Koh Tao murder, DNA and saving face – Forensic examinations UK Ltd

[maoro2013]

1 hour ago, AleG said:

No, the whole confusion comes from when the defense asked a witness during the trial about the DNA evidence, they were asking the head of the Phang Nga police if he had the samples available and he said no because they had been sent to Bangkok for testing, the part in bold is what gets omitted for the convenience of perpetuating the myth that there is no DNA evidence available.
The fact is it was the defense that declined to have that evidence reexamined when they got the court order to allow them to do so; this whole notion that there's no DNA, or that is only "replicated" DNA is just the Chinese Whisper machine at work.
The fact that the defense didn't include the supposed unavailability of DNA for retesting in their appeal points is all that is needed to show it's all bunk; if it would be true that they were refused to have access to original evidence they would be shouting it from the rooftops, instead of just relying in online rumor mongering to float the idea around.

Well there have been so many stories one does not know what to believe.

[stephenterry]

22 minutes ago, AleG said:

OK, reading comprehension time.
You want to take that statement to mean that no DNA evidence was made available for retesting.

 

The statement is that "all genetic material tested in a a lab was replicated and saved but that it had deteriorated over time", nowhere in that statement it indicates that the original samples are gone or unavailable, only that they are replicated and kept ("replicated and saved") but over time they degrade. It doesn't say that the original material is all gone, that the amount of deterioration would make it untestable, that if there are only replicated samples they'd lack the documentation that would demonstrate provenance or that any of it was refused to the defense for retesting.

The only time I saw a reason given by the defense for not pushing through with an independent reexamination was that they could not control the process, I guess they have a different definition of independent than the rest of the world.
And every single time I have asked some of the people that vehemently believe the DNA evidence is gone, used up or denied to provide any real substantiation for that claim  there is no answer, which goes to show that in that case, and others, the belief has no grounds other than people repeating turning excuses into speculation and then (as always) promoting that into the realm of "fact"

What you need to ask yourself is IF the Rtp had the original DNA samples they would have presented these to the court as proof of guilt. As they used every excuse under the sun why they were unavailable it's a logical conclusion that they didn't have any original DNA samples or even any samples that matched the b2. Anything else is just hearsay from the Rtp. As you well know.

[AleG]

14 minutes ago, maoro2013 said:

Well there have been so many stories one does not know what to believe.

That speaks volumes about the nature of the press work regarding this case, they cashed in on the controversy that they helped create.

[AleG]

8 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

What you need to ask yourself is IF the Rtp had the original DNA samples they would have presented these to the court as proof of guilt. As they used every excuse under the sun why they were unavailable it's a logical conclusion that they didn't have any original DNA samples or even any samples that matched the b2. Anything else is just hearsay from the Rtp. As you well know.

What did you expect, to have a test tube labelled "DNA" passed around the courtroom?

They brought in the people that analysed the evidence to present their findings, that's how DNA evidence is presented in a court; the defense were given permission to retest that evidence so that any doubts about the veracity of the witness testimony could be contested, yet the defense (for the hundredth time) declined to do so.

It's not because there was no DNA, it's not because they were refused to have access to it, it was because, in my opinion, they didn't want to have an independent test that would had validated the findings from the RTP police lab (and the other three labs that were involved).
A competent lawyer would never ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to and that the answer will advance his case, so when they declined to do what they said they wanted all along, the inference is clear, they knew the gig was up, a reexamination of the evidence would only help the prosecution so they called it off.

[Khun Han]

AleG, you can offer all the convoluted 'explanations' and excuses you want. Everybody (except for your tiny little band of followers, of course) can see through the games you try to play with logic. I have provided evidence that the original DNA samples were never offered for re-analysis, and you have tried to twist the interpretation of that evidence, which has been your modus operandi throughout these discussions. Shame on you.

[stephenterry]

8 minutes ago, AleG said:

What did you expect, to have a test tube labelled "DNA" passed around the courtroom?

They brought in the people that analysed the evidence to present their findings, that's how DNA evidence is presented in a court; the defense were given permission to retest that evidence so that any doubts about the veracity of the witness testimony could be contested, yet the defense (for the hundredth time) declined to do so.

It's not because there was no DNA, it's not because they were refused to have access to it, it was because, in my opinion, they didn't want to have an independent test that would had validated the findings from the RTP police lab (and the other three labs that were involved).
A competent lawyer would never ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to and that the answer will advance his case, so when they declined to do what they said they wanted all along, the inference is clear, they knew the gig was up, a reexamination of the evidence would only help the prosecution so they called it off.

