Myanmar men appeal against death sentences over British murders in Thailand

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

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

The judge addressed every issue from every side, so no, not one piece of evidence. 

But Wei Phyo and mau mau both clearly lied. 

I'm not so sure about the other 1. 

There was the dna. That's all that was suspicious of him. 

[rockingrobin]

26 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The judge addressed every issue from every side, so no, not one piece of evidence. 

But Wei Phyo and mau mau both clearly lied. 

I'm not so sure about the other 1. 

There was the dna. That's all that was suspicious of him. 

The judge did not adress every issue. They failed to account for the missing blond hair found clutched in the deceased hand

The judges conclusion from the dna is in my opinion  irrational. The court claims that there is a 100% match then goes on to describe how the dna does not match the defendants. In order to rationalize these discrepencies , they consider the possibility that the samples could be contaminated or have depreciated, given that the court concludes that the evidence was handled to international standards and in a promptly manner , it is difficult to understand how as the court determines that this a positive for the prosecution and detrimental to the defense

[Krenjai]

Father David Miller speaks out ( interview couple months old) , heartbreaking but he really believes the B2 did it. He is 100% convinced, so the RTP did a hell of good job convincing him. Beats me.

 

Why didn't this reporter ask him about the fact that Hannah her family (sister) seems to believe the RTP did a terrible job and is questioning if the right people are behind bars?

 

http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2017-03-02/itv-news-exclusive-father-of-david-miller-says-the-right-men-have-been-found-guilty-of-sons-death/

 

(enable flash)

 

[Khun Han]

Person of influence first on the crime scene, moving the bodies and evidence around, noticing that the hoe was missing (?????). Same person of influence repeatedly returning to crime scene.

Main person of influence stating that son had not fled island, but was returning to Bangkok for studies. Main person of influence then changes his story to son not having been on island for months. Facebook photo found of son on island two weeks prior. Which brings us to:

Persons of influence and all their extended clan deleting all their Facebook posts from the two weeks around the murders.

Bar owned by same persons of influence, where David and Hannah last seen alive, refuses to hand over cctv to police, using lame excuse it's private property.

Person of influence initially refuses to give DNA sample, using lame excuse that it infringes his civil rights.

Main person of influence's son stays in hiding in Bangkok for several days, despite his family and hometown being all over the news wrt the murders. Eventually turns up with a radical new haircut and a lawyer.

Etc, etc, etc.

 

Can you imagine what kind of a field day greenchair would have with the above if it were the b2 and Maung Maung I was referring to. But watch her casually swat it all away without any attempt to properly address it, and continue banging on with the dodgy and threadbare circumstantial evidence against the b2. Which gives her game away .

[sjaak327]

On ‎24‎-‎8‎-‎2017 at 8:47 AM, GOLDBUGGY said:

So why have they lost there Court Case, there Appeal, and now fighting the Death Sentence?

 

Which some in the Know knew a very long time ago that it was would lead to this?

 

I am waiting on Solid Evidence which shows they did not do this? Not some theories and imperfectons to suggest this possibility as things may not have been done perfectly in Thailand. Never heard that a Murder Convicetion was done perfectly in the US either!

This case would have never gone to a US court under these circumstances. in any case you have it mixed up, the prosecution needs to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the two did murder the victims. with the absence of any DNA matching the defendants on the alleged murder weapon, they failed to do that. 

 

You could say (ignorning the grave doubts that have arisen over the DNA evidence that was submitted) that they did prove the two defendants were at the scene at some point in time. However they were sentenced for murder, not for being at the crime scene (half the island trampled on the crime scene the next morning).

 

The two might have done it, however this has not been proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, therefor the sentence and conviction is incorrect.

Edited August 29, 2017 by sjaak327

[JLCrab]

The problem however is that, here in Thailand, it is the Court that gets to decide if the Prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edited August 29, 2017 by JLCrab

[Khun Han]

Crab seems to think that parroting the court's decisions half-a-million times trumps all other discussion on these threads. Crab, this is a discussion forum, not a Thai court of law. Are you ever going to take the leap and join in the actual discussions? Everybody, everybody here is aware of the court's decisions. They don't need reminding. Go on, join in. You might actually enjoy it.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Khun Han

[JLCrab]

The topic here is the appeal to the Supreme Court of Thailand over a death sentence, not how you think things would go if trial were taking place in UK or whether you agree with the prior Courts' rulings. And the petition to the Supreme Court has already been submitted by the Defense.

You do occasionally look at the topic heading, don't you?

[Khun Han]

The topic is here to be discussed. Otherwise it would be a closed thread. Something I strongly suspect Crab would prefer to actually having to discuss the subject matter.

[JLCrab]

You can talk about all you want because that's all it is. Talk.

And at least some of the talk on here has been that, if some were (hypothetically) in a position to help or exonerate the convicted B2, all the reasons why they wouldn't do it.

