Myanmar men appeal against death sentences over British murders in Thailand

[xylophone]

7 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Was there on piece of evidence that stood out in your mind the got your deciding vote?

Well there was no real evidence to convict the boys on unless they came up with DNA – – so they did.

 

They came up with a case for the DNA that no one can argue against because they "used it all up" if indeed there ever was any.

 

They conveniently "lost" Hannah's clothing which may well have given clues as to other perpetrators. They conveniently "lost" the blonde hairs clasped in Hannah's hand (I remember seeing a photograph of one of the Thai guys at the bar wearing a blonde wig) which may also have given clues.

 

They conveniently forgot to investigate how David had the puncture wounds in his head, this because if they had investigated this then they would have had to have found something which belonged to the B2 which could have caused these wounds.

 

And you asked whether there was one piece of evidence that stood out, well the above should show you that there was not one piece of evidence that would have convicted anyone, anywhere of such a crime.

 

And many people commented (and I agree) that the way which Hannah was murdered was not just a case of wanting to silence someone because of a rape, for example, but an act of vengeance, violence, vindictiveness and possibly someone who was mentally unstable.

 

No, not one piece of evidence to suggest guilt other than corruption, saving face and wanting to please someone in charge at the top. 

[greenchair]

To me Robin it looks simple. 

B2 dna came from saliva at 16 location. 

Vaginal dna came from sperm 18 location. 

Sperm and saliva has a different compound. 

So the first 16 location in both matched. 

Dna on the nipple matched the 2nd defendant but two location were missing so the judge and porthip did not accept it. 

This did not effect the match of the semenal dna of offenders  (originally unknown ) and the saliva of the defendants.

 

What does bother me is did the defendants have different reports or was it all on 1 report. 

The first defendant really should have had a separate trial. 

Like mau mau and Sean, there was very little on him. 

But that's what his lawyers chose. 

[rockingrobin]

3 minutes ago, greenchair said:

To me Robin it looks simple. 

B2 dna came from saliva at 16 location. 

Vaginal dna came from sperm 18 location. 

Sperm and saliva has a different compound. 

So the first 16 location in both matched. 

Dna on the nipple matched the 2nd defendant but two location were missing so the judge and porthip did not accept it. 

This did not effect the match of the semenal dna of offenders  (originally unknown ) and the saliva of the defendants.

 

What does bother me is did the defendants have different reports or was it all on 1 report. 

The first defendant really should have had a separate trial. 

Like mau mau and Sean, there was very little on him. 

But that's what his lawyers chose. 

No 

The dna did not match, you posted earlier from the court judgement where it is described in detail

Edited August 29, 2017 by rockingrobin

[greenchair]

44 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The court in order to explain the dna not matching has to rely on either contanimation or depreciation. If the B2 did not tamper with the evidence then any contamination must have occurred after or during sample collection /testing. 

The contamination and depreciation was from the nipple area with missing location 20, 25 

A similar thing with the hoe. 

Nothing to do with the vaginal swab. 

[greenchair]

9 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

No 

The dna did not match, you posted earlier from the court judgement where it is described in detail

The location 1 through 16 matched. 

The source of saliva and semen was not match. 

Don't you understand that. 

Saliva and semen is not the same. 

Example . 1 cow produces milk. 

Half is full cream. 

Half is no fat. 

Any test will show the milk is different. 

But the dna of full cream and no fat will be the same because it's 2 different things from the same cow. 

Is this case full cream had 2 extra markers 17,18 because it has cream, but the no fat has no cream so 17, 18 are missing. 

Simple. 

[IslandLover]

8 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Perhaps someone could clarify what CCTV footage contained the B2, and under what circumstances, because I can't recall it ever being raised in court or elsewhere.

 

As to witnessing the murders, I said there was a possibility only because they were in the vicinity - like many suppositions, that is circumstantial evidence at best. 

 

But, I see that the fictitious DNA evidence has been ignored in favour of handling a phone. 

