Myanmar men appeal against death sentences over British murders in Thailand

[greenchair]

28 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

How can it have 2 extra

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

Oops sorry, my mistake. 

16 locations matched to the b2. 

However there were 2 extra location from contamination or sperm mutation. 

But the b2 refused to give the dna result of the sperm sample so it could not be checked for mutation. 

The 2 extra could actually have come from someone else. 

But that does not discount the 16 that match. It just means someone else put their dna. It could be mau mau or the person with blonde hair. 

They only need 10 locations to make a match but they had 16. 

So 17 18 are irrelevant. 

[greenchair]

42 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

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

With my very limited understanding of dna. 

My understanding is the judge accepted the dna of the nipple was faulty and deteriorated, but it could not discount the full match from semenal fluid in the virgina.

They were a match. They had the victims phone. They were at the beach all through the night. 

They were the only ones in that place at that time. 

[greenchair]

???????

[rockingrobin]

20 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Oops sorry, my mistake. 

16 locations matched to the b2. 

However there were 2 extra location from contamination or sperm mutation. 

But the b2 refused to give the dna result of the sperm sample so it could not be checked for mutation. 

The 2 extra could actually have come from someone else. 

But that does not discount the 16 that match. It just means someone else put their dna. It could be mau mau or the person with blonde hair. 

They only need 10 locations to make a match but they had 16. 

So 17 18 are irrelevant. 

Forensic DNA profiling is not a pick , the only need 10 is taken out of context. 

You only need to test 10, but all 10 need to match, in case of the USA the FBI requires all 13 to match,

 

Making an STR Match

In order to match, for example, crime scene evidence to a suspect, a lab would determine the allele profile of the 13 core STRs for both the evidence sample and the suspect's sample. If the STR alleles do not match between the two samples, the individual would be excluded as the source of the crime scene evidence. However, if the two samples have matching alleles at all 13 STRs, a statistical calculation would be made to determine the frequency with which this genotype is observed in the population. Such a probability calculation takes into account the frequency with which each STR allele occurs in the individual's ethnic group. Given the population frequency of each STR allele, a simple Hardy-Weinberg calculation gives the frequency of the observed genotype for each STR. Multiplying together the frequencies of the individual STR genotypes then gives the overall profile frequency.

 

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/forensics-dna-fingerprinting-and-codis-736

 

Once you start considering contamination for reasons of not matching then the validity of the sample is compromised

[IslandLover]

5 hours ago, greenchair said:

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

 

Completely untrue!  It was raised by the defence during the trial and a forensic witness took the stand.

 

[rockingrobin]

30 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Oops sorry, my mistake. 

16 locations matched to the b2. 

However there were 2 extra location from contamination or sperm mutation. 

But the b2 refused to give the dna result of the sperm sample so it could not be checked for mutation. 

The 2 extra could actually have come from someone else. 

But that does not discount the 16 that match. It just means someone else put their dna. It could be mau mau or the person with blonde hair. 

They only need 10 locations to make a match but they had 16. 

So 17 18 are irrelevant. 

Some of the numbers you are quoting as locations are actually allele numbers, otherwise we would have to assume that the B2 had up to 25 locations tested.

Therefore when you say 17,18 irrelevant these are not locations but numbers assigned to alleles

[IslandLover]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

The hair just says someone else might have been there. 

Irrelevant to the b2 defense 

Just another piece of evidence that the RTP failed to investigate properly - or they did and hid the results because it proved someone else WAS there and was likely involved in the rape and murders.

[IslandLover]

2 hours 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. 

It was stated even before the trial (and during it) that the hair was not Hannah's, or David's.

Edited August 29, 2017 by IslandLover

[rockingrobin]

45 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Oops sorry, my mistake. 

16 locations matched to the b2. 

However there were 2 extra location from contamination or sperm mutation. 

But the b2 refused to give the dna result of the sperm sample so it could not be checked for mutation. 

