bunglebag

I'm saying that it is highly unlikely that, don't forget, they were exceedingly drunk at the time because they allegedly rarely drunk alcohol and it took it's toll on them.

Now why would he (Win) clamber out of bed at 4.00/4.30 AM and go, all alone, down to the beach and mysteriously find a phone and sunglasses?

The whole episode is so far fetched that I wouldn't believe it if the pope told me himself.

If David and Hannah had been murdered, how did both his sunglasses and mobile end up lying in the sand and before you know it, in Win's possession. How did they get separated from him? Think about it, he (David) went to the beach with Hannah, supposedly dropped both his phone and sunglasses in the sand on the way to a secluded area and Win ended up finding them both at 5.00 AM in the morning.

I'm sorry, but in whatever way you look at it this is so ludicrous and sort of story made up by a 5 year old!!

Those that changed their minds as to their belief of innocence or guilt after hearing this series of events are to be commended (Greenchair definitely and I think Stander) others should remove their blinkers and do a bit of serious thinking about their current stance. Don't worry, only Thai's are concerned about losing face. We will congratulate you for manning up to your mistake and welcome you with open arms into our camp - the camp that wants justice delivered to the families for the tragic loss of a daughter and son!!

This is in response to my question as to whether it was impossible that he found the phone and sunglasses I think?

So basically you are saying it is not impossible?

as for why did he go? I think it was stated that he went to look for the guitar that had gone missing? which the next day turned up at AC bar? with Mon's relative? Who took it from the beach to the AC bar in themiddle of the night??

And you make a MASSIVE assumption when you say that David went to the beach with Hannah - Can you prove that? Where has that come from. As far as I am aware the majority feeling is that they were not together on the beach and that David stumbled onto something happening (possibly whilst looking for her).

Things you consistently state as fact are at best assumptions that meet your needs.

You don't half talk a crock sometimes, like DD and GB - all the same?

Yes noted. Shame there was no cctv made available from ac bar eh? or customers taking photographs of an argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What caught my attention was that it sounded like it was not just one or two people saying this but quite a number.

Yes -- quite a number... and still not one piece of corroborable evidence that such an event ever took place.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing, on one hand they cling like limpets to stale rumors that have never been substantiated in any credible way, on the other they can't ran away fast enough from actual, verifiable facts that go against what they want to believe.

I think you should have said 'investigated' where you said 'substantiated'!

Any link for the phone superimposition you claimed yet?

Just to stay in focus, lets remember that this argument began with smeldy claiming the police were showing photos of a phone found at the crime scene on TV.

In support of that MrTee posted one image that has been manipulated, no indication that the phone in it is even real let alone that it was found at the crime scene:

Police use superimposition technique to identify killers

The second image is taken from a news report that shows one phone taken from lodgings of three Burmese suspects interrogated on the 16th of September and cleared by next day, this is an article covering the same even:

Three Myanmar workers nabbed in connection with death of two British nationals

"The police confiscated four mobile phones from the suspects, one of which was a broken iPhone, and will examine them to determine if any of the phones belonged to the murdered victims."

Now if MrTee, (or whoever mislead him with that screenshot) would link to the actual video it would confirm what I said.

Still waiting for smedly's apology too.

There does not appear to be any mention of phone superimposition in that article. It talks about superimposing the suspects onto the cctv image, not a phone as you claim (in your plain English example). Are you deliberately trying to mislead?

and the second article you link to does not show any phones, so how have you reached the conclusion that the original image provided was one of these?

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.

< snip>

"There are several counter theories circulating on Koh Tao about who killed Witheridge and Miller. Most centre around men associated with a dominant Thai family on the island, one of several that run dive schools, resorts and bars. A version recounted repeatedly - without any evidence - is that Witheridge had an argument with one of them at a beachside bar run by the family, shortly before the killings."

and there is much more interesting info in the article, a lot of which sounds like it came first hand to the reporter

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Yes. And note from the above: Without an evidence. Minor technicality.

Yes noted. Shame there was no cctv made available from ac bar eh? or customers taking photographs of an argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What caught my attention was that it sounded like it was not just one or two people saying this but quite a number.

Yes -- quite a number... and still not one piece of corroborable evidence that such an event ever took place.

