bunglebag

Do tell us how her DNA could have been found on the ciggy if she didn't touch or smoke it.

You are kidding right? Are you one of the people criticizing DNA collections and talking about contamination and stuff but you don't know about transfer? If her DNA was in the cigarette, as widely reported early on, there are so many plausible and likely ways her DNA was on the cigarette beyond her smoking it. The DNA could have come from the suspects fingers or lips that had her DNA (blood, skin cells, saliva or cellular material found in sweat). If this was true, there would likely not be enough DNA to retest for her DNA on the butt but the DNA should still be available for testing because they should/would have used PCR testing to replicate the DNA on the butt being it would have been a small amount while also allowing to keep the replicated samples for further testing if needed .... which jives with what police said they have.

Were you one of the people that also was going on and on about DNA on the outside of the condemn but not the inside and it being proof of a setup? Yet, we find out through reported testimony that the DNA on the condom was a drop of blood that could have gotten on there a number of ways including from splatter to being dripped or touched to possibly others.

The problem with people making up theories and playing internet detective is when you don;t know all the facts is ... people don't know all the facts but draw conclusion based on theories that were based on a guess. Nothing wrong with speculating and having theories but what goes on online is mostly people drawing facts from stuff they don;t know and not seeing the difference between a plausible theory and one based on complete BS.

Yeah JTJ your theory make sense if they had had a cigarette after the murder. Yet you said you didn't say that.

So how does Hannah's DNA get on a ciggy they smoked before they killed her ?

The prosecution alleged that Win and Saw shared a ciggie whilst taking it in turns to carry out the attack on Hannah correct?

But was the cigarette in question not found by the log, right in front of In Touch resort and 60m from the alleged crime scene?

So is the prosecution saying the crime happened by the log?

What about checking CCTV to see how Nomsod arrived on the island in the first place. Anything that proves he was there hurts his families credibility.

Are you mad???

That island was cleaned top to bottom. All cctv that was Incriminating dissapeared. All facebook accounts of locals cleared out pictures of NS. The word went out not to comment on the case. It was as close to surgi al wipe.down as they could muster.

There was a guy Chris who is a British guy works at a dive school who posted he had a beer with Sean McAnna thta night but that dissapeared.

Yes and the clearing out of photos and posts from facebook is easily verified, just go to any of the facebook pages of local dj's and all those with connections to AC bar and headmans family. Sept 2015 no longer exists on their facebook. This is a fact.

There was a response from Sean about that Chris guy back in 2014 - He said he had no idea who he was. Could be genuine or could have been a local batting for Mon's team?

Anyways, whilst perusing various facebook pages I found a shared post on one (in Thai and dated 31-10-14) going into great length about how Nomsod had been cleared by DNA etc. The latter part of this message (several paragraphs) seemed to be telling people somewhat forcibly that they had to get rid of any references to the incident or risk serious trouble from the police. It was on a DJs profile (but one from Bar next 2 rather than AC bar - usual suspects on friends list though)

I copied it and ran it through bing translation, which I doubt it is desperately accurate but hopefully accurate enough that the gist is correct.

I can't post it here as it is in Thai, but it could explain why a lot of stuff from September got wiped after a month or two.

I could post the translated version maybe but cannot guarantee its accuracy.

What about checking CCTV to see how Nomsod arrived on the island in the first place. Anything that proves he was there hurts his families credibility.

Are you mad???

That island was cleaned top to bottom. All cctv that was Incriminating dissapeared. All facebook accounts of locals cleared out pictures of NS. The word went out not to comment on the case. It was as close to surgi al wipe.down as they could muster.

There was a guy Chris who is a British guy works at a dive school who posted he had a beer with Sean McAnna thta night but that dissapeared.

Yes and the clearing out of photos and posts from facebook is easily verified, just go to any of the facebook pages of local dj's and all those with connections to AC bar and headmans family. Sept 2015 no longer exists on their facebook. This is a fact.

There was a response from Sean about that Chris guy back in 2014 - He said he had no idea who he was. Could be genuine or could have been a local batting for Mon's team?

Anyways, whilst perusing various facebook pages I found a shared post on one (in Thai and dated 31-10-14) going into great length about how Nomsod had been cleared by DNA etc. The latter part of this message (several paragraphs) seemed to be telling people somewhat forcibly that they had to get rid of any references to the incident or risk serious trouble from the police. It was on a DJs profile (but one from Bar next 2 rather than AC bar - usual suspects on friends list though)

I copied it and ran it through bing translation, which I doubt it is desperately accurate but hopefully accurate enough that the gist is correct.

I can't post it here as it is in Thai, but it could explain why a lot of stuff from September got wiped after a month or two.

I could post the translated version maybe but cannot guarantee its accuracy.

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

The other thing that bothers me from the NS supporters is they like to say NS had a girlfriend at the time, so he wouldn't need to rape...... That's that Thai logic getting them screwed at every turn.

NS lives in Bangkok. He comes from a wealthy family. I am sure he could easily find many single girls at university, who would want to latch on some of his wealth, or he could easily pay for it.