The 2 extra could actually have come from someone else. 

But that does not discount the 16 that match. It just means someone else put their dna. It could be mau mau or the person with blonde hair. 

They only need 10 locations to make a match but they had 16. 

So 17 18 are irrelevant. 

I have just read the judgement again , 

"Mr Worawee, M.D. – witness for the two defendants - testicied that only ten DNA locations can adequately be used to compare a person’s identity'

 

He doesnt say only 10 locations are needed, but rather that there are only 10 locations

[IslandLover]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

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. 

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. 

 

I think this tells us all we need to know about your reasoning.    

 

So, if one or both of the B2 had witnessed the crime by simply being in the vicinity, rather than committing the actual rape and murders, they would still be guilty in your eyes just because they may have seen something and are too afraid to talk about it?  No, it does NOT make them a party to the whole thing!  They have been convicted solely on circumstantial evidence and some very dubious DNA testing. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by IslandLover

[balo]

1 hour ago, IslandLover said:

t was stated even before the trial (and during it) that the hair was not Hannah's, or David's.

Was it not one of the locals that had colored their  hair blonde ? Not B2 but one of their friends? 

  

 

 

[Khun Han]

8 minutes ago, balo said:

Was it not one of the locals that had colored their  hair blonde ? Not B2 but one of their friends? 

  

 

 

 

Maung Maung had dyed his hair brown from it's natural black. This can be seen in cctv footage released from the night in question.

[007cableguy]

New details about the selective information used from the UK cops!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/29/uk-police-broke-law-in-case-of-british-backpackers-murdered-in-thailand

Sent from my SM-G935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[anon7867763]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/29/uk-police-broke-law-in-case-of-british-backpackers-murdered-in-thailand

 

Very interesting from the foreign press

 

UK police broke law in case of British backpackers murdered in Thailand

National Crime Agency breached rules by passing information to Thai police that led to death sentences, high court rules

[IslandLover]

5 hours ago, balo said:

Was it not one of the locals that had colored their  hair blonde ? Not B2 but one of their friends? 

  

 

 

No, it was not a friend of the B2.  Early police reports claimed one of the suspects (i.e. one of the B2) had recently dyed his hair blond but CCTV footage from that night clearly showed them both (and Maung Maung) with black hair.  Pictures did surface of one of the local Thais (a DJ, I believe) wearing what looked like a blond wig.  It was pointed out in court that anyone with non-Asian light brown hair was regarded as "blond" by the Thais, so that blond hair could have belonged to anyone, including Sean McAnna.

 

There is a photo of Wai Phyo that one forum member is fond of posting where he has lighter coloured dyed highlights in his hair but this was taken well before the murders.

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by IslandLover

[IslandLover]

5 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Maung Maung had dyed his hair brown from it's natural black. This can be seen in cctv footage released from the night in question.

Wrong!  All three of them had black hair in the CCTV footage.

[greenchair]

9 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

I have just read the judgement again , 

"Mr Worawee, M.D. – witness for the two defendants - testicied that only ten DNA locations can adequately be used to compare a person’s identity'

 

He doesnt say only 10 locations are needed, but rather that there are only 10 locations

The defendants matched at 16 locations.

Pornthip...The areola matched 2nd defendant but 20 and 25 of the defendant was missing due to deterioration. 

Pornthip....both defendants matched in the virgina and anal, but there was an extra number 18 that could be sperm abnormality or contamination. 

As you say. ..

Worawee MD says only 10 DNA can be used to compare identity. 

Judge more or less says, they matched on the 10 therefore, there are no abnormalities in the DNA. 

(In other words the abnormality from 20, 25 and 18 were irrelevant as they were not found in the 10 locations used to compare identity   ).

So yes, I agree with you, according to the defense doctor there are 10 location to compare identity. 

They matched in all 10. 

