UK police broke law in case of British backpackers murdered on Koh Tao

[partington]

8 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Have a read above your post.

 

Being in Thailand I would assume one would worry about the DNA being tampered with ?

 

Courts can order a fresh DNA, hold them down and wank them, well whatever it takes 555, but apparently from the post above, they have their samples, its the samples from the bodies that the police threw out, if you could believe that, probably never took them in the 1st place ?

Don't get confused by greenchair's lack of even basic biological knowledge. No sperm samples are necessary to do DNA profiling from an accused, and his contention that sperm samples were taken from the accused is just made up.

 

The first time ever DNA profiling was used (in the Colin Pitchfork case), DNA was prepared from a semen swab from a rape victim, and a mass blood collection was used to prepare DNA from locals to try to identify a match to the semen sample. They only used blood rather than "saliva"  (this is really cheek cells, DNA is only found inside cells) because in those days, the 80's, you needed a lot of cells to make DNA and they could get more cells from blood.

 

No need for sperm  collection even the first time this technique was ever used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pitchfork

Edited August 30, 2017 by partington

[manchega]

21 minutes ago, strawpanda said:

Is this the UK government ingratiating itself with the Thai government? 

you are joking yeah? the UK judge and others feel justice has not been carried out.  The coopeartion provided by uk coppers has resulted in what is obviously a lack of justice.  the uk at least attempts to achieve this justice and will attempt to prevent this happening again.  it will pursue what went wrong on the uk side, basically why help banana republic fit up foreigners

 

[manchega]

1 minute ago, partington said:

Don't get confused by greenchair's lack of even basic biological knowledge. No sperm samples are necessary to do DNA profiling from an accused, and his contention that sperm samples were taken fro the accused is just made up.

 

The first time ever DNA profiling was used (in the Colin Pitchfork case), DNA was prepared from a semen swab from a rape victim, and a mass blood collection was used to prepare DNA from locals to try to identify a match to the semen sample. They only used blood rather than "saliva"  (this is really cheek cells, DNA is only found inside cells) because in those days, the 80's, you needed a lot of cells to make DNA and they could get more cells from blood.

 

No need for sperm  collection even the first time this technique was ever used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pitchfork

yep as above a forced police procedure would involve chopping off an inch or so of hair.

[partington]

6 minutes ago, manchega said:

yep as above a forced police procedure would involve chopping off an inch or so of hair.

No it bloody wouldn't. Hair is dead and contains no cellular DNA.

 

Chopping off the ends of hair with a scissors would be useless -you need to pull hair out by the roots so the follicle, which is a collection of cells, still adheres to the roots.

 

You can only get DNA from cells!  All that needs to be done is take a cotton bud, run it several times over the inside of the subject's cheek, cheek cells are very loose and come off in sheets attached to the cotton bud, put the cotton bud in a tube.

 

That's it. There is nothing easier and less invasive.

Edited August 30, 2017 by partington

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"Reprieve said the evidence and intelligence was used selectively against Lin and Phyo, and that the NCA material potentially pointed to other suspects that could have bolstered the defence case. However, this information was not given to the defence team."

From the Guardian story

 

Way to go, UK police.

 

You have likely helped to convict two innocent men.

 

What a proud day.

 

 

The UK NCA has breached rules regarding the disclosure of information.

 

The way that information was used and the result of that information being uses in such a way was not up to them. But perhaps they were also dumb enough to trust the BiB to be fair and provide that information to the defense team too. I'd also suggest the role of British Embassy officials who would have been giving guidance to the NCA be looked at. They are the supposed experts on the local country practices.

 

But none of that changes anything. The two men (they are not boys or lads as some insist) convicted may be totally innocent, or may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time and either witnessed what they shouldn't have or been dragged into doing something, deliberately to set them up; or they could be partially or completely guilty. We will simply never know because as usual it all smoke and mirrors, conflicting reports, statements made off the cuff, leads not followed up, more holes than a colander and never ever likely to be really solved and justice delivered. Just like those Saudi jewels will never be returned.

 

We can speculate till the cow's come home. But like the poor Welsh girl murdered in Chiang Mai, the truth will never be allowed out.

 

 

 

 

[greenchair]

9 minutes ago, manchega said:

ha ha ha, because the uk police are the real culprits behind the murder?

 

well ok, I would go with that. lets get them burmese boys out of prison and living the lives of teenagers/young adults they should be.

Yes, and prosecute the UK police for providing evidence that the defence demanded that showed those 2 lovely young adults raped butchered and murdered thatlady in the worst possible way. 

