearing a direct source (as opposed to vacuous hearsay) that the police refused to hand over any data or evidence, what they said is that it had to be done through the court and when the defense finally got around to do it they balked as soon as they got what they claimed they wanted.

Why did they refuse? If the evidence had been tampered with or destroyed then a reexamination would almost certainly uncover that and bring down the prosecution case, the only reason to make an about turn is because they felt they couldn't contest it. Instead they chose to eat their cake and have it too, by declining to have the evidence reexamined they can turn around and spin a yarn to the public about how they were refused access to it; the evidence is not independently reexamined and verified and they get to play the victim card, just peachy for the "court of public opinion" were everyone knows what the truth is and just want to hear what fits the preconception.

Edited May 20, 2016 by AleG

[Khun Han]

^"Why did they refuse? If the evidence had been tampered with or destroyed then a reexamination would almost certainly uncover that and bring down the prosecution case"

As has been pointed out countless times, the evidence wasn't offered for re-examination. Or maybe you can provide a link to where the originial DNA samples were offered for re-testing? Or even the computer graphics of the DNA analysis, as explained to us by partington?

Like I said, I live in hope that justice will one day catch up with the real perps AND their cover-up facilitators.

[rockingrobin]

Is Aleg claiming the blonde hair found clutched in the female victims hand is now available

[CharlieH]

DONT get personal, debate/discuss the topic not the poster.

Overly negative remarks against Thai Authorities are against forum rules.

Accusations against other members will be dealt with harshly.

You have been warned.

[greenchair]

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

[DM07]

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

Ohhhh...so you have a new thing now?

Does the phone not cut it any more?

But let's talk about it!

What was said, was that "a wine bottle" was used, injuring David!

His puncture wounds were not cause by a stab- knife or...let's say...shark tooth- ring...but by a wine bottle.

Which - in order to puncture- would have been shattered!

The one in the picture clearly isn't!

So...there goes the bottle!

What do you want to bring up next?

[rockingrobin]

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

Greenchair you are correct

The next question why was the wine bottle not introduced into evidence , it is clearly there for the forensics and police to test, and as you quite rightly suggest appears to be strong circumstantial evidence.

Of course they could be an innocent explanation ,

[greenchair]

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

Greenchair you are correct

The next question why was the wine bottle not introduced into evidence , it is clearly there for the forensics and police to test, and as you quite rightly suggest appears to be strong circumstantial evidence.

Of course they could be an innocent explanation ,

Well rr I was not in the court nor privy to the prosecutions tactics of "why, why not ".

I do believe the police are not 100 percent sure of how david died. There were many assumptions at the start, which changed over time as is usual with the way media is handled in Thailand.

The elephant in the room is wp himself says he was drinking wine and the wine bottle was obviously on the beach. By itself means nothing but + + + + + + adds up to a whole lot eh.

[greenchair]

Dmo7 there were several accounts of what was used to hit david. Just my personal opinion but I think it was a push blade . Probably thrown in some bushes, not far from that phone long ago.

You cannot simply discount the wine bottle, just because some cop with little training thought it was the murder weapon before thorough investigation.

Wp was drinking wine.

The wine bottle was directly at the murder scene.

It is not insignificant. It places him there. "Again"

[TheLobster]

I would be in favor of all the DNA results and evidence being released including the DNA sequences that the RTP claim prove that the B2 are guilty so they could be cross checked but this would seem pointless seeing as the identification of these samples and results have more than likely been manipulated.

So the defense in their appeal should be asking for all the original crime scene and autopsy samples so they can carry out their own analysis. They should also be requesting that all CCTV footage from the island is made available.

If the prosecution case is so strong that the B2 have been condemned to death then of course they will be more than willing to provide this evidence but last time I checked they were all 'used up' or had been destroyed ............