stephenterry Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Trolling nonsense posts, inflammatory posts, off topic posts and replies have been removed. Good. Hope a couple earn a few days rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambum Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Fight not gift We were wondering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Follow Andy Hall@Atomicalandy Trial resumes in Thailand of 2 men accused of murdering Norfolk woman Hannah Witheridge: Sarah Yuen update from court http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/trial_resumes_in_thailand_of_two_men_accused_of_murdering_norfolk_woman_hannah_witheridge_1_4242304 … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 the scene is looking different No, it's exactly the same as before; the prosecution never claimed DNA from the defendants was found on the hoe. The only thing that has come from the independent testing of it is that it was, indeed, the murder weapon; so nothing new. Meanwhile the actual DNA evidence the prosecution is basing their case on is being contested only indirectly by trying to discredit the process that yielded the results, instead of the actual results themselves; which I don't think carries much weight because it's not possible to by mistake or accident arrive at two DNA profiles matching the defendants. The only thing that would produce a match is a deliberate faking of the results after the two defendants were arrested, and until they can provide any sort of evidence for such thing, IMO, the DNA evidence still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loonodingle Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 the scene is looking different No, it's exactly the same as before; the prosecution never claimed DNA from the defendants was found on the hoe. The only thing that has come from the independent testing of it is that it was, indeed, the murder weapon; so nothing new. Meanwhile the actual DNA evidence the prosecution is basing their case on is being contested only indirectly by trying to discredit the process that yielded the results, instead of the actual results themselves; which I don't think carries much weight because it's not possible to by mistake or accident arrive at two DNA profiles matching the defendants. The only thing that would produce a match is a deliberate faking of the results after the two defendants were arrested, and until they can provide any sort of evidence for such thing, IMO, the DNA evidence still stands. I Guess if u r using the 25 percent threshold as convincing to convict the B2 then your story holds water. Like a colander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 hoehoe1.jpg the original hoe below (notice the broken corner ) and hoe in the news clip above. Leave the detective work to capable people; that is a leave in front of the blade, it's not a hole on the blade. What was that you said....................yes leave it to capable people shall we hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambum Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 This must be horrific listening for the Witherbridge family. Forensic Science Officer Worawee Waiyawuth said DNA testing in their laboratory showed Ms Witheridge had held the hoe handle for the longest time, leaving a DNA trace which was not blood, although her blood was on the blade. This scenario does not paint the picture put to us by the positioning of Hannah's body when found at the crime scene, instead it shows a lengthy struggle and fight put up by Hannah I know this has been mentioned before, but NO ONE heard anything? it seems amazing to me that as Hannah had held the hoe handle for the longest time, and consequently putting up a lengthy struggle and fight, how is it that nothing of the struggle was heard? And let's not forget that David was there as well - 2 people shouting and screaming in what was obviously a fairly prolonged attack. In the early hours of the morning, when there are no everyday sounds to mask unusual ones, no one heard anything? At the risk of being labelled a "conspiracy theorist" by "you know who" this smells of cover up all the way. It seems that people have been told to say that they heard nothing. I think I remember reading on here that someone heard a guitar being played and singing on the beach earlier - but no one heard the sounds of 2 people screaming and shouting and fighting for their lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinLOS Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 One news report suggested that information from a “highly-placed source” suggests that the court would probably take a long time to reach a verdict as it would need to examine further evidence How can either prosecution or defense present 'further evidence' without it being part of the trial ??? Surely even in this crackpot of a system, evidence must be reviewed, examined, rebutted ??? What is this some kind of secret evidence thats not possible to be challenged ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGareth2 Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 the scene is looking different No, it's exactly the same as before; the prosecution never claimed DNA from the defendants was found on the hoe. The only thing that has come from the independent testing of it is that it was, indeed, the murder weapon; so nothing new. Meanwhile the actual DNA evidence the prosecution is basing their case on is being contested only indirectly by trying to discredit the process that yielded the results, instead of the actual results themselves; which I don't think carries much weight because it's not possible to by mistake or accident arrive at two DNA profiles matching the defendants. The only thing that would produce a match is a deliberate faking of the results after the two defendants were arrested, and until they can provide any sort of evidence for such thing, IMO, the DNA evidence still stands. OK but how do you explain her DNA on the handle? This is new Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Thai Murders: Suspects' DNA Not On Weapon No genetic material from either of the accused is found on the hoe a court hears, despite claims they handled it without gloves .http://news.sky.com/story/1556915/thai-murders-suspects-dna-not-on-weapon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 