Rubbish. Original samples had to be presented to the court for the defence to test them as the court decided. But they didn't as you well know 

[Khun Han]

14 minutes ago, AleG said:

What did you expect, to have a test tube labelled "DNA" passed around the courtroom?

They brought in the people that analysed the evidence to present their findings, that's how DNA evidence is presented in a court; the defense were given permission to retest that evidence so that any doubts about the veracity of the witness testimony could be contested, yet the defense (for the hundredth time) declined to do so.

It's not because there was no DNA, it's not because they were refused to have access to it, it was because, in my opinion, they didn't want to have an independent test that would had validated the findings from the RTP police lab (and the other three labs that were involved).
A competent lawyer would never ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to and that the answer will advance his case, so when they declined to do what they said they wanted all along, the inference is clear, they knew the gig was up, a reexamination of the evidence would only help the prosecution so they called it off.

 

You just keep on posting the same deliberate misinterpretations. And, when someone provides evidence to refute your absurd claims, you use pedantry to 'debunk' (in your imagination) the clear evidence. You fool nobody except your cheerleaders, and I doubt you're really fooling them.

[sweatalot]

7 hours ago, Mister Fixit said:

 

The standard of English in which the article is written also leaves a lot to be desired.  Doesn't say a lot for the author when it comes to credibility.

 

I'm not saying that I don't agree with the basics of the article, or that the Koh Tao Two weren't stitched up, but I'd want to read a far more rigorously written and argued article than this, which seems to be basically a regurgitation of what has already been said many times before.   

 

regurgitation or not, language standard to your liking or not

 

articles like that are important an should be published without end until they create an effect and move the unmovable

 

note that purpose of the article is not to satisfy your aesthetic standards but to participate to truth and justice

[rockingrobin]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33457038

 

Thailand backpacker murders: DNA evidence 'lost' - police

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

No, it turned out to be true. But the judges refused to accept it because it's author (Norfolk Coroner Jacqueline Lake) didn't present it in person and submit herself to cross examination in court!

 

Anyway, from the article I linked:

 

"Police forensic expert Kewalee Chanpan told the court on Samui island that all genetic material tested in a a lab was replicated and saved but that it had deteriorated over time, according to Reuters."

 

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0PY0A820150724

 

"The court said that lawyers are free to request all the DNA samples for independent DNA testing at anytime," Nakhon told Reuters, adding that a forensic expert testified that DNA swabs from the crime scene had been duplicated in a laboratory, so samples were still available.

"Now we must decide what to re-test."

On Thursday, police forensic expert Kewalee Chanpan told a court on Samui island, site of the trial, that all genetic material tested in a lab was replicated and saved, but that it deteriorated over time"

[stephenterry]

AleG you know the b2 are innocent. Please desist in your continuing harassment and thank your maker you're not incarcerated in Bkk prison for the foreseeable future.

[evadgib]

What puzzles me is what a start-up company based in UK hopes to achieve by discrediting an Asian trial with Asian defendants in Asia?

 

If they want to be taken seriously in their homeland by their customer base a good place to start would be the home grown events @Tolshunt D'Arcy cira Aug 85 or finding out who killed Jill Dando.

 

 

[AleG]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33457038

 

Thailand backpacker murders: DNA evidence 'lost' - police

An excellent example of how and why the press coverage of this case has been geared towards creating controversy rather than informing people.

Cherry pick one word and put it in the headline to predispose the reader, fair and balanced.

Headline: DNA evidence "lost" - police.
Note the quotes around lost, that implies the police has said the DNA evidence on which the case is built is lost.

The evidence is "lost" OMG!! COVER UP!

So what evidence, precisely, they say has been lost?
"A hair sample found in Miss Witheridge's hand was among samples that were lost, he said."

A hair sample, that was not what the case against the B2 was built on, no mention of what other evidence was supposedly lost. That DNA evidence, specifically, is the one retrieved from inside one of the victims, the article just let's people make assumptions about the status of the evidence used to identify the attackers.
It's like covering a gun robbery that ends up with a bank guard dead, "Evidence "lost" - police" shout the newspaper headlines, then you read that what is lost is a glove found at the crime scene, not the handgun actually used to shoot the bullets that killed the guard and has the fingerprints of the shooter,  that context being completely omitted from the article. Of course if someone is not acquainted with the case and reads the article they probably will believe that the evidence used against the shooter has been lost.
This is precisely the sort of games that can be played in the media (social or traditional) to build a narrative, generate controversy and manipulate public opinion.

