Myanmar men appeal against death sentences over British murders in Thailand

[Krenjai]

New Thread?

 

 

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

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

 

 

Not to mention the impossibly quick time it took to process these complex samples.

[rockingrobin]

The dna evidence gets more chaotic

 

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017_08_29_PRIV-High-Court-Order-NCA-unlawful-action.pdf

 

page 3 section 2

[IslandLover]

10 hours ago, balo said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

Perhaps "fair hair" would have been a better description, but who knows what colour it really was.  The only certainty was that it was not black Asian type hair.

[IslandLover]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The dna evidence gets more chaotic

 

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017_08_29_PRIV-High-Court-Order-NCA-unlawful-action.pdf

 

page 3 section 2

So this is what The Guardian meant by the intelligence provided pointing to other suspects.  

 

 

[greenchair]

13 minutes ago, IslandLover said:

So this is what The Guardian meant by the intelligence provided pointing to other suspects.  

 

 

It didn't point to other suspects. 

It merely says there was an argument in a bar. so obviously they talked to hannah friends and they told of the fight in the  bar. There is nothing in there that would either convict or exonerate anyone. Though it is interesting that they expressed the need to take dna from the suspect on october 17 which I believe is the day the b2 were detained. Please correct that last bit if wrong. 

 

And a long time ago, I did read a newspaper report that the person they argued with was Muang Muang. 

Where did he go for an hour or so after leaving the log? 

Why did he come back with a bottle of wine? ?

Edited August 30, 2017 by greenchair
added info

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The dna evidence gets more chaotic

 

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017_08_29_PRIV-High-Court-Order-NCA-unlawful-action.pdf

 

page 3 section 2

Page 3 section 2 doesn't say anything about dna. 

The only thing it says about dna is they advised the Thai to take dna from the suspect on october 17. 

The suspect is Wei Phyo. 

Perhaps the brits do have dna. 

[StealthEnergiser]

I wonder if certain people are  being protected and others  have been  hired on social media to shut down any mention of a bar fight ?

[StealthEnergiser]

who owned the bar ?

[IslandLover]

2 minutes ago, StealthEnergiser said:

I wonder if certain people are  being protected and others  have been  hired on social media to shut down any mention of a bar fight ?

I think others have been hired on social media to squash any discussion that the B2 might be innocent.     

[007cableguy]

Why is there a couple of shills here going on about DNA? When there was zero documentation and rigid rules regarding DNA carried out... The whole case was a farce from start to finish! Shame on you for the spiel you throw out saying it was a solid guilty verdict!

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

[IslandLover]

18 minutes ago, greenchair said:

It didn't point to other suspects. 

It merely says there was an argument in a bar. so obviously they talked to hannah friends and they told of the fight in the  bar. There is nothing in there that would either convict or exonerate anyone. Though it is interesting that they expressed the need to take dna from the suspect on october 17 which I believe is the day the b2 were detained. Please correct that last bit if wrong. 

 

And a long time ago, I did read a newspaper report that the person they argued with was Muang Muang. 

Where did he go for an hour or so after leaving the log? 

Why did he come back with a bottle of wine? ?

G*d give me strength!  For a start the B2 were detained on October 2nd, and no, Witheridge and Miller did not have an argument with Maung Maung, the 3rd person on the log with the B2.  There were reports that David Miller came to the aid of "Maung Maung" who was being bullied by his boss.  It was never made clear if this was the friend of the B2, or another Maung Maung who was a DJ at the AC Bar.

 

[IslandLover]

14 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Page 3 section 2 doesn't say anything about dna. 

The only thing it says about dna is they advised the Thai to take dna from the suspect on october 17. 

The suspect is Wei Phyo. 

Perhaps the brits do have dna. 

G*d give me strength!

[StealthEnergiser]

15 minutes ago, IslandLover said:

I think others have been hired on social media to squash any discussion that the B2 might be innocent.     

It certainly looks that way it's probably enough money to live in thailand with extended stays no questions asked.

[rockingrobin]

38 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Page 3 section 2 doesn't say anything about dna. 

The only thing it says about dna is they advised the Thai to take dna from the suspect on october 17. 

The suspect is Wei Phyo. 

Perhaps the brits do have dna. 

The need to take dna from a potential suspect

 

Is this the NCA requesting the thai authorities to take dna, or the thais requesting the UK to take dna

 

At the moment I cant see a reason why the NCA would be in possesion of any information about the B2 dna to pass on to the thai authorities

 

 

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, IslandLover said:

G*d give me strength!

Whaaat, it doesn't say anything about dna.

You will certainly need his strength when you realise the truth. 

