Koh Tao DNA evidence used to condemn Burmese to death tested by an unaccredited lab

[DiscoDan]

The prosecution has to convince the judge they are guilty the defense have to prove they are innocent if judges accept a 1 page report in Thailand then thats all the prosecution needs,

Robert Holmes the "ex barrister" who was at the trial when dna evidence was given said it was the defenses job to seek a court order and that is what a defense team would have done in any other case, but they failed to do it like they failed to call Jane Taupin to the stand.

And according to one of the defense lawyers this letter was given to Ian Yarwood the property lawyer for reference and was not to be acted on, as another lawyer was dealing with it seems Ians ego is more important than the B2s freedom as it know seems he has put a spanner in the works and upset the defense teams plans.

If you read after pretty much every bullet point it says not provided so if it was not provided how do you know the lab did not follow procedures?

Because, if the procedures were followed then it would have been provided.

Especially important in this case due to this DNA (connection) being so crucially relied on in the face on an overwhelming lack of evidence connecting the 2 accus

ed to the brutal murders.

As it was so crucial the defense should have asked for a court order, they did it with the retesting of the evidence so why did they not do it with the paperwork ?

[Bkk Brian]

The prosecution has to convince the judge they are guilty the defense have to prove they are innocent if judges accept a 1 page report in Thailand then thats all the prosecution needs,

Robert Holmes the "ex barrister" who was at the trial when dna evidence was given said it was the defenses job to seek a court order and that is what a defense team would have done in any other case, but they failed to do it like they failed to call Jane Taupin to the stand.

And according to one of the defense lawyers this letter was given to Ian Yarwood the property lawyer for reference and was not to be acted on, as another lawyer was dealing with it seems Ians ego is more important than the B2s freedom as it know seems he has put a spanner in the works and upset the defense teams plans.

**If you read after pretty much every bullet point it says not provided so if it was not provided how do you know the lab did not follow procedures?

** Bold: Exactly hence the significance of the lab needing to prove they did and supply the necessary documents, do you think they will ever be produced?

Your other points on what Robert said are taken from facebook posts and completely out of context and irrelevant especially considering you are referring to Robert Holmes who was one of the authors of the complaint that we are discussing, you really cant have it both ways.

Do you have a link to proof Robert authored this letter that was copied ?

No cannot link on TV its not allowed the same as you cannot link to facebook posts because of rules as to their credibility. Besides which your now deflecting the actual important issues contained in the missing documents and the fact that the conviction was based on the judges accepting evidence was up to international standards

[DiscoDan]

Do you have a link to proof Robert authored this letter that was copied ?

No cannot link on TV its not allowed the same as you cannot link to facebook posts because of rules as to their credibility. Besides which your now deflecting the actual important issues contained in the missing documents and the fact that the conviction was based on the judges accepting evidence was up to international standards

its ok you can send me a PM if its not allowed on here

[DiscoDan]

Do you have a link to proof Robert authored this letter that was copied ?

No cannot link on TV its not allowed the same as you cannot link to facebook posts because of rules as to their credibility. Besides which your now deflecting the actual important issues contained in the missing documents and the fact that the conviction was based on the judges accepting evidence was up to international standards

No proof of documents missing,

Just documents they did not get because they did not go through the proper procedures to get them.

And I am not deflecting I have not seen Robert Holmes name mentioned in this stolen letter saga yet, so would like a link to prove it, as I said PM is ok

[TheLobster]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/928249-koh-tao-dna-evidence-used-to-condemn-burmese-to-death-tested-by-an-unaccredited-lab/page-4#entry10923517

There hasn't been a single piece of credible DNA evidence presented so far.

There is plenty of CCTV evidence identifying the culprits, unfortunately all of it has disappeared.

[boomerangutang]

A million people could of walked over the crime scene it would make no difference as the DNA they were convicted with was found inside the victim and not on the beach.

The DNA is hearsay. There's no physical evidence to back it up. Prosecution didn't provide any swabs. Any court worth the weight of its gavel would have thrown out all DNA evidence, and there would therefore have to be a mistrial. Not only is DNA hearsay perpetrated by RTP top brass, but RTP also conveniently lost items which could have contributed mightily to gauging who actually did the crime; Hannah's clothes, the hair, the bottle on the beach, etc.

Why was there never a thorough autopsy done on David? Not by Thai experts, nor by Brits. Neither autopsy mentioned multiple cut wounds which have been alleged by other sources.