 

And, IMO, I would not be surprised if the SC does not accept the Appeal, which means further delay.

 

 

I read that it is up to the Region 8 court (Samui) to decide whether or not to accept the Appeal.  If accepted, they would pass it to the Supreme Court for consideration along with all the case files.  If this is true then there is no chance the Appeal will be accepted, IMHO.  There is too much at stake for certain people in Region 8.

[rockingrobin]

15 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The contamination and depreciation was from the nipple area with missing location 20, 25 

A similar thing with the hoe. 

Nothing to do with the vaginal swab. 

page 42 of judgement

 

' Although the DNA testing report in Document Jor. 12, page 5 at vWA DNA location indicated that the DNA from the rectum tissue had [location] Number 18, which is beyond the readings found in the DNA of the two defendants '

 

Loci vWA is required to prove identity

[rockingrobin]

12 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The location 1 through 16 matched. 

The source of saliva and semen was not match. 

Don't you understand that. 

Saliva and semen is not the same. 

Example . 1 cow produces milk. 

Half is full cream. 

Half is no fat. 

Any test will show the milk is different. 

But the dna of full cream and no fat will be the same because it's 2 different things from the same cow. 

Is this case full cream had 2 extra markers 17,18 because it has cream, but the no fat has no cream so 17, 18 are missing. 

Simple. 

But we are not comparing saliva with semen, we are comparing saliva, semen with the defendanrs

If the dna came from the defendants , it would fully match regardless of its source. You cannot take half the dna from the saliva and half from the semen and create a match by joining them together

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

The blonde hair was not raised by the defense or the prosecutor so the judge didn't comment. 

 

 

The issue of the blonde hair was raised and the police colonel dealing with it perjured himself about his meetings with a Bangkok pathologist when cross-examined.

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

But we are not comparing saliva with semen, we are comparing saliva, semen with the defendanrs

If the dna came from the defendants , it would fully match regardless of its source. You cannot take half the dna from the saliva and half from the semen and create a match by joining them together

I'm not understanding what you say didn't match. 

It matched according to two of the defense own witnesses, both pornthip and the doctor. That was from the defense, not the prosecution. 

[greenchair]

18 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The issue of the blonde hair was raised and the police colonel dealing with it perjured himself about his meetings with a Bangkok pathologist when cross-examined.

The hair just says someone else might have been there. 

Irrelevant to the b2 defense 

[Khun Han]

Just now, greenchair said:

The hair just says someone else might have been there. 

Irrelevant to the b2 defense 

 

No, it says someone else was definitely there, and it should have been absolutely crucial to the prosecution. That's why the police 'lost' it and the police colonel lied about it when cross-examined in court. Your coaches/advisors are bloody useless greenchair. Robin is eviscerating you and everyone else is making you look like a fool.

[GOLDBUGGY]

34 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The hair just says someone else might have been there. 

Irrelevant to the b2 defense 

Exactly! 

 

It also could have even been the Victims own hair, which was blonde at this time. Making the hair insignificant, and why it wasn't talked about much after that. 

[rockingrobin]

33 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I'm not understanding what you say didn't match. 

It matched according to two of the defense own witnesses, both pornthip and the doctor. That was from the defense, not the prosecution. 

A persons dna is their dna regardless of its source, whether that be saliva, semen , blood or buccal swabs, the result of testing will be the same.

The evidence presented showed that the testing of the saliva did not match the defendants, to overcome this deficiency the court decided to use a mix and match approach , taking a ,piece of the semen dna testing and placing into the saliva hypothesis to create the match.To justfy this approach it rationalized that either the sample was contaminated or depreciated.

[rockingrobin]

6 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Exactly! 

 

It also could have even been the Victims own hair, which was blonde at this time. Making the hair insignificant, and why it wasn't talked about much after that. 

In court it had already been established not to come from the victims

[rockingrobin]

49 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I'm not understanding what you say didn't match. 