No, it's exactly the same as before; the prosecution never claimed DNA from the defendants was found on the hoe. The only thing that has come from the independent testing of it is that it was, indeed, the murder weapon; so nothing new. Meanwhile the actual DNA evidence the prosecution is basing their case on is being contested only indirectly by trying to discredit the process that yielded the results, instead of the actual results themselves; which I don't think carries much weight because it's not possible to by mistake or accident arrive at two DNA profiles matching the defendants. The only thing that would produce a match is a deliberate faking of the results after the two defendants were arrested, and until they can provide any sort of evidence for such thing, IMO, the DNA evidence still stands. OK but how do you explain her DNA on the handle? This is new Maybe she fended off one blow and skin cells attached to the handle, maybe she didn't and she was simply hit by the handle in addition to the head of the hoe, maybe she grabbed it when being attacked, maybe it was used to restrain her and pressed against her body, maybe it was left over her body for some time, plenty of possible explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loonodingle Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 No, it's exactly the same as before; the prosecution never claimed DNA from the defendants was found on the hoe. The only thing that has come from the independent testing of it is that it was, indeed, the murder weapon; so nothing new. Meanwhile the actual DNA evidence the prosecution is basing their case on is being contested only indirectly by trying to discredit the process that yielded the results, instead of the actual results themselves; which I don't think carries much weight because it's not possible to by mistake or accident arrive at two DNA profiles matching the defendants. The only thing that would produce a match is a deliberate faking of the results after the two defendants were arrested, and until they can provide any sort of evidence for such thing, IMO, the DNA evidence still stands. OK but how do you explain her DNA on the handle?This is new Maybe she fended off one blow and skin cells attached to the handle, maybe she didn't and she was simply hit by the handle in addition to the head of the hoe, maybe she grabbed it when being attacked, maybe it was used to restrain her and pressed against her body, maybe it was left over her body for some time, plenty of possible explanations. Thats alot of maybe's for you AleG. Maybe you would have expected the B2 DNA to be on the weapon. Oh know you told us last week it had been washed off. My apologies I just remembered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil B Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Another scenario... Something I would not like to think happened, but given the fact that it is now said that both Hannah's David's DNA was on the hoe as if both handled it. Could Hannah have used it to defend herself against David, hitting David with it, David snatches it off her, in a rage kills her, he stumbles in the sea and drowns??? No I would not like to think this is what happened but there again I do not want to see innocent people sent down for this crime. Third person moves the hoe to protect the owner of the hoe from being accused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Follow Andy Hall@Atomicalandy Koh tao defense team lawyers informed me I'm the first witness on the stand at Samui Court 2mrw for 17th day of Koh Tao murder trial. Follow Andy Hall@Atomicalandy Likely to be covering a number issues including liaison with UK authorities/UK evidence, situation of Koh Tao migrant workers, CCTV cameras Follow Andy Hall@Atomicalandy Quite a few other issues prepared to give testimony on but will depend on lawyers, time and appropriateness as to which issues are presented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruceybonus Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Another scenario... Something I would not like to think happened, but given the fact that it is now said that both Hannah's David's DNA was on the hoe as if both handled it. Could Hannah have used it to defend herself against David, hitting David with it, David snatches it off her, in a rage kills her, he stumbles in the sea and drowns??? No I would not like to think this is what happened but there again I do not want to see innocent people sent down for this crime. Third person moves the hoe to protect the owner of the hoe from being accused? For the love of God have you not seen David's puncture wounds, caused by a knife/shark tooth etc ??? Have not seen David's black eye, bruises etc. Please inform yourself before submitting such absolute piffle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil B Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Another scenario... Something I would not like to think happened, but given the fact that it is now said that both Hannah's David's DNA was on the hoe as if both handled it. Could Hannah have used it to defend herself against David, hitting David with it, David snatches it off her, in a rage kills her, he stumbles in the sea and drowns??? No I would not like to think this is what happened but there again I do not want to see innocent people sent down for this crime. Third person moves the hoe to protect the owner of the hoe from being accused? For the love of God have you not seen David's puncture wounds, caused by a knife/shark tooth etc ??? Have not seen David's black eye, bruises etc. Please inform yourself before submitting such absolute piffle There has been a lot covered over the last few weeks I do not think that anyone of us has been able to take in all the facts, many of the pictures were just to gruesome to view, I was just probing a possible scenario, possibly you have answered my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 OK but how do you explain her DNA on the handle?This is new Maybe she fended off one blow and skin cells attached to the handle, maybe she didn't and she was simply hit by the handle in addition to the head of the hoe, maybe she grabbed it when being attacked, maybe it was used to restrain her and pressed against her body, maybe it was left over