But since you keep suggesting he is a rapist then why not do that in Bangkok, and were he lives? Why would he come out to an Island on a weekend, and where his Father, Uncle, and perhaps other family members have a vested interest in Tourism, to do this? That a crime like this would hurt tourism, and thus hurt his family. He is a university student so surely he would know this before hand.

You posted here what you think is Thai Logic and like you are some professional with this, and speaking for all Thai's, which I doubt you are Thai. So let me make it easy for you and give you some Good Old Fashioned American Logic.

"You don't bite the hand that is feeding you!"

I still have a somewhat open mind so not accusing anyone here

But in response to GB's asking why not do it in Bangkok...

- It would be much safer to do it somewhere you are very familiar with, where your family had the police in their pocket to cover things up if anything went bad, home ground where you had some backup if required, maybe even a cohort or two.

Girl gets attacked / raped. Girl reports to police. (in pocket) police say go away / no make trouble. What more can she do?

Could even be an MO of more than one person associated with the bar, easy to spike drinks on occasion (though allegedly no drugs found in Hannah's system)

- Plus probably easier to pick up more willing Western girls due to status on the island / in the bar.

- Plus I believe you said he had a girlfriend? Bangkok might be a bit close to home to play away.

Just some possibilities

Personally I don't think anyone woke up that day and planned to murder someone. Think it most likely to have been sparked by an incident and then a chain of events from there on (possibly some unexpected, maybe including David) led to a terrible conclusion and a cover up / fit up.

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

OMG My late father used to say I could try the patience of a saint! I think it now belongs to you. Oh I don't doubt they claimed it for one minute but they were only part of a chain and what they said they may believe but if other links in the chain are flawed it doesn't stand up. This is the last time I'm going to say this to you

As everyone else is laughing at you and I hate to see grown men cry! Up to NOW ! there is no evidence to link the B2 to this case. Please please for all the other people In here take a moment, maybe go and have a cup of tea and contemplate that statement. You'll feel better if you do.!

Don't flatter yourself, I'm cool as a cucumber.

If the chain of evidence is under question then the onus is on those making the claim to produce the evidence for it; and no, just saying that someone, somewhere got paid to tamper with it doesn't cut it.

Well actually no the onus is not on the defense.

Chain of custody is an essential element in scientific evidence. It is incumbent on the proecution tp prove the samples are secure and the chain of custody is intact.

Defense do not have to prove anything.

And if the onus were on the defence would you agree AleG that they should at least be able to see the chain of custody documents?

"The defense lawyers have expressed concern about their inability to access ‘chains of custody’ from the investigation, which are documents tracking the collection, movement, processing, and current location of all physical evidence. The lawyers, who have requested the documents but not recieved them, said they want to confirm that no evidence was tampered with in the process.

The prosecutor said he could not comment on the case while the trial is ongoing. "

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437793064&section=12

takling about making things up John .... what news on the TV or newspaper report of Panya's departure for a desk prior to 15th . And don't ask me to dig for it . How could i dig for a figment of your immagination ?

It doesn't exist in print or online and he knows it.

Here it is a link to something that has been shared numerous times on this thread for those who keep wanted to pretend things and/or too ignorant to look up facts themselves and prefer to make things up. Other links shared on these boards actually show the date of the promotion being 10/1 along with numerous other transfers around the country.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/08/21/national/Police-promotions-30136311.html

Published on August 21, 2010[/size]

Police promotions

"Deputy Metropolitan Police commissioner MajGeneral Amnuay Niammano and Central Investigation Bureau deputy commissioner MajGeneral Panya Mamen are set to be promoted to the commissioners of provincial police regions," the same source added.

So please stop the nonsense of how he was taken off the case and was doing such a great job. When he left, the case was receiving huge attention for what people were calling coverups and botched. He cleared all the Headsman's family as well as Sean and was the one who confirmed publicly the one kid was in Bangkok and no longer a suspect. He also announced the day after his transfer arrests would be happening in days and they were.

I must advise those who support JTJ ........ DO NOT LOOK AT THE DATE PUBLISHED ON THIS ARTICAL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe now you should give up JTJ.

Heres one from 1976

May bad, I only looked at the month - I pulled the wrong article. Let me try to find the right one which has already been published numerous times on these threads.

JTJ, I notice you have not posted since the above (as far as I can see).

I am waiting with bated breath for this because you have been banging on about it for ages. Very strange if nothing forthcoming

No news prior to the discovery that the DNA why can be retested again.

Why such a Victory Parade over nothing?

Was it because the Top Investigator didn't think to ask the person who was rumored to have an altercation with Hannah? I wonder how he could since his area was on the Island and this Dodo Guy was reported to be in Bangkok. So the person wanted for questioning was now put in the hands of the Bangkok Police. Who cleared him.

Or was this parade about not checking the CCTV Camera at the pier. This pier belongs to the Ferry Boat Company for the loading and unloading of passengers. What do you hope to see from that CCTV Footage. A man getting on board the ferry with a sign on his back saying "I did it"? Or was it the CCTV Footage of some mysterious boat leaving 1 hour after the murders? Wonder how the Defense Team knew this? But if this is it then consider this also.