By corroborable do you mean video or photograph?

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

The first image is from an article were it clearly says that the CCTV frame has been manipulated by superimposing elements on it, in plain English it means that "phone" was pasted on.

The second picture is one of the phones found at the lodgings of the 3 Burmese men first questioned by the police.

Thank you for illustrating the sort of misinformation that is gleefully bandied around by the people that claim to know best what happened.

Proof of your assertions please

Just to stay in focus, lets remember that this argument began with smeldy claiming the police were showing photos of a phone found at the crime scene on TV.

In support of that MrTee posted one image that has been manipulated, no indication that the phone in it is even real let alone that it was found at the crime scene:

Police use superimposition technique to identify killers

The second image is taken from a news report that shows one phone taken from lodgings of three Burmese suspects interrogated on the 16th of September and cleared by next day, this is an article covering the same even:

Three Myanmar workers nabbed in connection with death of two British nationals

"The police confiscated four mobile phones from the suspects, one of which was a broken iPhone, and will examine them to determine if any of the phones belonged to the murdered victims."

Now if MrTee, (or whoever mislead him with that screenshot) would link to the actual video it would confirm what I said.

Still waiting for smedly's apology too.

There does not appear to be any mention of phone superimposition in that article. It talks about superimposing the suspects onto the cctv image, not a phone as you claim (in your plain English example). Are you deliberately trying to mislead? It's a good article though, from the time when some proper police work was being done initially, before the guy getting somewhere was replaced.

and the second article you link to does not show any phones, so how have you reached the conclusion that the original image provided was one of these?

Been on KPG previously when there was a FMP but thankfully not really being into the party scene I skipped it. Pretty glad I did looking at that sh1t t1p.

But I was under the impression there was an entry fee and that was supposed to cover the clean up. Looks like a lot of revellers still around so maybe the cleanup had not taken place yet (you'd hope so). At the end of the day whoever organises the party should be more responsible for the clean up than the 'guests' imo - they're the ones running it and making money from it

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

There were 3 phones: Hannah's i phone (before the ruder she had asked a friend to hold on to it for a while - David's old Samusng with Thai SIM and David's i-phone (with UK Sim). David had left the Samsung in his room and was brought in by a friend.

And yes it can be very dark on a beach unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find a phone lying in the sand...

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

The first image is from an article were it clearly says that the CCTV frame has been manipulated by superimposing elements on it, in plain English it means that "phone" was pasted on.

The second picture is one of the phones found at the lodgings of the 3 Burmese men first questioned by the police.

Thank you for illustrating the sort of misinformation that is gleefully bandied around by the people that claim to know best what happened.

Proof of your assertions please

Whilst digging out the info about Wei's statement about the phone I came across a guardian article (which is no rag newspaper) written 6 weeks after the murder by someone seemingly on location in Koh Tao at the time of writing .

It includes the following:

"The biggest contradiction centres around the deaths of Witheridge, 23, and Miller, 24 – the British backpackers brutally beaten on the head yards from their hotel, the former also raped, the latter left to drown in shallow surf. Just about everyone on Koh Tao insists visitors are safe, but many also agree, quietly, that the Burmese migrant workers arrested for the murders are innocent – meaning the real killer or killers remain at large."

I did hear (fairly directly) that there was 'talk' from Sairee the morning after the murder about what had happened. I wonder if it was this 'talk' that made the 'many' agree that the B2 were innocent. Who were the 'many', why did they believe B2 to be innocent?

Content further on in the article may relate to the 'talk':

"There are several counter theories circulating on Koh Tao about who killed Witheridge and Miller. Most centre around men associated with a dominant Thai family on the island, one of several that run dive schools, resorts and bars. A version recounted repeatedly - without any evidence - is that Witheridge had an argument with one of them at a beachside bar run by the family, shortly before the killings."

and there is much more interesting info in the article, a lot of which sounds like it came first hand to the reporter

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Yes. And note from the above: Without an evidence. Minor technicality.

Yes noted. Shame there was no cctv made available from ac bar eh? or customers taking photographs of an argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What caught my attention was that it sounded like it was not just one or two people saying this but quite a number.

