Australian lawyer gives new hope to Burmese men convicted of the Koh Tao murders

[JLCrab]

This is the original letter sent JAN 2016 to the Thai Lab for which the letter in Post #1 is a follow-up

[Moonsterk]

  On 6/27/2016 at 6:22 AM, boomerangutang said:

  On 6/27/2016 at 6:18 AM, Moonsterk said:

  On 6/27/2016 at 6:08 AM, boomerangutang said:

Earlier we were talking about 3 Running Man videos. A contrarian poster posted a fuzzy picture (a grab from a poor quality computer?) of a head which comprised a small portion of one frame of one video. A head shot is different than 3 videos. It's like discussing 3 videos of a pole vaulter's vault , and just seeing a grainy portion of one photo showing a head. Not at all the same, but expected from echoers of non-scientific RTP and prosecutors.

Post your version of the pics then to counter my post- and please include the pics from my post.

My picture shows a completely blurred out face from an original screen grab, that then was altered with Nom Sod's pic transposed over it in a subtle manner, which was then spread out over FB'dom

Running man videos have been posted dozens of times. Also, there have been many postings showing how identical NS is to Running Man. I'm not going to do research for you. It's all readily available online.

Ok I Googled for he videos,as you will not provide a link to video or screen grabs you claim are more clearly ascertainable as Nom Sod. ( Discounting CSI La pasted on Nom Sod nose pictures)

I find one link with two videos about an hour apart the same figure running, and then walking- and is where I got my blurred out head shot from. It just does not look any clearer to me no matter how I look at it.

Here again, the screen shots of CSI La showing how he pasted a nose on the the screen grab- ( and colourized it,) because I think that's really what you are referring to.

Completely blurred original;

CSI La's overlay this is from that page- he shows how he did it...

The altered pic with the nose now altered and just barely discernible then spread out over FB;

Wai Phyo at arrest;

[Bkk Brian]

Just to remind readers what this is about, below are the points made in the complaint. Even if one or two points were unfounded as a whole this is a complete disgrace that occurred in Samui. The court summary delivered by the judge accepted that the DNA evidence and procedure was of international standards. This complaint begs to differ.

* No original mixed semen samples were ever made available to the defence for independent examination. The police and prosecutor only ever made “amplified” DNA evidence available to the defence but without the original samples one could not be sure of the original source. Only 5 microlitres of the original mixed semen would have been necessary for the test so there was no valid reason that none was made available to the defence lawyers.
* No case file notes were provided (ISO 17025:2005 reference 4.13.2; ILAC Guide 19 section 3.5 Records; BLQS Supplementary Guidelines)
* No chain of custody of the forensic samples was ever proved by the prosecution, which meant the prospect of contamination, substitution, change of condition and misidentification could not be excluded.
* Records were not produced to allow another scientist to reach the same conclusion from the data (ISO 17025: 2005 reference 4.13.2; SWGDAM 2010; ILAC Guide 19 section 3.5)

* Standard operating procedures were not provided (SWGDAM 2010; ILAC Guide 19)
* Validated statistical methods were not provided (SWGDAM 2010; ISFG 2012)
* Statistical methods were not used at all; neither the likelihood ratio or RMNE or any other method (ISFG, 2006; SWGDAM, 2010)
* Statistical weight for inclusions not provided (SWGDAM 2010, section 4.1)
* Neither technical nor administrative reviews provided (SWGDAM 2010)
* Analytical thresholds for DNA profiles not provided (SWGDAM 2010)
* Types of DNA mixtures not described – resolvable (major and minor contributors) or unresolvable (ISFG 2006; SWGDAM, 2010)
* Assumptions of numbers of contributors not described (ISFG 2006; SWGDAM, 2010)
* Low level DNA not described (ISFG, 2006 and 2012)
* Assumption of ‘drop out’ not described (ISFG, 2006 and 2012)
* Description of artefacts not provided (ISFG, 2006 and 2012)
* No statistical databases provided (SWGDAM 2010 section 4.5)
* Saliva not identified from female deceased (ILAC Guide 19 Sections 4.8 and 4.9)
* Accreditation status of the Accredited Laboratory was not documented or noted on provided documents (ILAC Guide 19 Section 4.9)
* The Accredited Laboratory in its evidence and lack of supporting documentation, has incorrectly interpreted the comparison of reference samples with medical samples. It did not conduct any statistical analysis in reaching its conclusions and thus breached all accepted International DNA testing protocols.

I understand evidence for all the above is held by the defense team who are currently in the process of submitting a separate complaint.

[smedly]

  On 6/27/2016 at 7:51 AM, Moonsterk said:

  On 6/27/2016 at 6:22 AM, boomerangutang said:

  On 6/27/2016 at 6:18 AM, Moonsterk said:

  On 6/27/2016 at 6:08 AM, boomerangutang said:

Earlier we were talking about 3 Running Man videos. A contrarian poster posted a fuzzy picture (a grab from a poor quality computer?) of a head which comprised a small portion of one frame of one video. A head shot is different than 3 videos. It's like discussing 3 videos of a pole vaulter's vault , and just seeing a grainy portion of one photo showing a head. Not at all the same, but expected from echoers of non-scientific RTP and prosecutors.

Post your version of the pics then to counter my post- and please include the pics from my post.

My picture shows a completely blurred out face from an original screen grab, that then was altered with Nom Sod's pic transposed over it in a subtle manner, which was then spread out over FB'dom

Running man videos have been posted dozens of times. Also, there have been many postings showing how identical NS is to Running Man. I'm not going to do research for you. It's all readily available online.

Ok I Googled for he videos,as you will not provide a link to video or screen grabs you claim are more clearly ascertainable as Nom Sod. ( Discounting CSI La pasted on Nom Sod nose pictures)

I find one link with two videos about an hour apart the same figure running, and then walking- and is where I got my blurred out head shot from. It just does not look any clearer to me no matter how I look at it.

Here again, the screen shots of CSI La showing how he pasted a nose on the the screen grab- ( and colourized it,) because I think that's really what you are referring to.

Completely blurred original;Run man orig.png

CSI La's overlay this is from that page- he shows how he did it... CSI La overlay.jpg

The altered pic with the nose now altered and just barely discernible then spread out over FB; head running man.jpg

Wai Phyo at arrest; Wai Phyo at arrest.jpg

why is this even being discussed on this thread, it is off topic and is just a load of regurgitated nonsense discussed at length on many other previous threads, for god sake give it a rest will you

[JLCrab]

From Mr. Yarwood's Twitter account:

Ian Yarwood JUN 25

KOH TAO MURDERS Complaints to BLQS about dubious DNA testing are completely different to trial & appeal. With B2 consent anyone can complain

Mr. Yarwood says in the letter on post #1 this topic:

NOW TAKE NOTICE THAT this notice together with my email/letter of 13 January 2016 serve as a formal complaint to BLQS regarding the procedures of the Accredited Laboratory.

What under Thai law is a formal complaint as opposed to any other complaint? As best as I can tell there is no such provision under the Thai Civil Code -- the only formal complaint process that I can note is via the Ombudsman where indeed a formal complaint against a Thai government agency can be filed:

http://www.ombudsman.go.th/10/eng/4_1.asp

[Jai Dee]

Topic closed pending moderation.

/Closed.