[greenchair]

In my mind, it is blatantly obvious, there at least 1 and possibly 2 other people were there in addition to b2. 

If I was the defense, I would beg the supreme court for mercy because of their age, offer up a full confession including fessing up on all parties involved. 

I'm pickin Muang Muang and Sean got out of this by the skin of their asses. 

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

The defendants matched at 16 locations.

Pornthip...The areola matched 2nd defendant but 20 and 25 of the defendant was missing due to deterioration. 

Pornthip....both defendants matched in the virgina and anal, but there was an extra number 18 that could be sperm abnormality or contamination. 

As you say. ..

Worawee MD says only 10 DNA can be used to compare identity. 

Judge more or less says, they matched on the 10 therefore, there are no abnormalities in the DNA. 

(In other words the abnormality from 20, 25 and 18 were irrelevant as they were not found in the 10 locations used to compare identity   ).

So yes, I agree with you, according to the defense doctor there are 10 location to compare identity. 

They matched in all 10. 

The court judgement does not say this

The dna does not match from semen in rectum, or dna on nipple, vWA beyond the scope of the defendants, and 2 missing dna components from the B2

The court chooses to apply a best 10 out of 16 aproach , misrepresenting the testimony that only 10 locations can be used. 

 

[greenchair]

10 hours ago, IslandLover said:

Just another piece of evidence that the RTP failed to investigate properly - or they did and hid the results because it proved someone else WAS there and was likely involved in the rape and murders.

By the analogy of you and the defense. 

Yes, b2 were there. 

Yes, b2 raped her. 

Yes, b2 stole Davids phone. 

But they should not be convicted and set free because. ..

There were others there that cannot be convicted because there is not enough evidence. 

They only raped her but we don't know if they held the hoe or if the other alleged person instigated the final blow. 

The stolen phone evidence should be discarded because Britain had no right to confirm the identity the phone in a death penalty case. 

It's really a matter of opinion. 

In my opinion, to win that they must be prepared to divulge the alleged holder of the hoe to defend themselves. 

In all cases that I have seen where there are multiple offenders at the scene, and 1 shoots or stabs, the by standers are still convicted but must show that they did not participate in that act in any way. 

If they were raping her and another person used the hoe, it shows they contributed to the death by their restraints to the victim. 

Some people think she was murdered and the b2 wandered past and raped her. Discounted because the victim was bleeding and alive at time of death. Some say they raped her and some one else came along and killed her later. Both highly implausible arguments. 

[greenchair]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The court judgement does not say this

The dna does not match from semen in rectum, or dna on nipple, vWA beyond the scope of the defendants, and 2 missing dna components from the B2

The court chooses to apply a best 10 out of 16 aproach , misrepresenting the testimony that only 10 locations can be used. 

 

I'm not understanding you. 

You agree they matched on 16 right? 

You agree doctor Worawee said only 10 are used to compare identity. 

You agree the court sees that as choosing the 10 used to compare identity out of the 16. As do I. 

 

I don't understand how that misrepresents the testimony that only 10 locations can be used. 

Im really not following what you are trying to say. 

[balo]

4 hours ago, IslandLover said:

It was pointed out in court that anyone with non-Asian light brown hair was regarded as "blond" by the Thais, so that blond hair could have belonged to anyone, including Sean McAnna.

 

Right, so it could have been anyone then ,. the word "blonde" should never have been used.

 

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

In my mind, it is blatantly obvious, there at least 1 and possibly 2 other people were there in addition to b2. 

If I was the defense, I would beg the supreme court for mercy because of their age, offer up a full confession including fessing up on all parties involved. 

I'm pickin Muang Muang and Sean got out of this by the skin of their asses. 

Yes, quite correct. It is blatantly obvious the 'other' people committed the horrific crimes. As the DNA 'evidence' against the B2 has been discredited because no original samples were provided to the court, and the DNA on the alleged murder weapon, the hoe, was not of either of the B2, there is no case for them to answer on the charges submitted.