[DiscoDan]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/928249-koh-tao-dna-evidence-used-to-condemn-burmese-to-death-tested-by-an-unaccredited-lab/page-4#entry10923517

There hasn't been a single piece of credible DNA evidence presented so far.

There is plenty of CCTV evidence identifying the culprits, unfortunately all of it has disappeared.

Plenty of cctv identifying the culprits ? Have you seen it ? Have you got proof it has been destroyed ?

[stephenterry]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/928249-koh-tao-dna-evidence-used-to-condemn-burmese-to-death-tested-by-an-unaccredited-lab/page-4#entry10923517

There hasn't been a single piece of credible DNA evidence presented so far.

There is plenty of CCTV evidence identifying the culprits, unfortunately all of it has disappeared.

Plenty of cctv identifying the culprits ? Have you seen it ? Have you got proof it has been destroyed ?

I would suggest it's naive for anyone to believe that ANY CCTV implicating the alleged culprits would still exist. I guess you better mail Panya and ask him what happened to it as he said he had evidence that placed Mon and Nomsod at the crime scene.

[denkiblue555]

The prosecution has to convince the judge they are guilty the defense have to prove they are innocent if judges accept a 1 page report in Thailand then thats all the prosecution needs,

Robert Holmes the "ex barrister" who was at the trial when dna evidence was given said it was the defenses job to seek a court order and that is what a defense team would have done in any other case, but they failed to do it like they failed to call Jane Taupin to the stand.

And according to one of the defense lawyers this letter was given to Ian Yarwood the property lawyer for reference and was not to be acted on, as another lawyer was dealing with it seems Ians ego is more important than the B2s freedom as it know seems he has put a spanner in the works and upset the defense teams plans.

If you read after pretty much every bullet point it says not provided so if it was not provided how do you know the lab did not follow procedures?

Because, if the procedures were followed then it would have been provided.

Especially important in this case due to this DNA (connection) being so crucially relied on in the face on an overwhelming lack of evidence connecting the 2 accus

ed to the brutal murders.

As it was so crucial the defense should have asked for a court order, they did it with the retesting of the evidence so why did they not do it with the paperwork ?

That is one of the many 'other' issues which are extremely concerning about this case where 2 men are facing the death penalty.

But, as this topic is about the accreditation of the lab used to provide the magic DNA match resulting in the guilty verdict....discussing the behaviour of the defence team would be off topic. It seems certain off topic posts are promptly removed??????

A more pertinent point would be to ask yourself why the 2 men have been sentenced to death with such 'poor' DNA evidence and seemingly nothing else.

[StealthEnergiser]

Do you have a link to proof Robert authored this letter that was copied ?

No cannot link on TV its not allowed the same as you cannot link to facebook posts because of rules as to their credibility. Besides which your now deflecting the actual important issues contained in the missing documents and the fact that the conviction was based on the judges accepting evidence was up to international standards

No proof of documents missing,

Just documents they did not get because they did not go through the proper procedures to get them.

And I am not deflecting I have not seen Robert Holmes name mentioned in this stolen letter saga yet, so would like a link to prove it, as I said PM is ok

Mr Yarwoods letter also asked for a reply about this

"Further, could you please advise whether or not the Accredited Laboratory conducted its testing in this matter under the auspices of its accreditation by BLQS given that the DNA table produced by the Accredited Laboratory was an Unendorsed Report. Could you also please advise whether you think it appropriate for the Accredited Laboratory to produce Unendorsed Reports as evidence in trials of murder and rape."

I am interested to hear your opinion.?

Also what would be the reason for not endorsing it ?

Edited July 5, 2016 by StealthEnergiser

[Khun Han]

Poor Suthon Vongsheree. I expect he never wanted to get dragged into this fake DNA sham. And now he's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Bkk Brian]

Poor Suthon Vongsheree. I expect he never wanted to get dragged into this fake DNA sham. And now he's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Took him 132 days to reply but when he does oooooops! Well Khun Suthon what are you going to say now?

[metisdead]

A post containing intentional grammar errors has been removed as it messed up the formatting of this page.

[boomerangutang]

A post containing intentional grammar errors has been removed as it messed up the formatting of this page.

That was my post. I re-wrote the following two sentences Thai style: no spaces between words, no capital letters, no punctuation. Since it messed up formatting, I suggest posters try it for themselves....