Psst, they were paid and did not want to lose face with the Thai government. ???

[Krenjai]

The illegally submitted data from the Sherlock Holmes's will very likely show the phone "traveled" from the crime scene to the B2 house (with time-stamp data). 'Same same' like your own Google timeline from your smartphone. So one could probably assume they were there in the vicinity (but we already know that) and they probably took the phone from the crime-scene. Lets travel back in time to the 7th October 2014:

 

 

"Senior police official was just on Sorayuth Suthassanachinda's evening news show on Channel 3 and he explained exactly how they found David Miller's phone. He said they knew quickly that it was missing from his body from information gained from David's friends and relatives, but this was not made public. Later, after the two suspects were detained and they confessed to the crime, police asked about the phone. One of the suspects said he had left it with a friend and when the friend was questioned he led them to the phone. He had become suspicious of the origin of the phone and he threw it away behind his living quarters'"

 

So they violently murder their victims and then take the phone from David Miller? Somehow I have trouble visualizing this. The statement sounds  much more like one of the B2's (who went back to look for his guitar) did find the phone at the murder scene, took it, left it with the other B2 who threw it away because he became suspicious about the origin of the phone. That I can visualize and makes sense.

 

Does this make them the perpetrators? Absolutely not, to the contrary I would argue. On top of that, Illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in court . So they have given the Supreme court a nice way to safe face! But unfortunately nothing will change the verdict..... it is Thai style!

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Krenjai

[manchega]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The UK NCA has breached rules regarding the disclosure of information.

 

The way that information was used and the result of that information being uses in such a way was not up to them. But perhaps they were also dumb enough to trust the BiB to be fair and provide that information to the defense team too. I'd also suggest the role of British Embassy officials who would have been giving guidance to the NCA be looked at. They are the supposed experts on the local country practices.

 

But none of that changes anything. The two men (they are not boys or lads as some insist) convicted may be totally innocent, or may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time and either witnessed what they shouldn't have or been dragged into doing something, deliberately to set them up; or they could be partially or completely guilty. We will simply never know because as usual it all smoke and mirrors, conflicting reports, statements made off the cuff, leads not followed up, more holes than a colander and never ever likely to be really solved and justice delivered. Just like those Saudi jewels will never be returned.

 

We can speculate till the cow's come home. But like the poor Welsh girl murdered in Chiang Mai, the truth will never be allowed out.

 

 

 

 

yes they are boys, and yes they are only being convicted to prevent anyone losing face in the first instance of conviction.  Once one judge has decided the evidence is accepted it is accepted or all is wrong.  There will be no changing that decision.

[Baerboxer]

17 minutes ago, manchega said:

yes they are boys, and yes they are only being convicted to prevent anyone losing face in the first instance of conviction.  Once one judge has decided the evidence is accepted it is accepted or all is wrong.  There will be no changing that decision.

 

At what age do you stop calling men boys? 

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Yes and the original dna was from sperm, not from the same source taken from the b2 saliva swab. 

Which shows incompetence by the police. 

Then the defence demanded a retest be done from sperm of b2 because it was a different source. 

After being permitted to do a retest and compare their result to the 1st with the original data. They refused,because they did not want the findings to go directly to the judge. Then they pedalled backwards as fast as their legs could pedal to get out of that little surprise from the judge . The best thing was to demand the original sample which they knew was used up. Well, if they were so innocent, what would be the problem with the judge seeing the sperm result? 

Yet you don't see this as being grounds for doubt. 

 

Here we go again! The defence refused the retested because they were offered 'amplified' samples (ie; fake ones), not the originals.

[roo860]

 
At what age do you stop calling men boys? 

Apparently when dealing with refugees coming to the UK, men in their 20's are claiming to be children.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Chopperboy]

" who killed all the other tourists on Koh Tao??"

If the British Police gave evidence to the Thais then it has to be to cover for someone else...   Its like the Madaline McCann case all over again. 

[bipper]

7 hours ago, greenchair said:

I do wonder what the other evidence it is that was handed to the prosecution. 

Could it be the confirmed dna match of those 2 guilty sods. 

The fact that the nca took the risk of handing over such evidence, just tells me by their investigations, they believe the b2 guilty also. 

There may well have been others there, right along with the b2. 

What a load of (poo!) Like UK justice is beyond doing anything underhand in a legal case? Birmingham six, Guildford four. They've proved time and time again they are capable of anything. This is a disgrace. Hang your heads in shame. 