 

Even if you consider them guilty by association re the beach scene, you should not be able to convict anyone of murder who has not handled the prosecution's murder weapon with their DNA on it.  That is a fact, not supposition. 

 

Which leads me to ask, what are they guilty of? By being at the scene of the crime? And does that warrant a death penalty?

[greenchair]

1 minute ago, balo said:

 

Right, so it could have been anyone then ,. the word "blonde" should never have been used.

 

 

 

 

That's right, a single hair was found. The police might have tried to find a person with that hair to convict that person based on a single hair. But as far as I know the prosecution never accused the hair belonged to the b2 nor used it as evidence against them. 

The disappearing hair was used by the defense to show someone else was there. 

Nothing to do with the b2 case. 

It's a case of, yes we did it, but we should not be charged 100 percent because someone else did it too. And we can't tell you who that is because we are afraid,  so therefore if that person is free, we should be free too.

Give me a break.  

[rockingrobin]

21 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I'm not understanding you. 

You agree they matched on 16 right? 

You agree doctor Worawee said only 10 are used to compare identity. 

You agree the court sees that as choosing the 10 used to compare identity out of the 16. As do I. 

 

I don't understand how that misrepresents the testimony that only 10 locations can be used. 

Im really not following what you are trying to say. 

I will concentrate on 1 dna discrepency, the vWA 18, I have picked this example because this location is a necessity to prove identity in both the fbi (who use 13 locations) and the UK (who use 10 locations). If the location vWA does not match then the FBI and UK would exclude and determine the sample from the suspect was not the donor.

 

The prosecution provided a dna profile into evidence with a marker of 18 at location vWA ,  one location of 13, in case of the USA, or 10 in the case of the UK , which is required to match to prove identity.

The defendants dna at location vWA does not have 18, therefore they could not have donated 18 to the crime scene sample

 

To overcome this the court took the witness statement that 10 locations can only be used to prove identity , to meaning only 10 locations , regardless of their location is necessary.

[greenchair]

22 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Yes, quite correct. It is blatantly obvious the 'other' people committed the horrific crimes. As the DNA 'evidence' against the B2 has been discredited because no original samples were provided to the court, and the DNA on the alleged murder weapon, the hoe, was not of either of the B2, there is no case for them to answer on the charges submitted.

 

Even if you consider them guilty by association re the beach scene, you should not be able to convict anyone of murder who has not handled the prosecution's murder weapon with their DNA on it.  That is a fact, not supposition. 

 

Which leads me to ask, what are they guilty of? By being at the scene of the crime? And does that warrant a death penalty?

Well yes, they are guilty by being at the scene of the crime. There's no question they were there by anyone these days. 

Because they continue to lie about being there. The judge accepts that the plaintiff cannot produce a witness  to the actual crime of murder as is the nature of that crime. However, there was a witness who saw them 60 meters away. There was no other person seen on the cctv except the b3. 

They were there and refuse to defend that. Instead choosing to lie. As they have lied throughout. 

So there's a good possibility that they lied about some one else holding the hoe. 

It's up to them. fess up or die. 

 

[greenchair]

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I will concentrate on 1 dna discrepency, the vWA 18, I have picked this example because this location is a necessity to prove identity in both the fbi (who use 13 locations) and the UK (who use 10 locations). If the location vWA does not match then the FBI and UK would exclude and determine the sample from the suspect was not the donor.

 

The prosecution provided a dna profile into evidence with a marker of 18 at location vWA ,  one location of 13, in case of the USA, or 10 in the case of the UK , which is required to match to prove identity.

The defendants dna at location vWA does not have 18, therefore they could not have donated 18 to the crime scene sample

 

To overcome this the court took the witness statement that 10 locations can only be used to prove identity , to meaning only 10 locations , regardless of their location is necessary.

So you are saying it's acceptable to focus only on location 18 and disregard 10 match location which is of UK standard. 