WPs Alibi (not retracted confession) concerning the phone was he found it on the beach then gave it to his as it was locked then they heard about the murders so they destroyed it

What was not confirmed was who's phone it was,

The British government and the phone company are not allowed to give that information so Davids Dad took a screen print of davids computer which had the imei number

This was first brought to the courts attention when Andy hall took the stand but he never reported this or any of his journalist friends.

Then on the last day of the trial Sarah Yuen did a breaking sky news interview saying a package was delivered to court and it confirmed the phone belonged to David. (but this was just a translation from the embassy)

So now you can see we have not been getting the whole story.

So a late screengrab from a civilian on the other side of the world (possibly biased depending on what he has been told by RTP etc. - David's brother certainly seemed to be very anti B2) is one of the things that the court and yourself have used as a basis for the verdict? I'm surprised something like this can even be used as evidence as it would be open to being doctored. I'm not saying it was at all, just that it would be possible without much difficulty so I'm surprised it was admissable (well in this particular case less so I suppose I am less surprised). Also probably not difficult for someone with knowledge to change the number in the application, or on the screen prior to screenshot also. I do hope RTP didn't tell what number they were looking for prior to receiving this. I'd feel more comfortable about it if had come from a more formal source. If all above board and if the alleged timeline of this particular phone was true then it could tie him in to finding the phone as he claimed, and the charge of theft of the phone.

Once a death sentence has been given does that then negate the reason that the UK govt / phone company etc cannot comply with such requests?

Even the defense are no longer arguing the that the phone isn't Davids so why are you ?

Do you really think the Millers are forging evidence ?

That's not what I said though is it? I have not accused anyone of anything like that, though I figured you would reply along those lines.

Call it devil's advocate if you like. I basically said that it didn't feel cast iron enough (to me anyway) to be used to help convict in a double murder trial and that a more official / authenticated source of this information would have been preferable to prove the link because this particular method is not tamper-proof.

WPs Alibi (not retracted confession) concerning the phone was he found it on the beach then gave it to his as it was locked then they heard about the murders so they destroyed it

What was not confirmed was who's phone it was,

The British government and the phone company are not allowed to give that information so Davids Dad took a screen print of davids computer which had the imei number

This was first brought to the courts attention when Andy hall took the stand but he never reported this or any of his journalist friends.

Then on the last day of the trial Sarah Yuen did a breaking sky news interview saying a package was delivered to court and it confirmed the phone belonged to David. (but this was just a translation from the embassy)

So now you can see we have not been getting the whole story.

So a late screengrab from a civilian on the other side of the world (possibly biased depending on what he has been told by RTP etc. - David's brother certainly seemed to be very anti B2) is one of the things that the court and yourself have used as a basis for the verdict? I'm surprised something like this can even be used as evidence as it would be open to being doctored. I'm not saying it was at all, just that it would be possible without much difficulty so I'm surprised it was admissable (well in this particular case less so I suppose I am less surprised). Also probably not difficult for someone with knowledge to change the number in the application, or on the screen prior to screenshot also. I do hope RTP didn't tell what number they were looking for prior to receiving this. I'd feel more comfortable about it if had come from a more formal source. If all above board and if the alleged timeline of this particular phone was true then it could tie him in to finding the phone as he claimed, and the charge of theft of the phone.

Once a death sentence has been given does that then negate the reason that the UK govt / phone company etc cannot comply with such requests?

Sorry I was being facetious..

As I understand the big guy is saying there are still some judicial processes to be followed before a final judgement is made, therefore, no need to re-examine the case.

Thanks. the haze is clearing (I think)

big guy = AH, or Thai Gov?

final judgement = judgement after appeal?

Big Guy, yes TH gov.

"Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said there is no need to re-investigate the murders of the two British tourists on Koh Tao, as the trial process was carried out according to the legal system. "

And yes, final Solution judgement..

Thanks again.

So what does the 'trialed further' bit mean? - appeal?

Whilst digging out the info about Wei's statement about the phone I came across a guardian article (which is no rag newspaper) written 6 weeks after the murder by someone seemingly on location in Koh Tao at the time of writing .