The time of death for both victims was first reported soon after the discoveries to be between 2 am and 4 am. Obviously 11 months later we know it couldn't be 2 am. But I have never seen one after this report that says different. Not to say it doesn't not exist. Some quoted here 4:30 am. I have no idea where he got that from but lets use that time even for the sake of argument.

This fast Boat was reported to have left 1 hour after the murders. I don't recall it said from the pier, as this is private property of the Ferry Boat Company, but for the sake of argument again, that's say this is so. That places this boat leaving at 5:30 am at the latest. The sun did not come up until after 6 am that day.So how many lights would a Ferry Boat Company put on their pier when they never board passengers at night time or off load them then.

But again if they did have lights how many actually worked? Like 2 out of 3 and like the CCTV Cameras, or less? But under perfect conditions what would you expect to see? Just another grainy picture showing the back of someones head who 25% would say it in Nomsod, 25% would say it was Mon, and 50% would say it looks like there kid brother and wonder where he was that night.

As the Man rightful stated, the CCTV Footage from the pier was not relevant as you are not going to see a bloody thing that time in the morning anyway. Even the partially blind gardener who found his hoe in the dark couldn't see that.

Or lastly was it the Hoe that a police man was questioned about why he didn't turn it in for DNA and he only told the Defense his end of the investigation. That he looked at it through a magnify glass and didn't see any finger prints or blood on it. But then the Specialist for the Forensics comes on the stand and says it was tested for finger prints, and none were found. That the only DNA discovered belonged to Hannah.

I mean if the Defense is going to ask questions why not ask the people involved. How would any police man on the Island know what is going on someplace else with DNA. It is not there job to know that.The same as if you go out and ask a traffic cop in Bangkok to name the 5 Police Men who were on the Island at the morning of these crimes. Chances are he wouldn't know that either, Because it is not his job to know, His job is to direct Traffic in Bangkok. The Investigators job on the Island was to Investigate.

GB, surely you don't take what you are typing seriously? You are saying the Chief investigator on this case should not know:

1: Who collected the DNA samples

2: Who called in the body discovery

3: Whether he expected the attackers clothes to be bloodstained

4: Who the owner of the hoe - the murder weapon - who it belonged to.

5: The officer who interviewed headman's son

6: Whether the headman's son was even interviewed properly

Furthermore, you think it's excusable that this same chief investigator:

1: Did not bother to investigate an altercation at the AC bar, allegedly involving the headmans son and possibly Hannah

2: Suspects the victims last know whereabouts was AC bar but did not investigate there either, and has not pursued or shown footage of CCTV with them leaving

3: Didn't bother to check CCTV footage of the pier as they "didn't think" a suspect would leave that way

4: Didn't bother to investigate reports of a small boat leaving the island in the early morning

5: Doesn't know where the DNA samples collected from the headmans son are, nor does he know who has them - essentilay lost then - and only Police testimony that they were not a match

But Goldbuggy, you think its ok for the lead investigator to be this ignorant. You said it's not his job to know these things, its his job to investigate. Well guess what, he neither knew, nor investigated.

Why, oh Why are you defending them? Can't you see the gross incompetence and lies?

Read this article, and try spinning it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html

Oh, right, I know - it is a misunderstanding yes? Or lost in translation yes? Or is this the level of Policing you find acceptable?

Wouldn't waste your time. GB makes more (suitable) assumptions than anyone when he presents his alternative scenarios.

I like the way he plucks a time of death out of the air, just because a random poster mentioned it.

I'm not aware of the official time of death window but personally I think she was staged much closer to high tide time (2.19am) than 4.30am, based on tidemarks and and Hannah's feet have sunk into the sand (one more tan the other) in a way that only happens when water is moving around them.

Also, sunrise might have been 6.10am but you do know it starts to get light before the sun comes up right? I doubt our beach cleaners would have been stumbling around in pitch black at 5.40am

if there was a speedboat it could have left from beach or pier. Pier is near beach. You never know what might be on the cctv, hence the point of looking at it.

From an old report

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/PM-vows-crackdown-on-Koh-Tao-vices-30244060.html

but does this quote from a certain person's son help us understand why the police felt so many obvious things to investigate were 'not relevant'?

The son "could not comprehend" why his father had been interviewed and initially suspected by the police, despite his cooperation and even assistance in providing police with leads and tip-offs.

Alex G, if anything CCTV would run after last orders as that's when most altercations start, it's a piss poor excuse, the AC bar has refused to cooperate they also have a webcam in there too I believe.

I was on Koh Tao a month before these murders and even then I was told that it was very hard for farangs to operate without backhanders.

After the murders Prayuth also stated he was sending the army down there to clear up these Mafia, that was an idle threat nothing ever came of it, this trial is a joke, and not a very funny one for the families.

They must feel gutted what with the "solid evidence" their press releases stated, as there's nothing solid about the evidence so far, apart from the intelligence of the RTP.

It's a sham nothing more.

And even if it got turned off at 2am that's still an hour after Hannah arrived

The jury is out for me on the involvement of NS. The only thing I know for sure regarding him is that he was chatting to his facebook pals about it later on the 15th.