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The need to take dna from a potential suspect

 

Is this the NCA requesting the thai authorities to take dna, or the thais requesting the UK to take dna

 

At the moment I cant see a reason why the NCA would be in possesion of any information about the B2 dna to pass on to the thai authorities

 

 

It could be referring to getting dna from the person that had the argument. Still doesn't change the guilt of the Burmese. It's a different issue. 

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, IslandLover said:

G*d give me strength!  For a start the B2 were detained on October 2nd, and no, Witheridge and Miller did not have an argument with Maung Maung, the 3rd person on the log with the B2.  There were reports that David Miller came to the aid of "Maung Maung" who was being bullied by his boss.  It was never made clear if this was the friend of the B2, or another Maung Maung who was a DJ at the AC Bar.

 

No apparently it was an argument with Muang Muang. 

But as you say it might have been another Muang Muang. Maybe they should test that Muang Muang. 

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, IslandLover said:

G*d give me strength!

 

You just can't get the staff these days .

[IslandLover]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

No apparently it was an argument with Muang Muang. 

But as you say it might have been another Muang Muang. Maybe they should test that Muang Muang. 

G*d give me strength!  There was NO ARGUMENT with Maung Maung.  How many times do I have to tell you?

[greenchair]

8 minutes ago, IslandLover said:

G*d give me strength!  There was NO ARGUMENT with Maung Maung.  How many times do I have to tell you?

WHAT ? No argument? 

You said there was an argument. 

Everyone said there was an argument. 

Now there's no argument. 

G*d give me strength ? 

[IslandLover]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

WHAT ? No argument? 

You said there was an argument. 

Everyone said there was an argument. 

Now there's no argument. 

G*d give me strength ? 

Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon ........  

Edited August 30, 2017 by IslandLover

[007cableguy]

No normal person with an ounce of common sense would defend a guilty verdict based on evidence presented by the RTP!..... After 15 years in Thailand nothing surprises me as to what the RTP are capable of doing!... A truly disgusting organisation!

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

[stephenterry]

On 8/30/2017 at 10:33 AM, greenchair said:

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. 

 

That is speculation and IMO,  total B/S throughout; there is zero evidence that they were at the crime scene at the time of the murders, let alone witnessing it or taking part, or another witness seeing them there when the murders took place, or any CCTV recording them on the beach.

 

As I posted above, you cannot convict anyone of unlawful killing if you have no evidence. And the only DNA found on the hoe handle (the prosecution's murder weapon) was David's plus one other unidentified person.  

 

So, I ask again, what crime did they commit that justifies a death penalty? Oh, I get it, one B2 found a phone on the beach, and CCTV recorded them, plus one other, on a motorbike near some shops. That's enough. 

 

 

[stephenterry]

On 8/30/2017 at 10:31 AM, 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.

I do hope the defence's 319 page appeal contains the same information that you have provided, which exonerates the B2 from the murder crimes.

[greenchair]

38 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

That is speculation and IMO,  total B/S throughout; there is zero evidence that they were at the crime scene at the time of the murders, let alone witnessing it or taking part, or another witness seeing them there when the murders took place, or any CCTV recording them on the beach.

 

As I posted above, you cannot convict anyone of unlawful killing if you have no evidence. And the only DNA found on the hoe handle (the prosecution's murder weapon) was David's plus one other unidentified person.  

 

So, I ask again, what crime did they commit that justifies a death penalty? Oh, I get it, one B2 found a phone on the beach, and CCTV recorded them, plus one other, on a motorbike near some shops. That's enough. 

 

 

Read the judgement, it's all in there. 

[greenchair]

29 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I do hope the defence's 319 page appeal contains the same information that you have provided, which exonerates the B2 from the murder crimes.

Well I am sure the supreme court will the say the same thing as the first court in regards to lawyers and tv posters giving testimony about dna and autopsy reports. 

The testimony cannot be accepted because the witness is not qualified in dna and autopsy analysis. 

So good luck with that exoneration. 

 

[stephenterry]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Read the judgement, it's all in there. 

I have, it isn't

[greenchair]

2 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I have, it isn't

The judge clearly talked about why he thought they were there and which evidance he applied to his reasoning. 

Read it again. 

Carefully. His reasoning is sound in my opinion. 

[stephenterry]

...and completely ignored the DNA 'non-evidence, by stating he found it ALL IN ORDER which trumps all other evidence. What a joke. And the above is totally circumstantial and speculation by the judge - all of it.

 

It might surprise you, but the judge could have been ordered to convict the B2 by the top official of district 8 who instructed the judges to send him the judgement for approval before releasing it. Which, IMO, is unlawful.