her body for some time, plenty of possible explanations. Thats alot of maybe's for you AleG. Maybe you would have expected the B2 DNA to be on the weapon. Oh know you told us last week it had been washed off. My apologies I just remembered. Do you know what is the likelihood of transfer DNA on wooden objects to be detected? I did some research and from what I found it is less than 40% under ideal conditions: sterilized wood, 60 full seconds of firm grasping, no contaminants or further handling, straight into a sealed bag and to the lab for analysis. What is the conclusion from all this? The often left out quote from the article that's been making the rounds here: The prosecution asked Mr Waiyawuth if the third, incomplete, profile could belong to one of the suspects. He replied that only a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile. The prosecution said: “So his participation cannot be ruled out.” Mr Waiyawith replied: “No, but he cannot be included either.” The results of the DNA analysis of the hoe can't rule out or incriminate the defendants, so in that regard the situation is the same as before the retesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireplay Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Is the lack of defendent dna on the hoe the big bomb drop we are all waiting to hear? I do hope there is something with more of a punch to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aj Mick Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 certain people are unable to see the broken blade hoe6.jpg Then I stand corrected. Obviously the hoe in the press conference is a different one, since it also doesn't have blood on it and there's zero evidence that the original was switched with that one as part of the evidence of the case; suggesting so is nothing but an attempt to muddle the waters some more. Of course there is zero evidence that the original was switched with the one that was part of the evidence of the case because those have had charge of the evidence are also in charge of muddling the waters. Now AleG, to prove that you are not here just to muddle the waters, perhaps you could answer a few questions: From KunMatt 1. Do you now accept that the B2 were tortured into confessing? 2. Do you still believe the RTP's case against the B2 is solid and that the B2 are guilty? And here are another couple from me: 1. Why your interest in this case? 2. What is your connection to Koh Tao, and those involved in the case? I have already given answers in a previous thread. C'mon AlweG, display a bit of sincerity; can you do the same? Don't hold out on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minikev Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 hoehoe1.jpg the original hoe below (notice the broken corner ) and hoe in the news clip above. Leave the detective work to capable people; that is a leave in front of the blade, it's not a hole on the blade. Or it could be a leaf Mr g. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Is the lack of defendent dna on the hoe the big bomb drop we are all waiting to hear? I do hope there is something with more of a punch to come. More to come this is just beginning to warm up. The prosecution presented evidence that DNA from both the accused men was found on Ms Witheridge’s body. However the defence lawyers insist their clients are innocent, and say they will put forward testimony this week which will prove the two Burmese men did not kill Ms Witheridge or Mr Miller. The trial continues http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/trial_resumes_in_thailand_of_two_men_accused_of_murdering_norfolk_woman_hannah_witheridge_1_4242304?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruceybonus Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Another scenario... Something I would not like to think happened, but given the fact that it is now said that both Hannah's David's DNA was on the hoe as if both handled it. Could Hannah have used it to defend herself against David, hitting David with it, David snatches it off her, in a rage kills her, he stumbles in the sea and drowns??? No I would not like to think this is what happened but there again I do not want to see innocent people sent down for this crime. Third person moves the hoe to protect the owner of the hoe from being accused? For the love of God have you not seen David's puncture wounds, caused by a knife/shark tooth etc ??? Have not seen David's black eye, bruises etc. Please inform yourself before submitting such absolute piffle There has been a lot covered over the last few weeks I do not think that anyone of us has been able to take in all the facts, many of the pictures were just to gruesome to view, I was just probing a possible scenario, possibly you have answered my question. Ok, sorry I thought you were just trying to obfuscate matters. There are a few people trying to derail the threads. If I were you, I would view the pictures, they will definitely give you a sense of why people are so horrified & angry by the way this case has been manhandled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madaussie Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 OK but how do you explain her DNA on the handle?This is new Maybe she fended off one blow and skin cells attached to the handle, maybe she didn't and she was simply hit by the handle in addition to the head of the hoe, maybe she grabbed it when being attacked, maybe it was used to restrain her and pressed against her body, maybe it was left over her body for some time, plenty of possible explanations. Thats alot of maybe's for you AleG. Maybe you would have expected the B2 DNA to be on the weapon. Oh know you told us last week it had been washed off. My apologies I just remembered. Do you know what is the likelihood of transfer DNA on wooden objects to be detected? I did some research and from what I found it is less than 40% under ideal conditions: sterilized wood, 60 full seconds of firm grasping, no contaminants or further handling, straight into a sealed bag and to the lab for analysis. What is the conclusion from all this? The often left out quote from the article that's been making the rounds here: The prosecution asked Mr Waiyawuth if the third, incomplete, profile could belong to one of the suspects. He replied that only a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile. The prosecution said: “So his participation cannot be ruled out.” Mr Waiyawith replied: “No, but he cannot be included either.” The results of the DNA analysis of the hoe can't rule out or incriminate the defendants, so in that regard the situation is the same as before the retesting. It seems to me the likely murderer had gloves on and used a condom then?? How unlucky can the RTP get. You cant include them in the DNA Match. 40% chance of DNA transfer and the 2 victims just so happened to transfer but the 3rd person didn't so that's 33% of 40%. Pretty unlucky in my book. Considering you need to be 100% sure to convict someone in most countrys their threshold as well as yours has slipped rather low for a guilty verdict. I must add I don't know who done this as much as any of us. I desperately wanted to see convincing evidence they had the correct people for all involved to get some closure. The defence have a lot more they are going to put over yet. You also have the Autopsy Results handed to the court. It may well have been that as the inquest hasn't concluded they cannot publish the results and findings and are for the courts eyes only we will see later this week. It has been mentioned that they are different to the RTP results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madaussie Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Is the lack of defendent dna on the hoe the big bomb drop we are all waiting to hear? I do hope there is something with more of a punch to come. I don't think so.. I think they have UK information. They have already handed the Autopsy reports and they are supposed to be having a UK forensic expert coming to discuss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minikev Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Fight not gift You had me baffled for a moment there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Humans have 50% of their DNA in common with bananas. So if the third DNA sample only matches 25% of the B2 markers, the chance of them being the 3rd party is not more than a banana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beammeup Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 AleG, you said in an earlier post that the DNA on the hoe is irrelevant, so just to clarify what DNA evidence is the relevant DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minikev Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 When the defense were given clearance to re inspect the supposed murder weapon, bearing in mind other evidence asked for was used up or lost or just not available anymore. I felt this offering a bit of a wet kipper. It turns out DNA from Hannah and David is on the handle and no DNA from the accused to be found. I reckon that turns the case upside down if people are supposed to believe the crime reconstruction. Dave was supposed to have been struck from behind while laying with Hannah in a romantic embrace this made him powerless to fight back. How could he have grabbed the handle and how could Hannah have grabbed the handle for a long time? It just strenghthens what we all or nearly all on here have thought all the way through the investigation and then the trial. It simply doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireplay Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 AleG, you said in an earlier post that the DNA on the hoe is irrelevant, so just to clarify what DNA evidence is the relevant DNA.I think he has been pretty clear he supports unsubstantiated reports of dna found in sperm inside hanna presented by those who have committed perjury in the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thailandchilli Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 OK but how do you explain her DNA on the handle?This is new Maybe she fended off one blow and skin cells attached to the handle, maybe she didn't and she was simply hit by the handle in addition to the head of the hoe, maybe she grabbed it when being attacked, maybe it was used to restrain her and pressed against her body, maybe it was left over her body for some time, plenty of possible explanations. Thats alot of maybe's for you AleG. Maybe you would have expected the B2 DNA to be on the weapon. Oh know you told us last week it had been washed off. My apologies I just remembered. Do you know what is the likelihood of transfer DNA on wooden objects to be detected? I did some research and from what I found it is less than 40% under ideal conditions: sterilized wood, 60 full seconds of firm grasping, no contaminants or further handling, straight into a sealed bag and to the lab for analysis. What is the conclusion from all this? The often left out quote from the article that's been making the rounds here: The prosecution asked Mr Waiyawuth if the third, incomplete, profile could belong to one of the suspects. He replied that only a quarter of the indicators from one of the suspects matched the partial profile. The prosecution said: “So his participation cannot be ruled out.” Mr Waiyawith replied: “No, but he cannot be included either.” The results of the DNA analysis of the hoe can't rule out or incriminate the defendants, so in that regard the situation is the same as before the retesting. Your research in which you make a point of saying that it takes 60 seconds for DNA traces to become apparent on sterilized wood? Not sure how thats relevant, a hoe left at a beach is hardly sterile but already full of contaminants that DNA can adhere to. Dr Pornthip estimated 15 seconds of holding the hoe to leave DNA traces, I think we should be guided by that rather than your research. As to your other points that you say have been left out, the link by the way is there for everyone to see and perhaps the reason its not been mentioned is because its completely irrelevant, its the same as saying Mon can't be ruled out as he got a 75% match when tested with the DNA inside Hannah. At the end of the day if it does not meet the criteria then its a non match. For further research from a professional document then I suggest if you want to read more so you can make up some more maybe's then go here https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/lawyers'%20DNA%20guide%20KSWilliams%20190208%20(i).pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.