It includes the following:

"The biggest contradiction centres around the deaths of Witheridge, 23, and Miller, 24 – the British backpackers brutally beaten on the head yards from their hotel, the former also raped, the latter left to drown in shallow surf. Just about everyone on Koh Tao insists visitors are safe, but many also agree, quietly, that the Burmese migrant workers arrested for the murders are innocent – meaning the real killer or killers remain at large."

I did hear (fairly directly) that there was 'talk' from Sairee the morning after the murder about what had happened. I wonder if it was this 'talk' that made the 'many' agree that the B2 were innocent. Who were the 'many', why did they believe B2 to be innocent?

Content further on in the article may relate to the 'talk':

"There are several counter theories circulating on Koh Tao about who killed Witheridge and Miller. Most centre around men associated with a dominant Thai family on the island, one of several that run dive schools, resorts and bars. A version recounted repeatedly - without any evidence - is that Witheridge had an argument with one of them at a beachside bar run by the family, shortly before the killings."

and there is much more interesting info in the article, a lot of which sounds like it came first hand to the reporter

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

original post here as too deep to include properly:

AH Tweet - "Thai Gov - Koh Tao verdict will be trialed further and no need for re-trial"

I'm struggling to comprehend what this means exactly. Can someone explain?

Explanation as I see it.

We have further opportunity to ratify a bizarre decision, no need to balance check..

TL;DR

do not look;do not ask; do you know who I am.

Thanks but that makes it no clearer to me! Can anyone translate to plain English?

Sorry I was being facetious..

As I understand the big guy is saying there are still some judicial processes to be followed before a final judgement is made, therefore, no need to re-examine the case.

Thanks. the haze is clearing (I think)

big guy = AH, or Thai Gov?

final judgement = judgement after appeal?

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

There were 3 phones: Hannah's i phone (before the ruder she had asked a friend to hold on to it for a while - David's old Samusng with Thai SIM and David's i-phone (with UK Sim). David had left the Samsung in his room and was brought in by a friend.

And yes it can be very dark on a beach unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find a phone lying in the sand...

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

More and more confusing! the i-phone shown there is clearly not smashed up

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

I originally believed the phone was planted by the police. Then it was revealed that indeed the b2 gave the phone to a friend that put it there,it never seemed to that it could be David's. But it is Wei Phyo own statement that he was back down at the beach at 5 o'clock in the morning and amazingly found a phone that changed my mind. What another coincidence? Not only were their clothes stolen while they swimming, but some strange person also left their phone on the beach, that Wei Phyo found. And that person has obviously not come forward to claim the phone, because they are afraid of the village headman. Lol, pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

I was very busy during parts of the court case and could not follow parts of it closely unfortunately.

When you say 'it was revealed that indeed the B2 gave the phone to a friend' - are you talking about something said in court? or part of the alleged torture driven confession? or something else?

and same question regarding the part of your post that talks about Wei Phyo's statement that he found a phone at 5am that morning - was that what he said himself in court, or part of an earlier statement?

Ah I have found it mentioned in a news report. He said this in court then, although the news report I read did not mention a time. It says he said he found it some distance from the murder scene. Interesting, though not infeasible, and there must have been some light from somewhere as they would not have been playing guitar etc. earlier in pitch darkness.

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Thai Gov - Koh Tao verdict will be trialed further and no need for re-trial

I'm struggling to comprehend what this means exactly. Can someone explain?

Explanation as I see it.

We have further opportunity to ratify a bizarre decision, no need to balance check..

TL;DR

do not look;do not ask; do you know who I am.

Thanks but that makes it no clearer to me! Can anyone translate to plain English?

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Thai Gov - Koh Tao verdict will be trialed further and no need for re-trial

I'm struggling to comprehend what this means exactly. Can someone explain?

The calls to close this thread and put certain individuals onto the ignore list, indicates that the not guilty camp is running out of steam.

Which is interesting, as with the help of this thread, I have now convinced two of my colleagues, who were firmly in the not guilty camp, that the judgement was correct.

They both oppose the death penalty, so they are not in favour of sentence.