[partington]

48 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Here we go again! The defence refused the retested because they were offered 'amplified' samples (ie; fake ones), not the originals.

1. There is no evidence anywhere about what the defence were offered, and 95% of people writing and commenting on the case have so little knowledge of the basics of DNA and molecular biology that they would not be capable of reporting correctly on what had been offered.

 

2. As an illustration of 1. the  actual facts are that "amplified" samples are no more or less "fake" than originals. All DNA profiling is done on amplified samples - the first step is amplification. Providing the provenance and source of the samples could be verified there would be no harm in retesting a set of the amplified samples used by the Police forensic lab (if they ever existed). I don't think these ever existed, or if they did, produced interpretable results. Certainly no data was presented in court other than an assertion that a match had been found.

 

Actually faking samples, that is  providing samples purporting to be amplified swab DNA from a victim that were completely fabricated, would require a level of expertise that even a police laboratory would be hard pushed to muster, as it would require mixing two DNAs together with some contaminating victim's DNA in a proportion that when profiled independently would appear real. The prosecution /police lab weren't even capable of producing a profiling report on their own samples, never mind supplying expertly faked ones for the defence.

Edited August 30, 2017 by partington
mistyped "prosecution" instead of "defence"

[greenchair]

What would be great is if the Supreme Court took the death penalty off the table. 

The UK revealed all, which would shut all the posters raving on, 

The b2 were there but innocently stood by and watched the murders, whilst picking up the victims phone and innocently going home to sleep and too afraid to say anything. 

It's pathetic. 

The UK decision has nothing to do with the guilty 2 

[greenchair]

The wonderful news is, we all now know the UK did do an investigation. 

The UK did have evidence to the crime. 

The evidence showed the b2 guilty. 

Thanks for the confirmation UK police. 

I just want to thank those brave officers that risked their jobs and good reputation in the name of justice for hannah Witheridge, who was shameless murdered by those 2 rotters. 

[sambum]

8 hours ago, greenchair said:

I do wonder what the other evidence it is that was handed to the prosecution. 

Could it be the confirmed dna match of those 2 guilty sods. 

The fact that the nca took the risk of handing over such evidence, just tells me by their investigations, they believe the b2 guilty also. 

There may well have been others there, right along with the b2. 

Why do you have to use such language as "2 guilty sods"?

How would you like it if I called you a biased troll who likes nothing better than stirring it up and causing trouble in almost every thing you write? Sorry, don't answer that  - you'll probably take it as a compliment.

And before you say they have been proved to be guilty, the same can be said for yourself in your persecution of anybody who dares to disagree with your views.

Your ceaseless,  dogged comments regarding your support of the the DNA tests in another post are a typical example of you supporting flawed evidence that would have been thrown out of a civilised court, and your recent smug comment about the UK police is nothing less than sickening i.e.

"I just want to thank those brave officers that risked their jobs and good reputation in the name of justice" What a load of bullpoo - I'm sorry they can't be here for you to lick their boots for breaking the law!

Edited August 30, 2017 by sambum

[Khun Han]

8 minutes ago, sambum said:

Why do you have to use such language as "2 guilty sods"?

How would you like it if I called you a biased troll who likes nothing better than stirring it up and causing trouble in almost every thing you write? Sorry, don't answer that  - you'll probably take it as a compliment.

And before you say they have been proved to be guilty, the same can be said for yourself in your persecution of anybody who dares to disagree with your views.

Your ceaseless, dogged comments regarding your support of the the DNA tests in another post are a typical example of you supporting flawed evidence that would have been thrown out of a civilised court.  

 

Makes one wonder why she posts the way she does. It's certainly not to find the truth or to learn anything.

[TKDfella]

Okay, so UK broke the law...whose law exactly? That's not the question it looks like. What I really mean is that if the Thai acted on that illegally gained evidence then shouldn't the case be dismissed on a 'technicality"?

[Khun Han]

47 minutes ago, partington said:

1. There is no evidence anywhere about what the defence were offered, and 95% of people writing and commenting on the case have so little knowledge of the basics of DNA and molecular biology that they would not be capable of reporting correctly on what had been offered.

 

2. As an illustration of 1. the  actual facts are that "amplified" samples are no more or less "fake" than originals. All DNA profiling is done on amplified samples - the first step is amplification. Providing the provenance and source of the samples could be verified there would be no harm in retesting a set of the amplified samples used by the Police forensic lab (if they ever existed). I don't think these ever existed, or if they did, produced interpretable results. Certainly no data was presented in court other than an assertion that a match had been found.