It's not how I see it, but you are entitled to that opinion. 

[rockingrobin]

16 minutes ago, greenchair said:

So you are saying it's acceptable to focus only on location 18 and disregard 10 match location which is of UK standard. 

It's not how I see it, but you are entitled to that opinion. 

No , what I am saying the UK standard would require vWA to match

[greenchair]

16 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

No , what I am saying the UK standard would require vWA to match

vWA 18 was only found in the rectum. Which by the way was mixed.  Full match was found in the vagina by the 2nd defendant.

If I was to concede to 18 , it would only be on the first defendant. 

There is slight evidence of a 3rd person, being the hair, vWA 18, the unknown dna on the hoe, some unexplained wounds on david. The condom. 

Muang Muang was on the log. He disappeared for a couple of hours and came back with wine , all around the time hannah was last seen. ( show me a poor man that drinks beer, then changes to more expensive wine, I'll eat my hat ) wine is generally  bought by a male to "loosen" a prospective lady up. After coming back with wine, he disappeared again for an hour or 2.  Then he suddenly turns up and is hanging around at the beach between 2 and 4 am. He shared cigarettes with his dna that were near the victim. But that dna was not found on victim. 

He says he woke Wei Phyo up. 

Wei Phyo says they met on way back to room. 

As the judge said, there was nothing to connect Muang Muang to the victim . It's highly possible he is the third person. It's even possible he held the hoe. 

That's another case. 

Wei Phyo was on the log , he shared the cigarette that matched dna on the victim. His full match dna was in the vagina. He had first victim phone. He lied and lied. He was at the scene between 2 and 4 am. 

 

Zaw Lin did the least of the 3. 

He sat on the log drinking, he went for a swim. He went back to the room and went to sleep. 

His dna was on the butt. 

But as you say, his dna in the bottom was mixed and had vWA 18. His case is totally different from above two. 

You cannot lump all of their cases together. In my opinion the court failed in that area. 

[rockingrobin]

30 minutes ago, greenchair said:

vWA 18 was only found in the rectum. Which by the way was mixed.  Full match was found in the vagina by the 2nd defendant.

If I was to concede to 18 , it would only be on the first defendant. 

There is slight evidence of a 3rd person, being the hair, vWA 18, the unknown dna on the hoe, some unexplained wounds on david. The condom. 

Muang Muang was on the log. He disappeared for a couple of hours and came back with wine , all around the time hannah was last seen. ( show me a poor man that drinks beer, then changes to more expensive wine, I'll eat my hat ) wine is generally  bought by a male to "loosen" a prospective lady up. After coming back with wine, he disappeared again for an hour or 2.  Then he suddenly turns up and is hanging around at the beach between 2 and 4 am. He shared cigarettes with his dna that were near the victim. But that dna was not found on victim. 

He says he woke Wei Phyo up. 

Wei Phyo says they met on way back to room. 

As the judge said, there was nothing to connect Muang Muang to the victim . It's highly possible he is the third person. It's even possible he held the hoe. 

That's another case. 

Wei Phyo was on the log , he shared the cigarette that matched dna on the victim. His full match dna was in the vagina. He had first victim phone. He lied and lied. He was at the scene between 2 and 4 am. 

 

Zaw Lin did the least of the 3. 

He sat on the log drinking, he went for a swim. He went back to the room and went to sleep. 

His dna was on the butt. 

But as you say, his dna in the bottom was mixed and had vWA 18. His case is totally different from above two. 

You cannot lump all of their cases together. In my opinion the court failed in that area. 

Throw in dna profiling is difficult to obtain after 3 days , sexual assualt cases

The low volume of seman sample available, it was all used up , the victims dna will be in greater number that the male perpertraitors and thus the female dna will swamp the testing process.

The mixed sample will complicate the process

The discrepencies in the results

The amendments and alterations to correct mistakes in the recording of results