I too have changed from the not guilty camp. When I found out they had David's phone and destroyed it and hid, that was it. There just is no explaining that. Sorry to aleg

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

I originally believed the phone was planted by the police. Then it was revealed that indeed the b2 gave the phone to a friend that put it there,it never seemed to that it could be David's. But it is Wei Phyo own statement that he was back down at the beach at 5 o'clock in the morning and amazingly found a phone that changed my mind. What another coincidence? Not only were their clothes stolen while they swimming, but some strange person also left their phone on the beach, that Wei Phyo found. And that person has obviously not come forward to claim the phone, because they are afraid of the village headman. Lol, pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

I was very busy during parts of the court case and could not follow parts of it closely unfortunately.

When you say 'it was revealed that indeed the B2 gave the phone to a friend' - are you talking about something said in court? or part of the alleged torture driven confession? or something else?

and same question regarding the part of your post that talks about Wei Phyo's statement that he found a phone at 5am that morning - was that what he said himself in court, or part of an earlier statement?

Another thing that amazed me was the fact that not one of the victims friends testified in court, very strange.

Especialy Davids friend, I think his name was Chris, the guy that originaly the RTP accused of been involved.

Why was he not called to give evidence?

Someone mentioned in the last couple of days that there were 2 eyewitnesses who were too scared to testify! Anyone know any more about this, or was it BS?

A certain individual of interest at the start of the investigation had a very public, televised and quite frankly disgraceful DNA test, all this in front of the Chief of Police ( what the hell was he doing there?)

Amazingly well within 24 hours the results were released and not to anyone's surprise were found to show he had no part in the crime!

I think it common knowledge than even the most basic DNA test takes a lot longer than 24 hours.

Stop telling lies Morris

Go do some research on rapid dna

In 2012 Florida police dept got there new rapid dna testing machine a X Rapid hit 200 unit The first case they solved using this machine was a robbery of a US solders home while he was in afghanistan, it produced a profile in 90 MINUTES that linked a suspect to the crime.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/790124-thailand-lookout-the-rapidhit-200-can-generate-a-dna-profile-in-about-90-minutes/

I doubt that the Thais do have this - but it shows that technology has reduced the time taken to obtain a DNA profile and maybe, even standard(ish) machines can produce results much faster than people imagine.

Pointless debate. The head of forensics in Bangkok himself said it took them a minimum of 48 hours to process the dna samples. How did Mon's come back so fast then too? Well under 24 hours

Indeed this is correct. Now we are seeing posts along the line "I seem to remember...XYZ" when in fact what they remember is an unsubstantiated rumour posted on this forum twelve months ago.

Initially I too, thought the bar owners must be implicated but in over one year not a single piece of evidence has come to light linking the bar owners and associates to the crime. That is, evidence that would stand up in court when presented by defence lawyers.

I could easily make up my own rumours. That Mon, the sharkman or any from that gang committed this crime then they would have got rid of the evidence. The bodies would have been taken out on a boat, weighted with stones and dumped overboard.

They would not have left the bodies to be discovered in their own resort. That would have been ruinous for business.

But there is no cctv or witnesses that prove the gang was out at the time of the murders.

The only cctv evidence shows the b2 buying alchohol sometime before the murders and one or two skinny kids running around in a panic after the murders.

Why did the defence team put up such a poor show? Because they knew the two Burmese were guilty.

Spot on!

On the contrary, there is a photograph of Shark man and other members of the football team he was playing for in that weekend's tournament, out and about in the bars that night, still wearing their football strip. In fact I have a feeling David may have even been in the same picture. Anyone got it?, although I don't know if it's worth showing again as they will just move on to something else

A few thousand people were out and about that night. Where is the defining evidence to link Sharkman to the murder?

Didn't one or both of the B2 work in AC bar? There is evidence that they were on the beach, too. I wonder if they had done some meth that night? Does crazy stuff to people. The b2 also admitted to returning to the beach to collect stuff they left behind. What little evidence there is, and admittedly it is not much, keeps coming back to the B2.

A few thousand people live on the entire island. You think they were all on sairee beach that night?

All I was doing was correcting your assertion that there was no proof that any of the gang were out that night by highlighting a picture showing both sharkman and david within metres of each other

They were working pro bono, including the advisers and experts such as Jane Taupin, if you want to find out where the funds were distributed then head to the funding page and look at the accounts, not hard really, or you can make up rumours...up to you

If you are so well informed you could post a link to that fund page, because it is the least of my concerns, but maybe you could inform us if those lawyers, advisers and experts were highly qualified people or just a bunch of worthless people who wanted to work for free.

why bother? would it change your mind about anything?