 

Actually faking samples, that is  providing samples purporting to be amplified swab DNA from a victim that were completely fabricated, would require a level of expertise that even a police laboratory would be hard pushed to muster, as it would require mixing two DNAs together with some contaminating victim's DNA in a proportion that when profiled independently would appear real. The prosecution /police lab weren't even capable of producing a profiling report on their own samples, never mind supplying expertly faked ones for the defence.

 

Thank you for the correction. Am I right in thinking that this amplified dna could just as easily have been taken from mouth swabs done in the first round-up of Burmese migrants as from semen samples allegedly taken from Hannah's body?

[sambum]

7 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Okay, so UK broke the law...whose law exactly? That's not the question it looks like. What I really mean is that if the Thai acted on that illegally gained evidence then shouldn't the case be dismissed on a 'technicality"?

[Thingamabob]

Shameful. 

[Classic Ray]

A lot of evidence is gathered in criminal  cases, including murders. It is for the police to present this evidence, and for the courts to weigh the evidence. If the court thinks the phone location evidence is strong, they may convict. 

 

There do appear to have been some procedural cock ups in regard to the supply of the phone evidence, but I have some sympathy for the U.K. Investigators who were under a lot of family pressure to make sure the culprits were caught in spite of the Thai police "investigation", as the victims were British.

 

Tourists should not feel safer as"no Thai could have done this". There are many foreign workers, some undocumented, all over Thailand doing the jobs Thais won't touch, including in the holiday resorts. They have nothing to lose, being at the low end of the economic scale.

[pacovl46]

Considering the size of Koh Tao everyone on the island was in the same area as the victims!

[catman20]

7 hours ago, Catoni said:

  Excuse me please...... but... "...hole world..." ? ? 

whole, world better it was 4.30am

Edited August 30, 2017 by catman20

[DiscoDan]

5 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Considering the size of Koh Tao everyone on the island was in the same area as the victims!

The only difference was the B2 were sitting only a few feet away from where the hoe was kept. and had the victims phone.

[rockingrobin]

4 hours ago, greenchair said:

Well you see this is the problem. 

The defense pressured for the UK independent investigation. then wanted the UK to withhold any evidence that would unequivocally show guilt, because of the death penalty. Whilst at the same time reveal evidence that would show another person was there and anything that differed from the Thai police. 

They pressured the coroner to reveal dna findings, but after andy went to meet the coroner backpeddled on that too. 

 

This is incorrect

Lawyers acting for the defence went to the UK high court to request that the MPS made its findings available to the defense

 

If you wish I can locate the relevant judgement

 

The UK coroner would not have been in a position to reveal dna findings

Edited August 30, 2017 by rockingrobin

[DiscoDan]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

What would be great is if the Supreme Court took the death penalty off the table. 

The UK revealed all, which would shut all the posters raving on, 

The b2 were there but innocently stood by and watched the murders, whilst picking up the victims phone and innocently going home to sleep and too afraid to say anything. 

It's pathetic. 

The UK decision has nothing to do with the guilty 2 

The conspiracy theorist will never stop, their list of people involved in the cover up never stops growing, at least they have a new target to attack maybe they will give the Miller's a break for a while.

 

The Facts speak for themselves 

 

Defense did not challenge the dna match.

 

The defense did not ask for a court order for the dna documentation

 

The defense did not Use their "dna expert"

 

The defense did a last minute I turn and said they no longer needed to do it.

 

And people on here think the Thais are stupid.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

The wonderful news is, we all now know the UK did do an investigation. 

The UK did have evidence to the crime. 

The evidence showed the b2 guilty. 

Thanks for the confirmation UK police. 

I just want to thank those brave officers that risked their jobs and good reputation in the name of justice for hannah Witheridge, who was shameless murdered by those 2 rotters. 

Well the MPS disagrees with you, under oath they have testified they did not carry out any investigation , take possesion of any evidence, but were there merely as observers

 

If you wish I will locate the relevant UK  High Court judgement

Edited August 30, 2017 by rockingrobin

[juice777]

This is <deleted> unbelievable

POT KETTLE BALCK

it sounds like to me the the UK authorities just messed up. Confirming that the 2 suspects was in the vicinity of a small island dose not make them guilty. Now if they said they wasn't there that would would prove them incoent. I am sure the UK authorities have messed up here. But it sounds like This is a clever move by the the defense lawyers to offer a Face saving way out for Thailand. Oh we only found them guilty because of The uk gave us information illegally it's not our fault. The difference being we don't torture and fit up innocent people with no evidence. We'll not for a long time anyway.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk