bunglebag

The URL for the link to the article: http://pattayaone.net/pattaya-news/221814/british-man-found-dead-inside-his-east-pattaya-home/#prettyPhoto

#prettyPhoto ???

is the name of the javascript plugin that generates the lightbox / modal dialog / popup gallery on the page. nothing dubious here.

@ Ireason Do you have any information that he was murdered on Koh Tao?

Back already!?

"The parents of a British holiday maker who died in suspicious circumstances in Thailand are convinced he was murdered – and the killing covered up to protect tourism.”

“Despite being warned to keep quiet by people on the island, the family have refused to be silenced.”

“She added: “The Police didn’t look at his room or the area where he was found. There was no attempt to investigate.”

"They spent most of their time laughing and joking as we asked questions.”

“Tracy said her son Matt was warned there are “powerful people on the island”, and that the family should leave rather than stirring up trouble.”

“They also heard other holiday makers had died on the island and their bodies “thrown into the water in the hope they’d be washed away”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thailand-beach-death-parents-convinced-4410135

Yes this one got a couple of pages in The Sun also earlier this year.

"the same beach, the same police"

Now we know that is not true, so what's the real reason

See, you don't believe anything, obvious that you need someone to protect you from the dangers in the real world.

You mean like the mafia?

Well how about if we say we're happy without your guidance or protection is that enough to let you relax and put your feet up instead?

OK, let me make it more clear to you, and then I'm out of here.

An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages

So if we were not allowed to post here, then all posts would be one sided and there would be no discussion, and the existence of this thread would be meaningless and therefore closed

Got it now?

On second look, I think this thread as all the other Koh Tao threads has run it course anyway.

hey no-one is saying certain people should not be allowed to post here. I agree it is an open forum.

I was just curious as to why people who were satisfied with the verdict were still spending so much time defending it as if it were the other way around I don't think there would be many from the other 'camp' worried about doing the same.

I disagree about run its course as there are some interesting points being raised and discussed still, some new and some we've seen before, and it seems like there are still several valid topics for the 'conspiracy theorists' (92% was it?) to discuss.

Mon was photographed inside the crime scene a few hours after the bodies were discovered also on a Thai TV News reprt footage aswell as I remember.

So why the hell was he not a witness for the defence? A member of the public inside a crime scene? Why?

He has to tell why he was inside that police line!

bcase it was 50 m from hes back yard,he is the land owner and he was the one who quided the police there.

What u suggest he shud of grow pair of wings and fly away from the crime scene,so off course he was in picture. After police was escorted by him , police did close the area .how do i know this.bcase i was there.

75 % of stories written in paper about this case was un true and only written&published to sell papers.

Were you there when he located the bodies. He was second on scene wasn't he, after the beach cleaner?

Did you see the bodies?

Do you happen to be involved in a business on Sairee?

Why is he seen stepping back over the tape cordoning off the scene later? (which was not put up for a while as there are other pictures without it present). Did he come back in to stack the clothes neatly? (seen still scattered as he is stepping over the cordon, yet police said in court they were neatly piled as per later photograph)).

Did you see the clothes scattered or piled neatly on a rock?

Thanks for being open on the third question islandlife.

Anything on the other questions?

That post is BS, it claims that the victims were murdered at the place they were staying, they were sharing rooms with friends.

Unfortunately it's the kind of BS that is consumed with gusto by those that don't want to accept reality for what it is instead of what they wish it would be.

Besides that, a man claiming to be Burmese, using a Thai celebrity photo taken from Panthip as his image creates an account to make one post... Say, anyone wants to buy a bridge?

Why still here so much? You got the result you wanted already

Same question to lucky11, discodan, theCruncher

Exactly my thoughts Bungle. I cannot for the life of me understand why Ale G , Lucy and Dan cannot accept the verdict of the court.

We are here to support you guys, because you clearly don't see the light at the end of the tunnel, and are not aware it is a train coming your way.

Now we know that is not true, so what's the real reason

number 9 is at .30

1. Swing your arms 'lavishly' 2. Hold up your left hand like a rabbit 3. Let the right hand fly behind your back....

Interesting to see that the ground is not wet at all at 1.30am, yet it was supposed to be raining at 1am during the B2 dip. What gives?

Mon was photographed inside the crime scene a few hours after the bodies were discovered also on a Thai TV News reprt footage aswell as I remember.

So why the hell was he not a witness for the defence? A member of the public inside a crime scene? Why?

He has to tell why he was inside that police line!

bcase it was 50 m from hes back yard,he is the land owner and he was the one who quided the police there.

What u suggest he shud of grow pair of wings and fly away from the crime scene,so off course he was in picture. After police was escorted by him , police did close the area .how do i know this.bcase i was there.

75 % of stories written in paper about this case was un true and only written&published to sell papers.

Were you there when he located the bodies. He was second on scene wasn't he, after the beach cleaner?

Did you see the bodies?

Do you happen to be involved in a business on Sairee?

Why is he seen stepping back over the tape cordoning off the scene later? (which was not put up for a while as there are other pictures without it present). Did he come back in to stack the clothes neatly? (seen still scattered as he is stepping over the cordon, yet police said in court they were neatly piled as per later photograph)).

Did you see the clothes scattered or piled neatly on a rock?

Nomsod's height is 160 cm.

Wai is under 150 CM

What about the length of the hair?

I don't think it's over 10cm high

What's the official plot here?

Forgive me, I have not read all the aspects of this cruel crime, as much as other experts here.

D&H at the beach.

D has all his clothes stripped down without one shoe?

H has on all her clothes?

Then the perpetrators come after drinking 2-3 beers and beat with the Hoe D unconscious?

Raping H 1 time vaginal and 2 times anal?

Then they hack their victim barbarous to death and go home sleep?

Is this the official Plot?

Well that does seem to fill in the blanks of their story which is.

We were drinking and suddenly decided to take a swim at 1 o'clock in the morning, whilst it was raining. Our clothes were then stolen, but not the guitar or Wei Phyo shoes. We left those behind and went back to room to sleep. We can't remember anything between 1am and 5am because oh we were overcome by the alcohol. At 5 o'clock in the morning Muang Muang woke us up and Wei Phyo and Muang we innocently went back to the beach to get our things. We looked for a long time but could not find the guitar, so we separated. As I (Wei Phyo ) was walking along the beach looking for my shoes, I stumbled upon a telephone that is similar to David's but probably not David's, some other person must have left it on the beach. I don't know, I'm confused. Just in case it might be David's we decided to get rid of it and destroy it, because we thought we might get accused of the crime that we had just heard about this morning.

There is cctv of david wandering about around 1am isn't there - I don't remember it raining on there, or was it?

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

https://www.facebook.com/CSILA90210/posts/722722867805441

That post is BS, it claims that the victims were murdered at the place they were staying, they were sharing rooms with friends.

Unfortunately it's the kind of BS that is consumed with gusto by those that don't want to accept reality for what it is instead of what they wish it would be.

Besides that, a man claiming to be Burmese, using a Thai celebrity photo taken from Panthip as his image creates an account to make one post... Say, anyone wants to buy a bridge?

Why still here so much? You got the result you wanted already

Same question to lucky11, discodan, theCruncher

One intriguing aspect of this case, is the "lock" of blond hair found in Hannah Witheridge's hand, which was never matched to the owner. In early reports of the deaths, it was described as a "single strand" of hair.

A lock is a clump of hair. A strand can be a number of hairs, but neither lock nor strand means a single hair - which on its own may well have been insignificant.

Hannah had blonde hair but the hair found in her hand was clearly male, as it was described as blond, not blonde and police tried unsuccessfully to match it to possible falang suspects - or at least those who were still on the island. Unfortunately, it took a while to seal off means of escape and I have no idea whether attempts were made to trace other blond falangs who had been on the island via hotel registers or other means..

I may have missed it, but I do not recall reading anything about mysterious tuft of blond hair piece of evidence in any reports of the trial hearing. Perhaps others know something I do not and for one reason or another it was shown to be irrelevant. I have no idea.

But if it was a lock or strand of someone else's hair other than the victim's, I would have thought this would have been a major plank of any defence against the murder charge. How else could it have ended up in the girl's hand other than being pulled out during a struggle? The implication is that a third person, a blond Caucasian, had been involved in the events of that tragic night.

This is wild speculation, I know, based on flimsy, third-hand evidence, and it clearly does not fit what appears to be an assumption by both the prosecution and defence that both the rape and murder were committed at the same time by the same person or persons.

The blond hair clue points to the possibility of other scenarios which, if not already investigated, surely should have been - and need to be addressed.

One of these is that the murder was the work of an individual or more than one person BEFORE the sexual interference, which could have been opportunist crime committed by someone who came upon their dead or dying bodies.

I know this sounds almost too horrendous to contemplate, but such things do happen. I recall reading accounts of the Thammasat University student massacre of October 1976, where it was stated that some girl students were raped while either comatose or post mortem.

However squeamish one may feel out of respect for the dead couple and their relatives, no possibility, however repellant, should be ruled out in seeking the truth about what really happened on that fateful night and ensuring that justice is done.

"One of these is that the murder was the work of an individual or more than one person BEFORE the sexual interference, which could have been opportunist crime committed by someone who came upon their dead or dying bodies."

It's been mooted a few times, and not inconceivable. Although if something happened post mortem it could have been coerced rather than opportunistic?

Do I remember right that there was a towel of some sort covering Hannah's head initially? and also that it was from Mon's intouch resort? as was the hoe.

Spotted a post containing the following on Heidi's facebook page:

In Case No: HQ15X0311,Queen Bench Division, Justice Green posed the following scenario, and it is worth repeating now because it was so prophetic.

"A foreign prosecutor fails to disclose to a defendant a key piece of evidence of great value to the defendant in a criminal case. This item is however recorded in an MPS (Met Police) report and amounts to personal data.

“The report explains that there is compelling evidence that the foreign forensic scientists employed by the police abroad have mixed up DNA samples. It also records that the prosecution are nonetheless seeking to rely in court upon the wrong DNA evidence to inculpate the accused.

“This entry might be pivotal to the defence and might quite literally represent a matter of life or death. In those circumstances does the Court sacrifice the accused for the wider principle of comity and trust between authorities?

“ The MPS submitted that such was the power and force of the public interest objectives the MPS advanced that even in such extreme circumstances the public interest would still trump the private interest.

“Does the court sacrifice the accused for the wider principle of comity and trust between authorities?”

In effect, according to last week's judgment, it did.

As he made his ruling rejecting the application he said:

“I cannot ignore the fact that this is a death penalty case conducted with the accused arguing with their eyes closed.’…

“ I feel considerable unease. I sit a long way from the seat of the trial and do not have a true hands-on feeling for the way evidence has been tendered by the prosecution or the main lines of defence.”

Indeed Justice Green had absolutely no idea what was being undone in the court in Koh Samui.

I am not suggesting that Scotland Yard knew of any evidence being tampered with of course.

After all, as was made clear in the High Court, British police were not present at any interviews, were not witness to any DNA procedures, and were reliant on the documents and videos placed in front of them and what they were told through a Thai police interpreter, or English speaking Thai officers.

The Scotland Yard report did however state that the two young Burmese confessed in front of a judge and counsel.

We know that not to be true

what is it she is trying to say?!

I think the quoted lines are what the British judge said when he had to deny the defence access to the UK police report regarding this case.

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/UK_judge_withholds_report_from_Thai_death_penalty_defendants

Spotted a post containing the following on Heidi's facebook page:

In Case No: HQ15X0311,Queen Bench Division, Justice Green posed the following scenario, and it is worth repeating now because it was so prophetic.

Am I on the wrong thread?

Because, what I see written in the recent past, is way off the topic of:

"Koh Tao: Suspects found guilty of murdering British backpackers"

Now it’s:

"Started the protests started the protests"? (Remind’s me of a DeNiro movie)

"Bin Ladin"??

"Activist group Anonymous"?

"Fundraising"??

Misdirection folks.

It appears some posters who have been here virtually day and night, have run out of gas…

Quite. There are some posters on here who are very happy with the guilty verdict. That's their prerogative. What I don't get is why they feel the need to continue to battle with those people who are not satisfied with the guilty verdict. They (a minority) are fixed in their views and content with the fact that the two Burmese men have been sentenced to death. If I was happy with the verdict I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time on TV slinging mud. I wonder why it is that some people keep hanging on in?

That is a very very good point. If the verdict had gone the other way I certainly wouldn't be spending all my time here defending it.

I don't think it is some young kid, but equally I don't think it is the well known Anonymous Activist Hackers group, although visually they have aligned with them.

Could be a bit of a whoopsie by ITV there, but may get good coverage.

When I read the original post when it was first posted I have to admit that, although I understood why, I felt it was a bit strongly worded considering who it was addressed to so glad to hear it has been toned down a bit since.

edited:

Although I see the page has been going since 2014 though and covers a variety of different incidents so not just set up for this. It would be interesting to know more about whether there is a link to the main group

Yep more smoke and mirrors (as usual).

If you actually bothered to read the 'article' which you mention you would see that it is not actually a news article but a reader's letter -

So, did that reader see proof that the samples WERE sent to Singapore, or did he just assume so based on the earlier assertion from the police that the samples would be sent there (but which they never actually followed through with as it was all done in-house in the end, as mentioned in court).

But you knew all this anyway I think - just trying to misrepresent as usual, hence you not actually supplying the link.

Here it is:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Independent-third-party-must-test-Koh-Tao-DNA-30246319.html

So, we're actually still waiting for some evidence that samples WERE sent to Singapore.

Still waiting for YOUR proof that the police chief lied.

It was said in court that all dna was processed in BKK. A man can change his mind about where things will be processed so I'm not calling him a liar. But I am saying the stuff was never sent to Singapore as your team claim. and we're still waiting for anything that backs up your claim. i think it will be a long wait.

If it was said in court it will be written down, please provide written proof of court statement, like you and your mates have been demanding on this forum, so we will not take your hearsay.

Until that post, WE ARE STILL WAITING for your proof.

Are court transcripts available?

You are so blatant in your deflections - I have pulled you up on your WERE SENT to singapore claim, with a link showing that all you are quoting is a reader's letter. Do you deny this to be correct? Strewth I could send a letter in just saying 'It was the mafia wot dunnit'. If published would that make it fact????

Instead of addressing my point you, as usual, avoid and try to turn it round so you can avoid admitting you are putting out untrue information.

And again, as usual, you know it and we know it. This particular aspect is now closed until you prove otherwise. To continue down this path without backing it up would make you look foolish imo, but go for it if you like

your press statement made reference to the future tense

will

I hope you know the meaning of the future tense

"Later, however, the DNA samples were sent to lab in Singapore instead. The FBI was not involved. Why not"?

Since when has WERE been in the future tense?

Yep more smoke and mirrors (as usual).

If you actually bothered to read the 'article' which you mention you would see that it is not actually a news article but a reader's letter -

So, did that reader see proof that the samples WERE sent to Singapore, or did he just assume so based on the earlier assertion from the police that the samples would be sent there (but which they never actually followed through with as it was all done in-house in the end, as mentioned in court).

But you knew all this anyway I think - just trying to misrepresent as usual, hence you not actually supplying the link.

Here it is:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Independent-third-party-must-test-Koh-Tao-DNA-30246319.html

So, we're actually still waiting for some evidence that samples WERE sent to Singapore.

Still waiting for YOUR proof that the police chief lied.

It was said in court that all dna was processed in BKK. A man can change his mind about where things will be processed so I'm not calling him a liar. But I am saying the stuff was never sent to Singapore as your team claim. and we're still waiting for anything that backs up your claim. i think it will be a long wait.

what was sent to Singapore?

Some of the DNA samples for independent verification.

The quoTe from the Nation stated that it WILL be sent. There is no evidence that it was ever sent.

The second quote that I gave from the Nation stated that they 'WERE' sent. I had to explain to on of your boys that were is not the future tense.

As mentioned previously, a reader's letter is not proof. Hence you not supplying the link but merely quoting a bit of it?

Nice try Agareth, but I'm not falling for that one!!

your press statement made reference to the future tense

will

I hope you know the meaning of the future tense

"Later, however, the DNA samples were sent to lab in Singapore instead. The FBI was not involved. Why not"?

Since when has WERE been in the future tense?

Yep more smoke and mirrors (as usual).

If you actually bothered to read the 'article' which you mention you would see that it is not actually a news article but a reader's letter -

So, did that reader see proof that the samples WERE sent to Singapore, or did he just assume so based on the earlier assertion from the police that the samples would be sent there (but which they never actually followed through with as it was all done in-house in the end, as mentioned in court).

But you knew all this anyway I think - just trying to misrepresent as usual, hence you not actually supplying the link.

Here it is:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Independent-third-party-must-test-Koh-Tao-DNA-30246319.html

So, we're actually still waiting for some evidence that samples WERE sent to Singapore.

what was sent to Singapore?

Nothing went to Singapore, all original DNA testing was carried out at "The Institute of Forensic Medicine: attached to the Police Hospital in Bangkok. There lab technicians and witnesses were at the trial and took the stand explaining their procedure with one even commenting on how surprisingly quickly the test results were obtained from their own lab. Unfortunately we have a couple of posters here saying the dna was tested in Singapore they obviously have not followed the trial in any detail.

Some may not have followed the case closely enough but some definitely know the stuff was never sent to Singapore. They're just trying to twist things to their own ends as always. But with this example and others they can never provide any evidence to back up their statements so instead present links that actually do not back up what they say, and yet they seem to expect us to buy it just because they say it!