"Further, could you please advise whether or not the Accredited Laboratory conducted its testing in this matter under the auspices of its accreditation by BLQS given that the DNA table produced by the Accredited Laboratory was an Unendorsed Report. Could you also please advise whether you think it appropriate for the Accredited Laboratory to produce Unendorsed Reports as evidence in trials of murder and rape."

You'll get phrases like; auspicesofitsaccreditationbyblqsgiventhatthednatable

My point was; if the jurists don't want to give credence to the Thai translation of the letter by the Aussie attorney, they don't have to. By their own admission, the jurists aren't DNA experts. Add that to their leading to maintaining the status quo (keeping the B2 on death row) plus the difficulty of reading the letter translated to Thai and submitted (unsolicited) by someone who is not officially on the defense team.

[TheLobster]

A million people could of walked over the crime scene it would make no difference as the DNA they were convicted with was found inside the victim and not on the beach.

The DNA is hearsay. <snip>

Not hearsay no. It is evidence accepted by the judges.

Ignorance is bliss.

Deliberate ignorance is ............ ?

[boomerangutang]

A million people could of walked over the crime scene it would make no difference as the DNA they were convicted with was found inside the victim and not on the beach.

The DNA is hearsay. <snip>

Not hearsay no. It is evidence accepted by the judges. Ignorance is bliss. Deliberate ignorance is ............ ?

From Wiki: "Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein".

There is no tangible evidence for DNA found in Hannah. All we or the judges have are things RTP top brass have said. They also said things like, "there's a 100% match" and "there is no doubt....." They're full of kaka.

It's clear that RTP and prosecution (and maybe also the justices) wanted dearly to convict the scapegoats. So, they hear what they want to hear and claim it's fact. That's also why Thai officialdom stymied Ms Taupin appearing to testify. They wouldn't supply her with anything more than a 1 page photocopied barely-decipherable bunch of scribbles. That's why Taupin didn't testify. The prosecution's DNA data was either in shambles or non-existent. It would be like a pole vaulter expected to compete using a thin piece of split bamboo.

<snip>

Edited July 6, 2016 by Jai Dee
flame comment removed

[DiscoDan]

A million people could of walked over the crime scene it would make no difference as the DNA they were convicted with was found inside the victim and not on the beach.

The DNA is hearsay. <snip>

Not hearsay no. It is evidence accepted by the judges. Ignorance is bliss. Deliberate ignorance is ............ ?

From Wiki: "Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein".

There is no tangible evidence for DNA found in Hannah. All we or the judges have are things RTP top brass have said. They also said things like, "there's a 100% match" and "there is no doubt....." They're full of kaka.

It's clear that RTP and prosecution (and maybe also the justices) wanted dearly to convict the scapegoats. So, they hear what they want to hear and claim it's fact. That's also why Thai officialdom stymied Ms Taupin appearing to testify. They wouldn't supply her with anything more than a 1 page photocopied barely-decipherable bunch of scribbles. That's why Taupin didn't testify. The prosecution's DNA data was either in shambles or non-existent. It would be like a pole vaulter expected to compete using a thin piece of split bamboo.

<snip>

Jane Taupin did not take the stand because the defense did not call her.

She asked for documentation from the defense when she was in Australia and the defense sent her nothing,

They did not ask for a court order for dna documentation they only asked for order to retest evidence.

[Khun Han]

The documentation's toilet paper. The actual DNA was the key. The prosecution refusing to provide original samples for re-testing was a slam dunk for the defence because it proved that there was no DNA match for the B2 to the crime scene. The fact that the judges chose to ignore this obvious slam dunk, and instead wittered on about a crappy document and the lab that produced it performing to international standards, well.....

[tingtongfarang]

Disco dan

Jane Taupin did not take the stand because the defense did not call her.

She asked for documentation from the defense when she was in Australia and the defense sent her nothing,

They did not ask for a court order for dna documentation they only asked for order to retest evidence.

Why would jane taupin take the stand or even be asked to by the defence? as i understand the lady is a forensic specialist, there never was any DNA, only hearsay from the RTP,

I,m sure she walked out scratching her head in disbelief,

Which documentation do you mean exactly?

[TheLobster]

A million people could of walked over the crime scene it would make no difference as the DNA they were convicted with was found inside the victim and not on the beach.

The DNA is hearsay. <snip>

Not hearsay no. It is evidence accepted by the judges. Ignorance is bliss. Deliberate ignorance is ............ ?

From Wiki: "Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein".