Is it possible that all this BS could be the result of the PM saying No Thai would do this? If it turned out to be a Thai would this be loss of face for the biggest man in Thailand? Twas a silly statement to make because Thais have done plenty of horrific crimes previously, even not dissimilar to this one.

It is surprising (or should I really say not suprising) that there is not better quality footage of the running man, maybe from some of the other working cameras such as those that captured the victims final movements that night. The build and certainly that peculiar arm movement are definitely similar.

So much rumour around all aspects of NS 'alibi' and right from the off on day one he was being heavily pointed to by many people. Why did his name come up so quickly if he wasn't there? Even his Father said initially that he had had to rush back to university didn't he before the story changed? The speedboat story came on day one too and based on what I can understand of yesterday's testimony it sounds like yes there was a speedboat leaving the beach shortly after the murders!

I'm surprised that nothing concrete has yet surfaced if he was on the island. AC bar withholding all cctv from inside is very iffy though. 2 main reasons I can think of are:

1. something happened re Hannah and/or David in there

2. NS would have been on the video

Could the police not have demanded this in Thailand? If so and if they didn't then that screams cover up (of something).

From what I understand a lot of bars/resorts have cctv pointing to the beach yet the police have not seen any footage from any of these (allegedly), is that correct?. Honestly it feels like a bunch of 5 year olds could have done a better job!

A few things, first Prayuth never made that comment about "No Thai could do this", so if that is your basis to think there is pressure to save his face by nailing two Burmese scapegoats perhaps you should reevaluate things.

As for Nomsod and his "peculiar" arm movement, people are comparing when the man on the CCTV footage in Koh Tao reaches across his chest to, I suppose, scratch the other side of his chest or opposite arm with Nomsod on the CCTV footage at the lobby reaching up to brush his hair. I find it amazingly intellectually dishonest to see that some people are using two frames from each video, showing the arms bending up as proof that they show the same unusual walking style and therefore they should be the same person.

Lastly, bars are supposed by law to close at 2AM, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd stop CCTV recordings after that time as a matter of course, or altogether to avoid filming other questionable activities going on in the premises.

Quite correct. The PM did not say "no Thai could do this."

It was the senior investigating police officer.

"On arriving the day after the murders, the senior police officer on the island assured us the culprit could not have been a Thai person. No Thai could possibly commit such a crime, he said, forgetting the equally ghastly murder of Welsh tourist Katherine Horton in 2006, by, it turned out, two Thai fishermen."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29262496

Regardless of who said it, it is a thoroughly repugnant remark (even more so if one considers that less than 48 hours after the crime, the lead cop has already dismissed the culpability of his countrymen based on racial bias? Nationalism? Personal bias?) and come to his own conclusions before the investigation has really even started.

You are correct it was the police who said it, my mistake, I apologise.

So if there is a cover up it is not to save PM's face.

The AC bar was the last place they were seen alive. Do the police not think it would be wise to investigate what went on during their time there? What about the rumor of an argument in the bar, is this not relevant? We know they have the cctv of everybody that entered from the main entrance, did they not try to track down the punters and interview them for possible leads?. It seems illogical that they can say the murders weren't pre meditated when they don't even know the scenario of the victims last point of contact. The polices handling of this case has been incompetent at best and dishonest at worst. I'm pretty sure heads are going to role, serious lose of face for the RTP, no wonder there is very little in the that press.One thing I hope comes from this case is there more oversight in future cases when it comes to dealing with the police and people are more voracious when dealing with them.

Like. There is a possibility Hannah could have been raped at the AC bar. There was talk months ago about Hannah not taking her phone to the beach with her (it seems to have been left with one of her friends). She has been reported to have entered the bar around an hour before David did. Anything could have happened in that bar eg - she went to the loo alone and got attacked somewhere in the building. But wouldn't the friends be concerned at her absence? There will no doubt be some pertinent information on the phones of the friends of that morning. There seems to have been nothing said about the purse she also had with her which was on the table in the photo in Choppers bar. What happened to this I wonder? The fact that the RTP are not going to provide any evidence to show that Hannah and David left the bar together leads me to speculate that they didn't which brings me back to the assumption that David went looking for her. I can't believe that none of their friends would not do everything they can to get justice for them. Hopefully they are doing everything they can and it's just that we do not know about it yet.

there are many permutations - David could have been assaulted in the bar and carried to the sea and drowned, Hannah could have been raped in the bar then also carried to the beach and battered to a pulp then set up to look like it happened on the beach - anything is possible, but unless you have a police team that are actually making an attempt to find the animal thugs that did this and not cover up critical evidence, divert the investigation away from certain parties, may DNA samples unavailable for scrutiny then it is impossible to get to the truth

and may I also add that as far as DNA is concerned - the samples taken from Hannah would have been the largest of all and would have been the most likely not have been exhausted.

Out of likes but I feel the above permutations are perfectly feasible and even not unlikely maybe.