It matched according to two of the defense own witnesses, both pornthip and the doctor. That was from the defense, not the prosecution. 

Pornthip did not say the dna matched, she opinioned on possibilities why it did not match

[GOLDBUGGY]

5 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

In court it had already been established not to come from the victims

Sorry but I don't recall this ever been brought up in Court. I know it was mentioned early on in the invstigation by the Police, but not in Court.

 

Somebody else also recently said;"The blonde hair was not raised by the defense or the prosecutor so the judge didn't comment." So to be honest I am not sure what is true. 

[greenchair]

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Pornthip did not say the dna matched, she opinioned on possibilities why it did not match

I have to disagree, she opinioned on the parts of location that did not match and the missing dna. 

Specifically location 17, 18

And missing location 20, 25. 

16 locations matched in the area to identify a person. According to the other doctor, 10 locations are needed for a match. 

She explained very clearly why it was like that. 

I'm just not seeing what you are seeing. 

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

No, it says someone else was definitely there, and it should have been absolutely crucial to the prosecution. That's why the police 'lost' it and the police colonel lied about it when cross-examined in court. Your coaches/advisors are bloody useless greenchair. Robin is eviscerating you and everyone else is making you look like a fool.

If there was someone else there, the police should find that person. 

It's got nothing to do with the evidence presented of the b2 guilt. I think mau mau was there, but as the judge said there was nothing to connect him to the victim. As for the hair, there was no body to connect to the hair ?so to speak. 

I'll ask my advises to step up their game. 

What does inviscerating mean? 

People resort to verbal violence, when they don't have anything valuable to say. 

[rockingrobin]

10 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I have to disagree, she opinioned on the parts of location that did not match and the missing dna. 

Specifically location 17, 18

And missing location 20, 25. 

16 locations matched in the area to identify a person. According to the other doctor, 10 locations are needed for a match. 

She explained very clearly why it was like that. 

I'm just not seeing what you are seeing. 

some basic principles

A persons DNA is only found in nucleatide cells, and is the same for evey cell. A persons dna does not change throughout their lifetime. There is no such thing as saliva, semen, sweat dna , these are only sources of nucleatide cells. The dna from blood, saliva, semen are identical

 

There is no test to determine where the dna originated ,(sweat, saliva, blood, semen), not to be confused with donor.

There is a serological test that can be carried out semen , because it only survives for a short period.

 

Therefore the extracted dna from the saliva should be identical to the defendant

[rockingrobin]

32 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Sorry but I don't recall this ever been brought up in Court. I know it was mentioned early on in the invstigation by the Police, but not in Court.

 

Somebody else also recently said;"The blonde hair was not raised by the defense or the prosecutor so the judge didn't comment." So to be honest I am not sure what is true. 

mentioned here

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior-police-officers-give-contradictory-evidence-at-hannah-witheridge-murder-trial-1-4215995

[greenchair]

41 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

A persons dna is their dna regardless of its source, whether that be saliva, semen , blood or buccal swabs, the result of testing will be the same.

The evidence presented showed that the testing of the saliva did not match the defendants, to overcome this deficiency the court decided to use a mix and match approach , taking a ,piece of the semen dna testing and placing into the saliva hypothesis to create the match.To justfy this approach it rationalized that either the sample was contaminated or depreciated.

No, the saliva had 16 markers that related to identity. 

The semen had 18. 

They matched to 16. 

You only need a match of 10 

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

No, the saliva had 16 markers that related to identity. 

The semen had 18. 

They matched to 16. 

You only need a match of 10 

let me try to understand

Are you saying the dna extracted from the saliva , does not need to match the dna extracted from the semen or defendant 

[greenchair]

7 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

mentioned here

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior-police-officers-give-contradictory-evidence-at-hannah-witheridge-murder-trial-1-4215995

The judge said there were some minor arguments presented but 

They would not hold weight in changing the verdict of the case because of above evidence. 