There is no tangible evidence for DNA found in Hannah. All we or the judges have are things RTP top brass have said. They also said things like, "there's a 100% match" and "there is no doubt....." They're full of kaka.

It's clear that RTP and prosecution (and maybe also the justices) wanted dearly to convict the scapegoats. So, they hear what they want to hear and claim it's fact. That's also why Thai officialdom stymied Ms Taupin appearing to testify. They wouldn't supply her with anything more than a 1 page photocopied barely-decipherable bunch of scribbles. That's why Taupin didn't testify. The prosecution's DNA data was either in shambles or non-existent. It would be like a pole vaulter expected to compete using a thin piece of split bamboo.

<snip>

I don't think you understood my post. The fact the DNA evidence that was presented was accepted appears to be deliberate ignorance. Police statements were taken as gospel and a UK autopsy report ignored because no person who conducted the autopsy from the UK attended the trial in Thailand.

[stephenterry]

snip

Not hearsay no. It is evidence accepted by the judges. Ignorance is bliss. Deliberate ignorance is ............ ?

From Wiki: "Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein".

There is no tangible evidence for DNA found in Hannah. All we or the judges have are things RTP top brass have said. They also said things like, "there's a 100% match" and "there is no doubt....." They're full of kaka.

It's clear that RTP and prosecution (and maybe also the justices) wanted dearly to convict the scapegoats. So, they hear what they want to hear and claim it's fact. That's also why Thai officialdom stymied Ms Taupin appearing to testify. They wouldn't supply her with anything more than a 1 page photocopied barely-decipherable bunch of scribbles. That's why Taupin didn't testify. The prosecution's DNA data was either in shambles or non-existent. It would be like a pole vaulter expected to compete using a thin piece of split bamboo.

<snip>

I don't think you understood my post. The fact the DNA evidence that was presented was accepted appears to be deliberate ignorance. Police statements were taken as gospel and a UK autopsy report ignored because no person who conducted the autopsy from the UK attended the trial in Thailand.

I think that's partly true, but a little simplistic. I have no doubt that the purpose of the trial was to convict the B2, by any means plausible. This is borne out by the head district 8 honcho's insistence that he had to examine the judges report before the verdict was announced. (IMO, that is unlawful, and no doubt the Appeal will go the same way.)

Thus, RTP 'evidence' was accepted, and anything that the defence presented was ignored, including Ms Pornthip's forensic testimony - none of the B2's DNA was found on the alleged murder weapon that was submitted to the court, although others DNA were, including the victims. How any court could have ignored that beggars belief - except this is Thailand justice in action.

I also consider that even had a coroner's rep from England attended the trial, they wouldn't have been on the witness list and would not have been permitted to testify.

Of course, non-informed readers could say the above is all supposition, but events to date seem to support my opinion. As to whether any of the testing labs were accredited or not, nothing they produced met the standards required for a criminal case.

It makes me sick.

[boomerangutang]

Plenty of cctv identifying the culprits ? Have you seen it ? Have you got proof it has been destroyed ?

Yes, I and many others have seen it. Panya and his team saw it. It's called 'Running Man' videos. It shows the Headman's son moving quickly to and from the crime scene at around the time of the crime (just before and just after). There are many indications of CCTV having been hidden or destroyed. Where is CCTV that Mon withheld from police? Where is the CCTV from right after the crime of shore areas which may have shown people and boats? Surely those were destroyed or hidden forever, particularly if they showed any footage which incriminated the people RTP are sworn to shield from scrutiny. And what about CCTV of Nomsod entering the apartment in Bkk? ...and there's other CCTV:

Mr Yarwoods letter also asked for a reply about this

"Further, could you please advise whether or not the Accredited Laboratory conducted its testing in this matter under the auspices of its accreditation by BLQS given that the DNA table produced by the Accredited Laboratory was an Unendorsed Report. Could you also please advise whether you think it appropriate for the Accredited Laboratory to produce Unendorsed Reports as evidence in trials of murder and rape."

"I am interested to hear your opinion."

"Also what would be the reason for not endorsing it ?"

Asking questions of a Thai jurist is akin to asking questions on an online blog. Rarely is an answer produced. 99% of the time the question is passed over by the respondent.

From Wiki: "Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein".

There is no tangible evidence for DNA found in Hannah. All we or the judges have are things RTP top brass have said. They also said things like, "there's a 100% match" and "there is no doubt....." They're full of kaka.