The pictures of the alleged crime scene seem to show relatively little disturbance in the sand around the large patch of blood that would seem to be David's. He had quite a few wounds so you would have thought that might have indicated a struggle. Additionally the area of this patch of blood is perfectly visible from both the Ocean View apartments (where they were staying) and also from intouch resort beach-front (where the guitar playing log bench is located). Any major disturbance could have been witnessed by anyone at either place if they were awake or had been awoken by any shouting / screaming etc. Then Hannah is moved to the rocks even closer to (but out of view of) Ocean View apartment, although still just about visible from intouch beachfront, and here she appears to be staged - why the staging??? to make it look like this is where she was killed and raped maybe? It does look like this is where the alleged main murder weapon was used but could this and other things have happened post mortem?

High tide was 2.19am and low tide 7.33 am. One of Hannah's feet was been partially buried by the sand in a way that only happens when that item is in the sea. The other foot (higher up the beach) considerably less so. It appears (to me) that there is a tide-line about here (open to correction). *If* that were the case the fact that one foot was obviously in the water at some point makes me wonder if the murder and staging could have happened sooner after high tide than is currently thought?

And still annoyed that the earlier police witness testified that the clothes were in a neat pile when they blatantly were not. Why would he say that? Crime scene pictures show scattered clothing and David a little way out in the sea face up, not face down. Again, different to what the police witness stated. *If* the clothes were neatly piled and David face down then who altered these things after these early pictures were taken? Only Mon was there before this policeman allegedly. Does that mean Mon took those pictures and then interefered with the crime scene? or did the policeman remember it all incorrectly, or is there a more innocent explanation for all this apparent codswallop testimony?

what I don't get is the sheer lack of cctv footage from 2am onwards, the only thing shown was the running man which in my view would never have been released if it wasn't for the original transferred cop

surely there must be footage of B3 going to the shop for more beer before heading off to see his GF

I will even lay money on it that there is footage of B1 and B2 leaving the beach area at about 3am

although granted having never been there I don't know the layout of the place

anyone with google earth that knows the layout could you perhaps point out a few landmarks and the location of AC bar and the murder area

https://www.google.co.th/maps/@10.0891645,99.8258572,159m/data=!3m1!1e3

Muang Muang went back to their own room to get, IIRC, a bottle of wine back to the beach, he didn't go to a store.

Personally I find it hard to believe that three men drinking three bottles of beer and one bottle of wine among them would end up too drunk to remember anything.

The last sentence is speculative, and not based on any case-specific scientific evidence. And has no bearing on the B2's movements or where they were at 4am. And another point. Hannah's friends stated she left the AC bar with David between 3-4 am. If true, where is that CCTV?

This seen leaving by Hannah's friend(s) between 3 and 4 got mentioned in the Daily Mail within a week or so of the murders, but I never really saw it again. There was so much erroneous / rumour based reporting going on at the time (and even a lot since) that I'm wondering if this is true.

Do we know if the cctv showing Hannah entering the bar at 1am showed her entering with one or more friends? If so I would be very interested in hearing what said friend(s) had to say about events after they entered the bar in the absence of cctv footage being made available.

If I am honest I don't think NS (Headman's son, Nomsod) has anything to do with these disgusting crimes, maybe people connected to him did, its hard to argue some things dont point to that. I think if NS was complicit something undeniable would have surfaced.

Here are two (of many) things undeniable, which implicate Nomsod. One is specific, one is general:

>>> Running Man videos. The man shown is him.

>>> The fact that RTP and prosecution and, of course, the Headman's family and even the self-appointed PM are all trying desperately to deflect, hide, trash, discount any evidence which might point to him.

There may be other incriminating evidence, such as matching DNA (unless we're to take the word of chief cop Somyotha ha ha). .....but prosecution/RTP is saying DNA evidence doesn't exist, oh yes it does, oh no it's used up, Oh no it's not used up, some things have been lost, oh no nothing's been lost - meanwhile days/weeks/months go by, with no reliable reexamination of DNA. Note: even if DNA is allowed, Nomsod's won't be allowed (by the court) to be tested/compared to DNA found in/on Hannah. Mark my words.

The jury is out for me on the involvement of NS. The only thing I know for sure regarding him is that he was chatting to his facebook pals about it later on the 15th.

Is it possible that all this BS could be the result of the PM saying No Thai would do this? If it turned out to be a Thai would this be loss of face for the biggest man in Thailand? Twas a silly statement to make because Thais have done plenty of horrific crimes previously, even not dissimilar to this one.

It is surprising (or should I really say not suprising) that there is not better quality footage of the running man, maybe from some of the other working cameras such as those that captured the victims final movements that night. The build and certainly that peculiar arm movement are definitely similar.

So much rumour around all aspects of NS 'alibi' and right from the off on day one he was being heavily pointed to by many people. Why did his name come up so quickly if he wasn't there? Even his Father said initially that he had had to rush back to university didn't he before the story changed? The speedboat story came on day one too and based on what I can understand of yesterday's testimony it sounds like yes there was a speedboat leaving the beach shortly after the murders!