Edited August 29, 2017 by JLCrab

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The judge did not adress every issue. They failed to account for the missing blond hair found clutched in the deceased hand

The judges conclusion from the dna is in my opinion  irrational. The court claims that there is a 100% match then goes on to describe how the dna does not match the defendants. In order to rationalize these discrepencies , they consider the possibility that the samples could be contaminated or have depreciated, given that the court concludes that the evidence was handled to international standards and in a promptly manner , it is difficult to understand how as the court determines that this a positive for the prosecution and detrimental to the 

[greenchair]

For rocky Robin part 1

With my limited skill in reading and dna understanding, I have read about the dna and think I understand. 

The dna result was obtained before their arrest. There were 16 match location which were all chromoson location to identify a person. 

The police institution  did not have a chain of custody report as would have been required by the ministry of justice.

Judge. .

It is a slight difference of format and routine that does not contribute to inaccurate or incorrect reports so the report is accepted. 

[sambum]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

For rocky Robin part 1

With my limited skill in reading and dna understanding, I have read about the dna and think I understand. 

The dna result was obtained before their arrest. There were 16 match location which were all chromoson location to identify a person. 

The police institution  did not have a chain of custody report as would have been required by the ministry of justice.

Judge. .

It is a slight difference of format and routine that does not contribute to inaccurate or incorrect reports so the report is accepted. 

"It is a slight difference of format and routine that does not contribute to inaccurate or incorrect reports so the report is accepted."

 

Totally ignoring the fact that all kinds of tampering could have been done!

[greenchair]

Robin. ..part 2 

The defense complaint the police institution was not accredited. 

Judge...

However the defense own witness from the justice institution confirmed both institute are

accredited by the same ISO 17025.

Therefore the plaintiff institute is an acceptable source. 

 

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

For rocky Robin part 1

With my limited skill in reading and dna understanding, I have read about the dna and think I understand. 

The dna result was obtained before their arrest. There were 16 match location which were all chromoson location to identify a person. 

The police institution  did not have a chain of custody report as would have been required by the ministry of justice.

Judge. .

It is a slight difference of format and routine that does not contribute to inaccurate or incorrect reports so the report is accepted. 

The chain of custody is an international standard , as if it was as the court implies just a different method of administration then it would not have lost other evidence 

[greenchair]

Robin part 3..

The defense complaints the report had corrections making it useless. 

Judge. .

The top of the page should have the name and number such as 

Rectum swab 1.3 vaginal swab 1.2

The bottom of the page should show the same as above. 

But at the page show 

Top  rectum swab 1.3

Bottom vaginal swab 1.2 

Top vaginal swab 1.2 

Bottom vaginal swab 1.2

So it was corrected. 

The corrections did not effect the result. 

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Robin. ..part 2 

The defense complaint the police institution was not accredited. 

Judge...

However the defense own witness from the justice institution confirmed both institute are

accredited by the same ISO 17025.

Therefore the plaintiff institute is an acceptable source. 

 

We know at the time of testing the lab was not accredited, 

[greenchair]

Robin part 4. 

Police collected sample externally and internally so b2 confirm they did not go to the crime scene, therefore they could not accidently tamper with the crime scene. Therefore their dna should not have been there. 

[rockingrobin]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 3..

The defense complaints the report had corrections making it useless. 

Judge. .

The top of the page should have the name and number such as 

Rectum swab 1.3 vaginal swab 1.2

The bottom of the page should show the same as above. 

But at the page show 

Top  rectum swab 1.3

Bottom vaginal swab 1.2 

Top vaginal swab 1.2 

Bottom vaginal swab 1.2

So it was corrected. 

The corrections did not effect the result. 

This , if true implies the work , recording of results was carried out without due diligence. The court judgement said these alterations were carried out once the mistake had been discoverd, 

How was the mistake discovered, and what other mstakes have not been discovered

[rockingrobin]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 4. 

Police collected sample externally and internally so b2 confirm they did not go to the crime scene, therefore they could not accidently tamper with the crime scene. Therefore their dna should not have been there. 

This doesnt adress the dna not matching

[rockingrobin]

7 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 4. 

Police collected sample externally and internally so b2 confirm they did not go to the crime scene, therefore they could not accidently tamper with the crime scene. Therefore their dna should not have been there. 

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. 

[Khun Han]

9 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

12 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 4. 

Police collected sample externally and internally so b2 confirm they did not go to the crime scene, therefore they could not accidently tamper with the crime scene. Therefore their dna should not have been there. 

This doesnt adress the dna not matching

 

Where are these sample, and why are the RTP unable to provide them for retesting?

[sambum]

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by sambum

[greenchair]

Robin part 5. .

Pornthip testimony for the plaintiff. 

Seminal fluid, sweat, and saliva all can be distinguished by dna, so that's why you can see a difference in the dna source because the dna from hannah was semen, but the dna from b2 is a saliva swab. 