It's clear that RTP and prosecution (and maybe also the justices) wanted dearly to convict the scapegoats. So, they hear what they want to hear and claim it's fact. That's also why Thai officialdom stymied Ms Taupin appearing to testify. They wouldn't supply her with anything more than a 1 page photocopied barely-decipherable bunch of scribbles. That's why Taupin didn't testify. The prosecution's DNA data was either in shambles or non-existent. It would be like a pole vaulter expected to compete using a thin piece of split bamboo.

Jane Taupin did not take the stand because the defense did not call her.

She asked for documentation from the defense when she was in Australia and the defense sent her nothing,

They did not ask for a court order for dna documentation they only asked for order to retest evidence.

Confucius say; 'You cannot squeeze blood from a beet.'

Taupin is a DNA expert. If prosecution purposefully withholds evidence from her and the defense, she can't give expert opinion on it. If you invite me for dinner but serve me nothing. Then how can I be expected to comment on how good the meal was? If she was called to the stand, about all she could have said was; "Your honor, I have seen no tangible evidence related to DNA, so I have to conclude that there is no DNA data related to this case."

[TheLobster]

Yes, I and many others have seen it. Panya and his team saw it. It's called 'Running Man' videos. It shows the Headman's son moving quickly to and from the crime scene at around the time of the crime (just before and just after). There are many indications of CCTV having been hidden or destroyed. Where is CCTV that Mon withheld from police? Where is the CCTV from right after the crime of shore areas which may have shown people and boats? Surely those were destroyed or hidden forever, particularly if they showed any footage which incriminated the people RTP are sworn to shield from scrutiny. And what about CCTV of Nomsod entering the apartment in Bkk? ...and there's other CCTV:

It's clear that RTP and prosecution (and maybe also the justices) wanted dearly to convict the scapegoats. So, they hear what they want to hear and claim it's fact. That's also why Thai officialdom stymied Ms Taupin appearing to testify. They wouldn't supply her with anything more than a 1 page photocopied barely-decipherable bunch of scribbles. That's why Taupin didn't testify.

Confucius say; 'You cannot squeeze blood from a beet.'

Taupin is a DNA expert. If prosecution purposefully withholds evidence from her and the defense, she can't give expert opinion on it. If you invite me for dinner but serve me nothing. Then how can I be expected to comment on how good the meal was? If she was called to the stand, about all she could have said was; "Your honor, I have seen no tangible evidence related to DNA, so I have to conclude that there is no DNA data related to this case."

I would tend to agree 'I have seen no tangible evidence related to DNA, so I have to conclude that there is no DNA data related to this case'

[stephenterry]

snip

snip

Taupin is a DNA expert. If prosecution purposefully withholds evidence from her and the defense, she can't give expert opinion on it. If you invite me for dinner but serve me nothing. Then how can I be expected to comment on how good the meal was? If she was called to the stand, about all she could have said was; "Your honor, I have seen no tangible evidence related to DNA, so I have to conclude that there is no DNA data related to this case."

I would tend to agree 'I have seen no tangible evidence related to DNA, so I have to conclude that there is no DNA data related to this case'

There's probably plenty of tangible DNA evidence related to this case - including the victims and the perps - but none relating to the B2.

Edited July 8, 2016 by stephenterry

[Bkk Brian]

After a little research I've come to the conclusion that the Police Lab was probably accredited to the necessary ISO-17025 standards and had been well before the Koh Tao case. However what has been overlooked is that having this certificate of accreditation means nothing without the scope of work they are accredited to do:

"We should rather talk of a laboratory accredited for a specific list of methods. The laboratory will need to select methods to offer as part of the scope"

1.4 Scope of accreditation Although ISO 17025 is written as though all the methods used by a laboratory are covered by the standard and hence included in any accreditation against the standard, this is rarely the case. In practice, any particular laboratory will have only some of its methods accredited and perhaps not even the majority. In spite of this, an accreditation body will often make a formal statement to the effect that it expects to see a comprehensively operating quality system. In reality, however, any assessment will focus on the scope of methods and on the equipment used to deliver them and take little interest outside this scope. In this sense the term ‘accredited laboratory’ is inaccurate. We should rather talk of a laboratory accredited for a specific list of methods. https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/Complying_with_ISO_17025_A_practical_guidebook.pdf

Following this link http://webdb.dmsc.moph.go.th/ifc_qa/dbqa/default.asp?iID=FDDJLL it will take you to the current status of the police lab and clicking the Accredited scope of testing section will take you to the actual methods that are accredited and that includes semen (serum as its been spelt in the doc) testing. But the important point here is that this scope is dated as being accredited from 29th Jan 2015 only so 4 months after the fact.