I'm surprised that nothing concrete has yet surfaced if he was on the island. AC bar withholding all cctv from inside is very iffy though. 2 main reasons I can think of are:

1. something happened re Hannah and/or David in there

2. NS would have been on the video

Could the police not have demanded this in Thailand? If so and if they didn't then that screams cover up (of something).

From what I understand a lot of bars/resorts have cctv pointing to the beach yet the police have not seen any footage from any of these (allegedly), is that correct?. Honestly it feels like a bunch of 5 year olds could have done a better job!

The only way this whole sorry situation could look more like a pantomime would be introducing Christopher Biggins as a surprise witness.

He would be the most reliable witness so far

I don't think it's invalid to suggest that if the established by other means that no boats left during that time that reviewing that footage wouldn't be relevant to the investigation, or at least any more relevant than reviewing footage from any other part of the island.

But like I said before if they didn't give explanations on why that was the course they took they should.

Just to make sure I have understood correctly...

2 people gruesomely murdered.

A boat left the pier / beach 1 hour after the murders / bodies found. There is/was cctv of this (still in existance?)

If someone(s) told the police that no boat left the beach / pier near to the scene then they should just accept that and not bother confirming this information for themselves by viewing some readily available cctv footage?

I appreciate that was only one scenario you say could have taken place, but really whether it was that or ANY other scenario can you really say that is acceptable police investigating not to check cctv to validate this within hours of a double murder in the same vicinity?

Unless a better hypothetical reason can be put forward for not viewing it then I feel I must retract my recent earlier statement where I said I felt your posts were often valid and unbiased. I have to as I have no desire to even remotely endorse an opinion like that. It seems we're miles apart on what is acceptable / excusable after all.

No, you didn't understand correctly; nobody said there is CCTV of that boat leaving. They said they didn't review the CCTV from the pier and a boat left the island from somewhere else; they are two different things that are being conflated.

OK, this is getting a bit confusing (as usual) and I must beg to differ as to what was originally said. You say above that nobody said there was cctv of a boat leaving the beach but the original report (the one that sparked this little convo) contained the following:

"KOH SAMUI: Police failed to check CCTV images of a boat leaving a beach close to where two British backpackers were found murdered, a Thai court has heard."

Balo replied along the lines of 'OK let's see who was on the boat'

AleG replied along the lines of 'speedboats leave from beaches, not piers'.

But no pier was mentioned in this report so you were actually the first to mention a pier in this particular little subthread (possibly piers were mentioned elsewhere and that is why you mentioned a pier?)

I then initially replied mentioning that there was no mention of a pier in this report, just a beach near to the bodies (Is Sairee beach the beach in question?)

Regardless of any other stories of boats or lack of them any cctv would still have been checked by any remotely decent police force. If no-one has looked at the cctv then no-one knows what might be on it?

Andy Hall also says there is CCTV of 3 Burmese on the beach with the guitar. What isn't said is that there's CCTV of when and in which direction they each left the beach. I maybe wrong and there's more CCTV to be shown of them on the beach, but If there's not I would find this very very suspicious!

Regarding CCTV of the running man, I understood Nom said it was him, when a lot of people thought it was the headman's son. I wonder why he would have said that?

Ah here it is. Andy Hall mentions the cctv of the Burmese playing guitar on the beach. Everyone should watch this.

Initially he says they saw cctv footage of them going down to the beach.

He also says the question needs to be raised as to why there is no cctv footage from inside the AC bar.

Then another reporter asks more about the footage of the accused and Andy Hall replies that there is footage of them on the beach playing guitar and smoking.

When asked more about Hannah and David he replies that there is no footage of them after they entered the bar at 1am and 2am respectively and goes on to say that doesn't mean that none exists but that the prosecution is not scheduled to present any further footage and he then says it's clear that what goes into the prosecution document is not necessarily all the evidence that they have, it's simply what the choose to present to the court.

I'm guessing one of the reporters may have been for the Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/thailand-beach-murders-cctv-showed-6120448

"The prosecution said Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Tun emerged as potential suspects after they were spotted on CCTV that night playing guitar, smoking and chatting with friends on the same beach where the murders took place."

If this is the same spot that the cigarettes were found and one of those cigarettes had Hannah's DNA on it then surely she would have appeared on the cctv at some point?

I think we will find that the CCTV footage shown is of the Burmese kids on a different part of the beach. If not, the defense would have gone crazy asking for the rest of the footage from that camera.

Yes maybe.

As an aside, Maung Maung said they were on the log a while (couple of beers?) and he left at 1am. Presently the murders are estimated to have happened somewhat later as I understand it (is there an official window?). I'm surprised there were only 3 fag butts if they were on the log for a couple of hours or more.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

Police Colonel Cherdpong Chiewpreecha said he was aware of rumours the 23-year-old from Hemsby had an altercation inside the AC Bar, while she was there with friends. But he said neither he, nor his officers, actively followed up that line of enquiry.

The police colonel admitted that CCTV footage of the port, which may have shown who boarded the early morning boat from Koh Tao to the mainland immediately after the deaths was never checked.

There was an audible gasp in the court when the police officer said his officers did not believe the killer would have taken that boat.