So the dna report from hannah had 18 locations which is beyond the reading of b2 saliva which only had 16 location. 

In addition the defense complained there was missing dna location from the nipple of 20 and 25 from 2nd defendant. 

However, it was considered not to effect the case because there is a confirmed match in the semen. 

The offenders semen matched in 16 location, in the virgina and rectum. The 2 missing location from the nipple had nothing to do with the other area. 

So the dna from the nipple was not accepted. 

 

Pornthip for defense. ...

Excessive numbers  (17,18)

Could be from contamination or sperm mutation. The missing dna could be from dna deterioration. 

Doctor for defense said only 10 locations need  be used to identify a person therefore there are no abnormalities in the 10 location  (out of 16) so it is not possible to dismiss the fact the dna belonged to the two. (The defense own witness said that )

[greenchair]

Robin part 6. ...

Judge. ..the defendants were able to do a retest of their dna but failed to present their findings so they could not disprove the results of the plaintiff.

( I imagine that would have been a sperm test instead of a saliva test which would be slightly different in nature but still would get same dna result )

Conclusion of judge. ..

B2 were arrested 17 days after the first dna collection.

The doctor at the scene followed protocol and sent samples to be tested immediately after collection. Therefore it would be unlikely police or investigators would be able to bring semen from the b2 and place it in the virgina. 

 

And that is the story of the missing numbers, extra numbers, difference in source all confirmed by the defense own 2 witnesses. 

[greenchair]

36 minutes ago, sambum said:

"It is a slight difference of format and routine that does not contribute to inaccurate or incorrect reports so the report is accepted."

 

Totally ignoring the fact that all kinds of tampering could have been done!

Doesn't mean they didn't have a chain of custody. 

Just means they didn't write about it. 

It was collected and sent 17 days before the arrest. So, tampering would be quite hard I guess. 

[rockingrobin]

3 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 5. .

Pornthip testimony for the plaintiff. 

Seminal fluid, sweat, and saliva all can be distinguished by dna, so that's why you can see a difference in the dna source because the dna from hannah was semen, but the dna from b2 is a saliva swab. 

So the dna report from hannah had 18 locations which is beyond the reading of b2 saliva which only had 16 location. 

In addition the defense complained there was missing dna location from the nipple of 20 and 25 from 2nd defendant. 

However, it was considered not to effect the case because there is a confirmed match in the semen. 

The offenders semen matched in 16 location, in the virgina and rectum. The 2 missing location from the nipple had nothing to do with the other area. 

So the dna from the nipple was not accepted. 

 

Pornthip for defense. ...

Excessive numbers  (17,18)

Could be from contamination or sperm mutation. The missing dna could be from dna deterioration. 

Doctor for defense said only 10 locations need  be used to identify a person therefore there are no abnormalities in the 10 location  (out of 16) so it is not possible to dismiss the fact the dna belonged to the two. (The defense own witness said that )

Do you honestly not see the flaws

In order to rationalize the dna discrepencies described , the court has to rely on contamination or depreciation. It does not consider that the points where there is a match could be from the same contamination that caused the original missmatch.

 

The court draws an incorrect conclusion from the only 10 is required, and assumes a pick and mx approach , 10 out of 16

 

Whilst the statement of 10 matching is correct, it should be remembered that the latest evidence suggests that all human beings share 99.9% of dna. Therefore he took 10 markers from this portion of the dna it would match wth the whole population.

 

The 10 matching markers have to originate from the highly discriminatory portion of the dna chromosomes. The US codis for identification includes marker vWA , one that the samples did not match

 

 

[greenchair]

33 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The chain of custody is an international standard , as if it was as the court implies just a different method of administration then it would not have lost other evidence 

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

 

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Robin part 6. ...

Judge. ..the defendants were able to do a retest of their dna but failed to present their findings so they could not disprove the results of the plaintiff.

( I imagine that would have been a sperm test instead of a saliva test which would be slightly different in nature but still would get same dna result )

Conclusion of judge. ..

B2 were arrested 17 days after the first dna collection.

The doctor at the scene followed protocol and sent samples to be tested immediately after collection. Therefore it would be unlikely police or investigators would be able to bring semen from the b2 and place it in the virgina. 

 

And that is the story of the missing numbers, extra numbers, difference in source all confirmed by the defense own 2 witnesses. 

The samples was all used up, 

The court as already acknowledged that the sample is either contaminated or depreciated when it deals with the dna discrepencies , what is to be gained to testing against a used sample known to be deficient

[rockingrobin]

15 minutes ago, greenchair said:

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

 

Well I beg to differ, did not the prosecutor have 2 seperate visits to Bangkok but refused to state the contents of discussions in court

 

Apologies it was not the prosecutor

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

Edited August 29, 2017 by rockingrobin