rockingrobin

The explanation is in the post

Moonsterk

The RTP could easily have established if the B2 had used a cloth/shirt or other whilst using the hoe. Surely with the absence of the B2 dna on the hoe , the RTP would of enquired about this during the B2 confession.

Since the cloth/shirt is not in the prosecutions case it is reasonable to assume that they do not believe any such items were used.

I do not see such a thing, Please explain how the RTP could have established if a cloth was used to hold the hoe handle, especially if said cloth then went missing- as such cloths are prone to do.

To repeat

In the abscence of the B2 dna or fingerprints on the hoe, would you not think the RTP would have queried if they had used such items during their interregoration when they freely confessed, after all it is the alleged murder weapon.

And so how do you know they did not? And could have the confession been prior to when such DNA processing was completed.

Exactly you answer your own question,

The explanation is in the post

Moonsterk

The RTP could easily have established if the B2 had used a cloth/shirt or other whilst using the hoe. Surely with the absence of the B2 dna on the hoe , the RTP would of enquired about this during the B2 confession.

Since the cloth/shirt is not in the prosecutions case it is reasonable to assume that they do not believe any such items were used.

I do not see such a thing, Please explain how the RTP could have established if a cloth was used to hold the hoe handle, especially if said cloth then went missing- as such cloths are prone to do.

To repeat

In the abscence of the B2 dna or fingerprints on the hoe, would you not think the RTP would have queried if they had used such items during their interregoration when they freely confessed, after all it is the alleged murder weapon.

This has been refuted a least 20 times on the various threads. Montiwat was questioned his DNA sample taken, he was NEVER "arrested" that article you post from Sept 23 was corrected the very next day Sept 24 to this...

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/63857

Police interrogated Woraphan Toovichien, 49, a village headman and owner of AC Bar which is located near the murder scene, and his brother, Montriwat Toovichien, owner of In Touch resort and caretaker of AC Bar.

Both gave good cooperation to the police and they denied they had any connection.

DNA samples of the two brothers were collecting for testing and were later proved to not match with DNA collected from the scene and the victim’s body.

And the bit you add in about " used up." DNA evidence - It was a miscommunication seized on as " evidence" the police were liars. I'd say about 80% of what I've read here on on the other threads exonerating the convicted is miscommunication and elaborations gleaned off those very same FB pages- quite the study in social media as a propagator of propaganda.

Nothing has been refuted, but plenty has been done to keep the heat off the original suspects, among others.

I have no doubt that they became very co-operative with the police, after Pol Lt-Gen Panya was removed from the case.

You might keep in mind Panya was still on the case 23/ 24th Sept.

Wai was always an original suspect from CCTV footage because it looked like him.

Run man orig.png

Here's the pic after CSI LA "enhanced" altered it and made the nose subtly more pronounced- like NOm Sod's (Tuvichien)

head running man.jpg

Here is Dear little Wai at arrest Zaw at arrest.jpg

Moonsterk

The RTP could easily have established if the B2 had used a cloth/shirt or other whilst using the hoe. Surely with the absence of the B2 dna on the hoe , the RTP would of enquired about this during the B2 confession.

Since the cloth/shirt is not in the prosecutions case it is reasonable to assume that they do not believe any such items were used.

Really ? Like how? It is not reasonable to assume anything in a capital murder case.

Maybe the cloth/ shirt was never found would be my answer.

The explanation is in the post

Some of the defence points that have been submitted in relation to DNA from a defence lawyer.

DNA files presented had the accused names on them rather than a proper sample reference number. This is not possible without pre-knowledge of who’s DNA the sample being tested belonged to.

Retesting of the handle of murder weapon found DNA matching the male victim, but DNA matching neither of the accused was discovered. Originally police claimed there was no DNA evidence found on the handle of the murder weapon.

After results of DNA found on the handle of the murder weapon was disclosed in court to be from the male victim, prosecution admitted they had also found DNA matching the male victim on the handle of the murder weapon, but no DNA matching the accused. This case damaging evidence had not been introduced by the prosecution and raises the question of what other potentially case damaging evidence may have been withheld such as clothes of the victims allegedly not tested for DNA and why blood in the sand at the murder scene allegedly produced no DNA results, etc.

Multiple procedures are required in order to meet ISO 17025 international standards in DNA testing. The chain of custody, method of testing, graph generated and case notes resulting in the analysis report produced are all required in order to allow an independent expert to verify the results. Only the results of the test without any required supportive documents was provided by the prosecution witness.