The man Ms Witheridge was rumoured to have an altercation with at the bar was seen on CCTV in Bangkok later on the morning of September 15, and has denied having anything to do with the murders.

He gave DNA samples in front of reporters to try to quell rumours that he was involved.

But in court today the senior investigating officer said he had never received the results of those DNA tests, or indeed any documentation from Bangkok regarding any interview with the man. He said he had been promised a report but it never arrived.

Defence lawyers representing the two Burmese suspects, Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin, both aged 22, questioned the police colonel intensively about all the CCTV footage which the court had studied for more than 12 hours yesterday.

They questioned the fact that the suspects were not dressed in clothes similar to those of the potential suspects on CCTV footage, and that the murder weapon itself was not tested for DNA evidence.

The Police Colonel, in both instances, said he did not believe it was relevant.

He also would not confirm if any DNA evidence had ever been sent to Singapore for independent testing. He said he had no knowledge of that.

Incredible

Lets get one thing straight,

There isnt a police murder unit alive that wouldnt think to look at cctv of the pier where the only boat leaving the island a few hrs after a murder before being locked down. Especially when they know it exists and they have it to look at.

Not one

This isnt incompetence so much as cooperative and will-full negligence with intent to obstruct justice..

And still this disgrace of a headline story the most international high profile double murder case in decades languishes in the samui sub forum ..... 30 pieces of silver springs to mind.

Digging back through some old news stories there is a Daily Mail article from 20-9-14 which contains quite a bit about how the police's main theory at this time is that they suspect the two victims were killed by fishermen who swam ashore and then fled in a boat.

Surely this at least would have been a good time to review the cctv footage if not before?

The article mentions up to 10 fishing boats in the bay but I thought I heard/read back at the time that fishing boats were moored on the other side of the island that night due to the wind direction. Confusing, or a poor memory!

There were some boats anchored off Sairee beach in the background of the crime scene pictures though. Are these tour/dive boats or some such? Would anyone typically reside on these overnight (officially or unofficially?)

Andy Hall summarising the morning's court session in Koh Tao murder trial - 2015-07-22

Source: Heidi Anna

Andy Halls says CCTV footage shows Hannah entering the AC bar at 1am and David entering the bar at 2am.He says this is the last footage available of them. He says the CCTV footage does not link the B2 to the crime and that this afternoon the court will look at CCTV footage of the man seeing running around 4am who the prosecution say is Win.

Now this is actually progress, finally we can hear something from the court instead of the ongoing BS in this thread. Less BS and more facts from the court please.

The running man , who is he ? The TV experts in here thinks it's the headman son. Lets see if the court agree.

Andy Hall also says there is CCTV of 3 Burmese on the beach with the guitar. What isn't said is that there's CCTV of when and in which direction they each left the beach. I maybe wrong and there's more CCTV to be shown of them on the beach, but If there's not I would find this very very suspicious!

Regarding CCTV of the running man, I understood Nom said it was him, when a lot of people thought it was the headman's son. I wonder why he would have said that?

Ah here it is. Andy Hall mentions the cctv of the Burmese playing guitar on the beach. Everyone should watch this.

Initially he says they saw cctv footage of them going down to the beach.

He also says the question needs to be raised as to why there is no cctv footage from inside the AC bar.

Then another reporter asks more about the footage of the accused and Andy Hall replies that there is footage of them on the beach playing guitar and smoking.

When asked more about Hannah and David he replies that there is no footage of them after they entered the bar at 1am and 2am respectively and goes on to say that doesn't mean that none exists but that the prosecution is not scheduled to present any further footage and he then says it's clear that what goes into the prosecution document is not necessarily all the evidence that they have, it's simply what the choose to present to the court.

I'm guessing one of the reporters may have been for the Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/thailand-beach-murders-cctv-showed-6120448

"The prosecution said Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Tun emerged as potential suspects after they were spotted on CCTV that night playing guitar, smoking and chatting with friends on the same beach where the murders took place."

If this is the same spot that the cigarettes were found and one of those cigarettes had Hannah's DNA on it then surely she would have appeared on the cctv at some point?

Yes, they should investigate every lead, but just because they didn't review the CCTV footage it doesn't mean they didn't.

They collected the footage, so evidently they checked out the pier but for some reason didn't consider it worthwhile to review the footage from the cameras, maybe they just established that no boats left from the pier during that time by interviewing people there; it's up to the defense to ask for the reasons behind that decision and see if they stand up to scrutiny.

Darnnit then you go and say that!

IMO it is indefensible to say that they may have had a valid reason for not checking it, just my opinion though

I don't think it's invalid to suggest that if the established by other means that no boats left during that time that reviewing that footage wouldn't be relevant to the investigation, or at least any more relevant than reviewing footage from any other part of the island.

But like I said before if they didn't give explanations on why that was the course they took they should.

Just to make sure I have understood correctly...

2 people gruesomely murdered.

A boat left the pier / beach 1 hour after the murders / bodies found. There is/was cctv of this (still in existance?)

If someone(s) told the police that no boat left the beach / pier near to the scene then they should just accept that and not bother confirming this information for themselves by viewing some readily available cctv footage?