I imagine the hair, had nothing to do with their guilt or innocence. 

It's irrelevant, unless the b2 fess up and say who it was. Then accuse that person of holding the hoe ,but they would still get the guilty verdict if they didn't hold the hoe because they were a party to the whole thing. 

[greenchair]

6 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

let me try to understand

Are you saying the dna extracted from the saliva , does not need to match the dna extracted from the semen or defendant 

NO. They matched but the semen dna had 2 extra locations. 

Pornthip explained why. Please read it again from the court. 

I made notes. It took 3 hours. 

You need to understand first pornthip gave testimony on behalf of the plaintiff. 

Then she gave testimony on behalf of the defendants. 

She was a neutral witness. 

[rockingrobin]

14 minutes ago, greenchair said:

No, the saliva had 16 markers that related to identity. 

The semen had 18. 

They matched to 16. 

You only need a match of 10 

page 42 and 43 of the judgement is clear

Although the DNA testing report in Document Jor. 12, page 5 at vWA DNA location indicated that the DNA from the rectum tissue had [location] Number 18, which is beyond the readings found in the DNA of the two defendants

while the location D2S1338 and vWA of DNA collected from the right nipple had two missing loci of DNA location Number 20 and 25 of the Second Defendant. A thorough consideration afcirmed that the DNA of the two defendants still matched the DNA of the offenders’ semen found in the rectum.

 

It is obvious to me that the dna did not match, vWA and D2S1338 are 2 of the 10 loci that need to match for positive id

[rockingrobin]

Just now, greenchair said:

NO. They matched but the semen dna had 2 extra locations. 

Pornthip explained why. Please read it again from the court. 

I made notes. It took 3 hours. 

You need to understand first pornthip gave testimony on behalf of the plaintiff. 

Then she gave testimony on behalf of the defendants. 

She was a neutral witness. 

How can it have 2 extra

where did these 2 extra come from ?, if the defendants are incapable of donating them

[Khun Han]

40 minutes ago, greenchair said:

If there was someone else there, the police should find that person. 

It's got nothing to do with the evidence presented of the b2 guilt. I think mau mau was there, but as the judge said there was nothing to connect him to the victim. As for the hair, there was no body to connect to the hair ?so to speak. 

I'll ask my advises to step up their game. 

What does inviscerating mean? 

People resort to verbal violence, when they don't have anything valuable to say. 

 

Maung Maung didn't have blonde hair, so it was absolutely crucial to find the owner of that hair because they were patently involved in the attack on Hannah which ended with her murder. This is particularly crucial in view of the fact that conviction of the b2 was based on the judges' highly subjective interpretation of their alibi and other circumstantial evidence, and their acceptance of unacceptable dna evidence (as Robin keeps explaining in his evisceration of you). Find the blonde-haired attacker and you've cracked the case. Instead, the police 'lost' the hair and lied about their investigation of it in court.

 

And no name-calling on my part, just calling it as it is. I don't deliberately misspell other posters' names as you do (remember when you called me a khunt?).

Edited August 29, 2017 by Khun Han

[greenchair]

12 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Maung Maung didn't have blonde hair, so it was absolutely crucial to find the owner of that hair because they were patently involved in the attack on Hannah which ended with her murder. This is particularly crucial in view of the fact that conviction of the b2 was based on the judges' highly subjective interpretation of their alibi and other circumstantial evidence, and their acceptance of unacceptable dna evidence (as Robin keeps explaining in his evisceration of you). Find the blonde-haired attacker and you've cracked the case. Instead, the police 'lost' the hair and lied about their investigation of it in court.

 

And no name-calling on my part, just calling it as it is. I don't deliberately misspell other posters' names as you do (remember when you called me a khunt?).

Hilarious. 

[Khun Han]

Just now, greenchair said:

Hilarious. 

 

So, no considered reply. Just an insult. Verbal (literary, actually) violence indeed.