Maybe better you should first answer the questions I asked YOU, about your baseless speculations, before you gonna start answering question for someone else.

Does it make a difference if they were paid or not? They were the defense and for some reason they didn't use any of the irrefutable evidence that CSI Thaivisa has been presenting for 15 months now..

I think you're struggling to tell the difference between a question and an answer? I did not answer a question for someone else there but actually I asked 2 questions. If you interpret that as an answer for someone else then maybe this shows how you get confused easily?

On the contrary, there is a photograph of Shark man and other members of the football team he was playing for in that weekend's tournament, out and about in the bars that night, still wearing their football strip. In fact I have a feeling David may have even been in the same picture. Anyone got it?, although I don't know if it's worth showing again as they will just move on to something else

This is the one I think

Yes that's it. Shark man bottom right

Hey did they not say when this all started if you think or look back at all the pertaining posts. That Camera in Bar was not functioning? Only the one out side in front???

This picture is not from AC bar I believe, but another bar on the strip earlier that night.

Indeed this is correct. Now we are seeing posts along the line "I seem to remember...XYZ" when in fact what they remember is an unsubstantiated rumour posted on this forum twelve months ago.

Initially I too, thought the bar owners must be implicated but in over one year not a single piece of evidence has come to light linking the bar owners and associates to the crime. That is, evidence that would stand up in court when presented by defence lawyers.

I could easily make up my own rumours. That Mon, the sharkman or any from that gang committed this crime then they would have got rid of the evidence. The bodies would have been taken out on a boat, weighted with stones and dumped overboard.

They would not have left the bodies to be discovered in their own resort. That would have been ruinous for business.

But there is no cctv or witnesses that prove the gang was out at the time of the murders.

The only cctv evidence shows the b2 buying alchohol sometime before the murders and one or two skinny kids running around in a panic after the murders.

Why did the defence team put up such a poor show? Because they knew the two Burmese were guilty.

Spot on!

On the contrary, there is a photograph of Shark man and other members of the football team he was playing for in that weekend's tournament, out and about in the bars that night, still wearing their football strip. In fact I have a feeling David may have even been in the same picture. Anyone got it?, although I don't know if it's worth showing again as they will just move on to something else

The spot on comment was for stating that if they were involved they would have gotten rid of the evidence.

Sorry Asiamaster - my reply was really aimed at the point in the post you had replied to - that there was no evidence of any of the gang being out that night. Replied to the wrong post I guess.

But in answer to your point - the injuries and the staging of the body indicate (to me and seemingly many others anyway) that someone was making a point, and if it were the mafia they are powerful enough not to worry that they can't deal with the fall out. After all they basically run the local police.

I'm interested in your opinion as to why Mon and his dodgy copper buddy would try and frame Sean for it without any indication that he was involved?

Indeed this is correct. Now we are seeing posts along the line "I seem to remember...XYZ" when in fact what they remember is an unsubstantiated rumour posted on this forum twelve months ago.

Initially I too, thought the bar owners must be implicated but in over one year not a single piece of evidence has come to light linking the bar owners and associates to the crime. That is, evidence that would stand up in court when presented by defence lawyers.

I could easily make up my own rumours. That Mon, the sharkman or any from that gang committed this crime then they would have got rid of the evidence. The bodies would have been taken out on a boat, weighted with stones and dumped overboard.

They would not have left the bodies to be discovered in their own resort. That would have been ruinous for business.

But there is no cctv or witnesses that prove the gang was out at the time of the murders.

The only cctv evidence shows the b2 buying alchohol sometime before the murders and one or two skinny kids running around in a panic after the murders.

Why did the defence team put up such a poor show? Because they knew the two Burmese were guilty.

Spot on!

On the contrary, there is a photograph of Shark man and other members of the football team he was playing for in that weekend's tournament, out and about in the bars that night, still wearing their football strip. In fact I have a feeling David may have even been in the same picture. Anyone got it?, although I don't know if it's worth showing again as they will just move on to something else

This is the one I think

Yes that's it. Shark man bottom right