I appreciate that was only one scenario you say could have taken place, but really whether it was that or ANY other scenario can you really say that is acceptable police investigating not to check cctv to validate this within hours of a double murder in the same vicinity?

Unless a better hypothetical reason can be put forward for not viewing it then I feel I must retract my recent earlier statement where I said I felt your posts were often valid and unbiased. I have to as I have no desire to even remotely endorse an opinion like that. It seems we're miles apart on what is acceptable / excusable after all.

In fact it sounds like they knew about the boat leaving but just 'thought' the killers would not take the boat.

So they actually knew there was a boat that left shortly after the murders and still didn't check the cctv. Incredible!

The court in Koh Samui heard that the senior investigating police chief and his officers did not believe the killer would have taken that boat, which left an hour or so after the estimated time of death of the pair.

"We have the footage, but we never checked it," Police Colonel Cherdpong said.

did anyone notice the report a few pages back claiming there is cctv footage of the B2 on the log playing the guitar, first I heard tell of that one

Thought I saw that too. First we've heard tell, and also the last it seems? or just another misunderstanding? Clarification on this would be good.

If true, this would be huge news, because the log is only about 20 metres from the murder scene. David and Hannah would have had to pass close by, and movements of the Burmese kids (including when they left) would have been clear.

I think we will find that there was CCTV footage elsewhere of the Burmese who are known to have been playing guitar on the log that evening. That is, they are clearly guilty because they were on a motorbike and visited a 7-11.

Even more, we would have seen Hannah and David as they apparently stopped and shared a cigarette with them on the log (according to the police hypothesis?).

Was the log cctv another misunderstanding? I'll go back and see if I can find the reference to it. I may be gone some time!

Yes, they should investigate every lead, but just because they didn't review the CCTV footage it doesn't mean they didn't.

They collected the footage, so evidently they checked out the pier but for some reason didn't consider it worthwhile to review the footage from the cameras, maybe they just established that no boats left from the pier during that time by interviewing people there; it's up to the defense to ask for the reasons behind that decision and see if they stand up to scrutiny.

Darnnit then you go and say that!

IMO it is indefensible to say that they may have had a valid reason for not checking it, just my opinion though

I don't think it's invalid to suggest that if the established by other means that no boats left during that time that reviewing that footage wouldn't be relevant to the investigation, or at least any more relevant than reviewing footage from any other part of the island.

But like I said before if they didn't give explanations on why that was the course they took they should.

Just to make sure I have understood correctly...

2 people gruesomely murdered.

A boat left the pier / beach 1 hour after the murders / bodies found. There is/was cctv of this (still in existance?)

If someone(s) told the police that no boat left the beach / pier near to the scene then they should just accept that and not bother confirming this information for themselves by viewing some readily available cctv footage?

I appreciate that was only one scenario you say could have taken place, but really whether it was that or ANY other scenario can you really say that is acceptable police investigating not to check cctv to validate this within hours of a double murder in the same vicinity?

Unless a better hypothetical reason can be put forward for not viewing it then I feel I must retract my recent earlier statement where I said I felt your posts were often valid and unbiased. I have to as I have no desire to even remotely endorse an opinion like that. It seems we're miles apart on what is acceptable / excusable after all.

Well I wonder what CCTV panya menam was referring to when he made this statement to the press.....http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

Would certainly be a help if the court was to see that piece of CCTV, But the reality is that it will be in the "lost evidence" column too. Embarrassing

did anyone notice the report a few pages back claiming there is cctv footage of the B2 on the log playing the guitar, first I heard tell of that one

Thought I saw that too. First we've heard tell, and also the last it seems? or just another misunderstanding? Clarification on this would be good.

No, I don't think it's irrelevant.

As I said the pier is normally used for larger vessels and it would be easy to check if any left during the relevant time.

Before things get even more twisted it should be pointed that this:

"The court in Koh Samui heard that the senior investigating police chief and his officers did not believe the killer would have taken that boat, which left an hour or so after the estimated time of death of the pair.

"We have the footage, but we never checked it," Police Colonel Cherdpong said."

Is conflating two things, one the footage from the pier and two the allegations that a speedboat left the island from somewhere else one hour after the murder. They way it has been edited it makes it look as if there is footage of that boat leaving from the pier that the police refused to examine.

Having said that the defense should ask for the footage from the pier and examine it to their full satisfaction.

But for God's sake! This is a top profile murder, a freaking detective MUST follow any lead! How can this lead be left out???

How can you even think to give an excuse to RTP for this (among the thousand other) utter proof of incompetence and total lack of professionalism???

Yes, they should investigate every lead, but just because they didn't review the CCTV footage it doesn't mean they didn't.

They collected the footage, so evidently they checked out the pier but for some reason didn't consider it worthwhile to review the footage from the cameras, maybe they just established that no boats left from the pier during that time by interviewing people there; it's up to the defense to ask for the reasons behind that decision and see if they stand up to scrutiny.

Darnnit then you go and say that!

IMO it is indefensible to say that they may have had a valid reason for not checking it, just my opinion though