And that's not even touching into the matter of who was the reporter quoting from, since most of the quotes picked up by the media were in fact the work of the defense retelling the court proceedings and they of course wouldn't sensationalize something in order to push a particular narrative... not while they have the press to do it for them by substituting "used up during testing"  by "lost"  when referring to that particular hair (which again had no bearing on the case built against the B2):
 

"Lieutenant Colonel Somsak said all police could offer the court was documentation of the results.

"There's nothing left. It was used up when we tested the first time," he said."

Not the same isn't it? "lost" and "used up after testing (with documentation of the results)". But the former it's more clickbaity than the latter so it's OK to stretch the truth a little bit.

But then, as always this is all nuanced thinking, that pesky logic some complain about.

[AleG]

49 minutes ago, evadgib said:

What puzzles me is what a start-up company based in UK hopes to achieve by discrediting an Asian trial with Asian defendants in Asia?

 

If they want to be taken seriously in their homeland by their customer base a good place to start would be the home grown events @Tolshunt D'Arcy cira Aug 85 or finding out who killed Jill Dando.

 

 

What's puzzling about a start up company prospecting clients?

[sweatalot]

 

50 minutes ago, evadgib said:

What puzzles me is what a start-up company based in UK hopes to achieve by discrediting an Asian trial with Asian defendants in Asia?

 

If they want to be taken seriously in their homeland by their customer base a good place to start would be the home grown events @Tolshunt D'Arcy cira Aug 85 or finding out who killed Jill Dando.

 

yeah draw off the attention from the subject - cheap rhetoric trick, nothing more

[AleG]

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

AleG you know the b2 are innocent. Please desist in your continuing harassment and thank your maker you're not incarcerated in Bkk prison for the foreseeable future.

Why, thank you for telling me what I really think, I'm sure you know better than me about that.
On the other hand I'll have to correct you about the harassment part, if you are so triggered by reading things that don't conform to your (clairvoyant) mind you don't have to read them, so for example you can just decide on what other people really think and be done with it. So much easier that way.

[evadgib]

44 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

yeah draw off the attention from the subject - cheap rhetoric trick, nothing more

I raised a valid point which has yet to be countered.

 

The bored should google Frank Swann + forensic for a classic example of how this may yet backfire.

[roger101]

As a completely independent reader of this exchange, it seems to me that both sides have made up their minds and nothing is going to change it.

[rockingrobin]

51 minutes ago, AleG said:

An excellent example of how and why the press coverage of this case has been geared towards creating controversy rather than informing people.

Cherry pick one word and put it in the headline to predispose the reader, fair and balanced.

Headline: DNA evidence "lost" - police.
Note the quotes around lost, that implies the police has said the DNA evidence on which the case is built is lost.

The evidence is "lost" OMG!! COVER UP!

So what evidence, precisely, they say has been lost?
"A hair sample found in Miss Witheridge's hand was among samples that were lost, he said."

A hair sample, that was not what the case against the B2 was built on, no mention of what other evidence was supposedly lost. That DNA evidence, specifically, is the one retrieved from inside one of the victims, the article just let's people make assumptions about the status of the evidence used to identify the attackers.
It's like covering a gun robbery that ends up with a bank guard dead, "Evidence "lost" - police" shout the newspaper headlines, then you read that what is lost is a glove found at the crime scene, not the handgun actually used to shoot the bullets that killed the guard and has the fingerprints of the shooter,  that context being completely omitted from the article. Of course if someone is not acquainted with the case and reads the article they probably will believe that the evidence used against the shooter has been lost.
This is precisely the sort of games that can be played in the media (social or traditional) to build a narrative, generate controversy and manipulate public opinion.

And that's not even touching into the matter of who was the reporter quoting from, since most of the quotes picked up by the media were in fact the work of the defense retelling the court proceedings and they of course wouldn't sensationalize something in order to push a particular narrative... not while they have the press to do it for them by substituting "used up during testing"  by "lost"  when referring to that particular hair (which again had no bearing on the case built against the B2):
 

"Lieutenant Colonel Somsak said all police could offer the court was documentation of the results.

"There's nothing left. It was used up when we tested the first time," he said."

Not the same isn't it? "lost" and "used up after testing (with documentation of the results)". But the former it's more clickbaity than the latter so it's OK to stretch the truth a little bit.

But then, as always this is all nuanced thinking, that pesky logic some complain about.