Remind you of any particular organisation?.

she runs the CIFS for the Justice Department, she employs people trained to do the various tasks involved with a crime scene, they are the most well equipped and recognised to carry out that task in Thailand and yet they were excluded from this investigation most likely because they are not under the control of the police or government - everything they do is above board and by the book

But that still doesn't make they are capable and probably explains why the sample were sent to a lab in Singapore.

Unbelievable the amount of rubbish being spewed here, no samples went to Singapore, they were all tested in Bangkok by the RTP. Please do your research before posting such significant information that is incorrect.

I'm afraid that he is correct - they were tested in Singapore. Apologies forthcoming from you?

From the Nation.

Semen and cigarette butts seen as key to finding who killed Britons on Koh Tao

Semen found on the body of one of the two British tourists murdered on Koh Tao in Surat Thani province last Sunday will be examined in a Singapore laboratory, national police chief General Somyot Poompanmoung said yesterday.

Somyot said the DNA test would be able to identify the race, hair colour and skin colour of the person, which would help with the police investigation.

It is understood cigarette butts found at the crime scene will also be sent to Singapore for DNA analysis, although Somyot did not mention the butts in his remarks to reporters yesterday during a visit to the island.

Prove they WERE SENT to Singapore, not some statement saying they will be sent, which was then later not followed as far as I'm aware.

The claims you guys make to back up your statements rarely fit, and it's fairly blatant. You know it and we know it.

Shame that she doesn't have expertise in DNA collection and this meant that her inclusion in the defence effort sabotaged the defence team's pitiful display in the courts!! It is equivalent to getting a dustman in to do a house clearance of valuable paintings and antiques!!

She has plenty of experience in dna collection, she has helped thousands of people get justice that would otherwise be denied to them. It's why people like her and the rtp don't. If she was called to do the forensic analysis of the crime scene intact instead of those others trampling all over the place she would have likely found the culprits but that wasnt what was required hence missing evidence and the prosecution not able to supply dna samples for verification. "Sorry,used up"....

she runs the CIFS for the Justice Department, she employs people trained to do the various tasks involved with a crime scene, they are the most well equipped and recognised to carry out that task in Thailand and yet they were excluded from this investigation most likely because they are not under the control of the police or government - everything they do is above board and by the book

But that still doesn't make they are capable and probably explains why the sample were sent to a lab in Singapore.

I know there was talk at the time of this going to a Singapore lab (and talk of FBI at the same time) but I was under the impression that neither option was used in the end and it was all done in-house, even though previously they said they did not have the capabilities. That's not gospel though and I am open to correction IF it can be validated with a reliable source TheCruncher.

If the British coroner's inquest states that neither victim was raped, then the RTP and judge may have some explaining to do.

And if this is stated I would think in most civilised country's at the very lease a re-trial ordered or an acquittal.

Also the injuries, particularly in David's case.....The small puncture wounds on his face were not caused by a hoe......never.

So what caused them? and again why has the defence not brought that into question?

Maybe the defense is not capable to do their job, and some TV experts should have been asked for it.

Another theory is that the defense knows something the TV investigators don't .............................Naaah that isn't possible. Is it?

Your points are very true, but it makes the RTP case even more suspicious.

The Burmese confirm they were on the beach before and after the event, they stole the victims phone, so why have the RTP become so incompetent?

They have no more DNA to retest....why? lost? why?

Missing CCTV images? why? why have they never asked for the images to be re enhanced?

Forensic evidence incorrectly labeled and dated....why?

A mobile phone found on the beach next to a murder victim and never identified whom it belonged to....why?

Mixed and misleading statements given to the press and indeed the court,,,,why?

Either the RTP are totally and utterly incompetent and negligent or they were part of a cover up.

No-one could be that incompetent without trying, so I sway to the latter

Seems that it's Obfuscation Time once again, MrTee claimed that both images showed "The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach."

This is false, completely. The police displayed no phone found on the beach on the 16th of September.

AleG, you're now trying to move us on without backing up your original assertions. The links you have provided thus far have not backed up your assertions.

I already backed them up, you are simply in denial; MrTee was wrong, let's see if can provide a link to the full video were the screen grab came from to confirm I am right... any time soon I'm sure.

Not backed up in the least and you know it. You said (and even emphasised that you were stating in plain English) that the phone in that picture had been pasted on. Then the article you linked to to prove this said nothing of the sort. How is that backing up your assertion that the phone was pasted on? At least admit you can't back it up rather than claim you have done so when obviously not, or credibility goes downwards.