This is confirmed by the BLAQ's director when he stated it was not accredited before that date and lends wait to the overall impression that the lab was indeed not accredited to do semen analysis. Again is the fact that the report was not endorsed, ie did not have the accreditation stamps on it when presented to court.

[StealthEnergiser]

September 21, 2014 1:00 am

DNA tests will be done in Singapore Semen and cigarette butts seen as key to finding who killed Britons on Koh Tao

Semen found on the body of one of the two British tourists murdered on Koh Tao in Surat Thani province last Sunday will be examined in a Singapore laboratory, national police chief General Somyot Poompanmoung said yesterday.

Somyot said the DNA test would be able to identify the race, hair colour and skin colour of the person, which would help with the police investigation.

It is understood cigarette butts found at the crime scene will also be sent to Singapore for DNA analysis, although Somyot did not mention the butts in his remarks to reporters yesterday during a visit to the island.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/DNA-tests-will-be-done-in-Singapore-30243745.html

2016

According to the newly published report the appeal questions why the police claimed that DNA samples from the crime scene were sent to Singapore where it was determined the suspects were Asian but later stated this had been revealed in a Thai lab and the samples had in fact never been sent to Singapore.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/921678-koh-tao-murders-appeal-reveals-shocking-new-evidence-suggesting-unfair-trial-and-wrongful-conviction/?p=10808025

Edited July 9, 2016 by StealthEnergiser

[Khun Han]

^The answer's obvious. Any DNA found at the crime scene would be the 'wrong' DNA, so couldn't be tested independently. Nor could it be made available for re-testing at a later date because it would put DNA profiles in the public domain that the RTP (and Somyot in particular) don't want there.

[boomerangutang]

^The answer's obvious. Any DNA found at the crime scene would be the 'wrong' DNA, so couldn't be tested independently. Nor could it be made available for re-testing at a later date because it would put DNA profiles in the public domain that the RTP (and Somyot in particular) don't want there.

How sure are we that DNA was found in Hannah? All that came forth in court, (other than the hoe, which RTP experts mis-read) is hearsay. As Johnny Cochran might say, "If d'ere ain't no DNA, den d'ere ain't no game to play."

Any one of a number of key factors should have this case thrown out and the defendants released (with compensation for false imprisonment). One example: Hanna's clothes never tested, then went missing. There dozens of others.

[Cirencester]

^The answer's obvious. Any DNA found at the crime scene would be the 'wrong' DNA, so couldn't be tested independently. Nor could it be made available for re-testing at a later date because it would put DNA profiles in the public domain that the RTP (and Somyot in particular) don't want there.

How sure are we that DNA was found in Hannah? All that came forth in court, (other than the hoe, which RTP experts mis-read) is hearsay. As Johnny Cochran might say, "If d'ere ain't no DNA, den d'ere ain't no game to play."

Any one of a number of key factors should have this case thrown out and the defendants released (with compensation for false imprisonment). One example: Hanna's clothes never tested, then went missing. There dozens of others.

Hopefully they will be released shortly

[Khun Han]

^The answer's obvious. Any DNA found at the crime scene would be the 'wrong' DNA, so couldn't be tested independently. Nor could it be made available for re-testing at a later date because it would put DNA profiles in the public domain that the RTP (and Somyot in particular) don't want there.

How sure are we that DNA was found in Hannah? All that came forth in court, (other than the hoe, which RTP experts mis-read) is hearsay. As Johnny Cochran might say, "If d'ere ain't no DNA, den d'ere ain't no game to play."

Any one of a number of key factors should have this case thrown out and the defendants released (with compensation for false imprisonment). One example: Hanna's clothes never tested, then went missing. There dozens of others.

I'm quite unsure if there ever was any semen evidence. The police said Hannah was raped, then said she wasn't, then said she was. I was referring to likely DNA evidence in general found at the crime scene, such as on clothing that the police got rid of, the wine bottle (also disposed of) and cigarette butts found at the crime scene (not the ones found further up the beach that were claimed to be evidence). None of this important evidence has been, or ever will be made available for re-testing. And that's because it probably no longer exists (or if it does still exist, it's being kept for a rainy day by somebody high up in the pecking order).