Speaking to the BBC, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak, who led the original investigation, said some of the original DNA samples had been "used up".

A hair sample found in Miss Witheridge's hand was among samples that were lost, he said.

Lieutenant Colonel Somsak said all police could offer the court was documentation of the results.

"There's nothing left. It was used up when we tested the first time," he said

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33457038

The article is quite clear, 

 

 

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

What puzzles me is what a start-up company based in UK hopes to achieve by discrediting an Asian trial with Asian defendants in Asia?

 

If they want to be taken seriously in their homeland by their customer base a good place to start would be the home grown events @Tolshunt D'Arcy cira Aug 85 or finding out who killed Jill Dando.

 

 

 

The boss of the company appears to have a track record on this type of thing. If you read the link I posted on the first page of this thread, you will read about her involvement in a high profile case concerning the suspicious death of a British national on holiday in Spain. The then British prime minister eventually got involved.

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, stephenterry said:

AleG you know the b2 are innocent. Please desist in your continuing harassment and thank your maker you're not incarcerated in Bkk prison for the foreseeable future.

 

He philosophised his way through the exit door of moral decency a while ago. This is all just a game to him now, one that he plays to gain favour from people of influence. Shame on him.

[anon4637435435]

Is it just me or does the term saving face not even make sense anymore. Theres nothing less to save is there?. Unless those concerned chose to do the right thing with regards to the investigation or take some responsability for the lack of professionalism this countries image will remain tarnished. It is a crime to tarnish this countries image isnt it? So then put the judge abd all thebother questionable figures on trial. Do something.

[CockneyGit]

Worms - Can Of - Opened..!!

[Khun Han]

4 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Speaking to the BBC, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak, who led the original investigation, said some of the original DNA samples had been "used up".

A hair sample found in Miss Witheridge's hand was among samples that were lost, he said.

Lieutenant Colonel Somsak said all police could offer the court was documentation of the results.

"There's nothing left. It was used up when we tested the first time," he said

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33457038

The article is quite clear, 

 

 

 

So, two rapes worth of semen, which is enough to provide for many thousands of DNA tests in any other testing lab in the world, was all used up in one test by Thailand's state-of-the-art testing equipment. How odd is that?

 

And Police major general Pornchai Suteerakhun of Bangkok Police Hospital's Institute of Forensic Medicine stated following an examination on 17 September 2014 that Hannah appeared not to have been raped. Yet we are being told on here by the usual suspects that the rape DNA had already been signed off!

 

It's obvious that these DNA samples never existed.

[DiscoDan]

Does anyone know if any of the lawyers have ever worked on a case where dna evidence was used in court ?

 

How did they not know scientist have a policy of keeping  documentation from investigating officers ?

 

 

 

 

[Grubster]

10 hours ago, AleG said:

 

At this stage the story is the story.
Step 1 create controversy, Step 2 benefit from the controversy.
Then the little spinoffs like generating more controversy by looking into the controversy of people benefiting from the controversy or "reporting" on the reaction of people to the controversy.... and so on and so forth.

I sure hope they don't let up till the two kids are back home.

[smedly]

29 minutes ago, DiscoDan said:

Does anyone know if any of the lawyers have ever worked on a case where dna evidence was used in court ?

 

How did they not know scientist have a policy of keeping  documentation from investigating officers ?

 

 

 

 

In Thailand - scientists pathologists and doctors put into their reports what they are told too, the exception being Pornthip Rojanasunand who the police make every attempt to avoid using because she refuses to be intimidated and works by the book.

[DiscoDan]

14 minutes ago, smedly said:

In Thailand - scientists pathologists and doctors put into their reports what they are told too, the exception being Pornthip Rojanasunand who the police make every attempt to avoid using because she refuses to be intimidated and works by the book.

Maybe that's why the defense did not get her to retest the dna found in Hannah they knew she could not be intimidated. and that she would of told if dna matched, 

[manxninja]

Are people actually still bothered with this. Case is closed move on, nothing will be re opened. This is Thailand.

[smedly]

2 hours ago, DiscoDan said:

Maybe that's why the defense did not get her to retest the dna found in Hannah they knew she could not be intimidated. and that she would of told if dna matched, 

while you keep repeating this same nonsense and lies I will continue to correct you

 

pursuant to international standards, laboratories are required to retain original mixed samples in order that they may retest the sample themselves and in order that any future defence team has an opportunity to retest an original mixed sample. The prosecution and police merely had “amplified” or "already extracted" DNA evidence available but without the original samples one could never be sure of the source.