20 minutes ago, IslandLover said:

No, not of the rape and murders but there is a possibility that he witnessed the crime and that's how he came by the phone.  I don't believe Zaw Lin was even there when it happened.

 

If Wei Phyo witnessed the crime he would be dead. He might have been given the phone after the crime by someone wanting to incriminate him, but I'm more inclined to believe that the phone is a red herring created by the RTP.

 

The following is extracted from a BBC article on the Koh Tao case: Thailand beach murders: A flawed and muddled investigation (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35170419)

 

Note the final paragraph.

 

Quote

 

How DNA testing works

DNA analysis is a complex procedure which requires meticulous care and documentation. Contrary to popular belief, it does not offer "perfect matches", only statistical probabilities.

Almost all DNA - 99.9% - is likely to be the same between two people . That distinct 0.1% is made up of what are known as "short tandem repeat" sequences. These are isolated and examined for patterns which offer a statistical likelihood of a match to other DNA samples.

Usually a reference sample from a third party is also analysed.

The statistical likelihood of the match must be demonstrated in court, with full documentation showing methodology, proof the samples have not been contaminated and peer review.

In the Koh Tao case, the prosecution provided only a one-page summary of their DNA tests, some of it handwritten, with parts crossed out and corrected, along with four supporting pages.

---

"The case files of the Thai forensic lab should have been provided to the defence," Ms Taupin said.

"This is so the scientific data contained within, and used to provide conclusions, could be examined for a scientific review.

"The essence of scientific method is the testing and review of hypotheses. If these are not viewed, or even stated, then this does not inspire confidence in the scientific analysis.

"A one-page table with alterations is not a suitable document to provide to a court. A report should not have alterations, especially handwritten ones, with no explanation as to why they were altered."

There were other problems too. The date of the original DNA analysis was said to have been 17 September, but the report submitted to court was dated 5 October. This was two days after the police had announced a positive match with the two Burmese defendants. That unexplained discrepancy inevitably raises suspicion that perhaps the result was manipulated.

 

 

Edited September 1, 20178 yr by EyeOfRa

Surprise, surprise, Deckchair finally got the other thread closed.  I'd like to thank iReason for his monumental effort in reminding all of us what this case is really about - the framing of two scapegoats by the Thai authorities for crimes they didn't commit, which was aided and abetted by Britain's National Crime Agency.

Edited September 2, 20178 yr by IslandLover

23 hours ago, greenchair said:

It was not enough to form a complete profile. 

And correct if I am wrong, according to pornthip it was a partial match to the 2nd defendant. It was not Able to be used as evidence in the court. 

The hoe had been washed and used by the gardener after the crime and before it was sent for testing. Even so, they did manage to find both victims dna  on it. 

The witness testimony was there was 2 dna profiles on the hoe, 1 full , 1 partial neither matched the defendants

The partial profile means the lab was unable to obtain a full set of markers for each location. 

As this topic has gone off the rails as well, like all the other Koh Tao topics, this one is now closed.