Police claimed a 100% DNA match with the accused from samples allegedly taken from the victim’s body. This is scientifically impossible in any forensics testing laboratory anywhere in the world. For example, swabs taken from the victim would contain a minimum of three different DNAs producing what is known as a “mixed sample”. Mixed samples can be the most difficult to interpret, and from which a 100% match is never possible.

Thai forensic scientist Dr. Porntip’s DNA testing listed the statistical probability of a match on the results report. None of the prosecution’s DNA results presented indicated a statistical probability on the results reports. The “100% match” was only delivered verbally in court by a prosecution witness.

I dont understand

' After results of DNA found on the handle of the murder weapon was disclosed in court to be from the male victim, prosecution admitted they had also found DNA matching the male victim on the handle of the murder weapon, but no DNA matching the accused '

It was my understanding that the RTP claimed they did not dna test the hoe

They were seen buying beer at a shop in cctv footage.

In there alibi they had one beer each so if the alcohol that MM brought was beer they were lying if it was something else they were not.

“After finishing the beer and cigarettes, Maung Maung said he told his two friends he was leaving, but they insisted on having more to drink, so he went back to the room and got an extra bottle of alcohol and took it to them. That was all around 1am,” he said.

"He did mention that there was an ‘English’ or ‘Western’ couple at some point.”

https://www.facebook.com/freeInnocentwinandzaw/posts/1462165177339172

Who is this English or western couple ?

I don't know but obviously there is no way in the world it could been David or Hannah could it ?

Spot on

It could be Hannah with somebody else, but definately not David

They were seen buying beer at a shop in cctv footage.

In there alibi they had one beer each so if the alcohol that MM brought was beer they were lying if it was something else they were not.

“After finishing the beer and cigarettes, Maung Maung said he told his two friends he was leaving, but they insisted on having more to drink, so he went back to the room and got an extra bottle of alcohol and took it to them. That was all around 1am,” he said.

"He did mention that there was an ‘English’ or ‘Western’ couple at some point.”

https://www.facebook.com/freeInnocentwinandzaw/posts/1462165177339172

Who is this English or western couple ?

Moonsterk

The RTP could easily have established if the B2 had used a cloth/shirt or other whilst using the hoe. Surely with the absence of the B2 dna on the hoe , the RTP would of enquired about this during the B2 confession.

Since the cloth/shirt is not in the prosecutions case it is reasonable to assume that they do not believe any such items were used.

Hannah Witheridge's sister Laura has made it quite clear that she thinks the B2 are innocent.

I would hope that we do have all the available evidence in the public domain, and that it was presented in open court! If the B2 were convicted on secret evidence not presented in open court for cross-examination, then there has been a gross travesty of justice. But I doubt that's the case: the judges made it clear that they convicted on the discredited DNA evidence.

IMO Laura Witheridge has been handled and manipulated like so many others- by a couple of women who are so emotionally invested in this case their credibilty is zilcho. One issues false DNA memes that then get an audience of thousands.

One so called investigatory FB page altered the nose on the CCTV footage of running man to make it look like the younger Tuvichien son- and then that was spread to groups with hundreds of thousands of followers.

Several FB " Justice..." groups, community pages and even a well known tabloid blogger's personal FB page (which is used as a news page) do not allow any contrary discussion on this topic- you either follow the insinuation, assumptions and outright lies, or you are banned from participating.

Personal attacks, threats, constant ad hominem, even web sites are erected to intimidate those of us who do not believe they are innocent. One man had his home put up on a map with a false accusation- to invite violence and harassment toward him.

That alone is evidence there is a real need to shut people up- why is that? Is there a truth that needs to be buried?

"...still failing to understand its up to police what they put in there case to get a conviction."

So...what you are saying is...if they tested the clothes and came up with some DNA- samples, which 100% incriminate other people than the B2...and they simply choose to ignore that...you would be fine with that?

Everybody should be fine with that and ask no further questions?

Astonishing standpoint, to say the least!

The whole case has been built around avoiding, "losing", or "using up" anything that would implicate the original suspects.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/63714

The police have arrested a suspect in the murder of two British tourists in Koh Tao and are still hunting for a second suspect who has escaped into Bangkok.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon. He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao. He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

The prosecution and RTP are, of course, correct in saying that certain CCTV video records are not relevant to the case against the Burmese lads.

This has been refuted a least 20 times on the various threads. Montiwat was questioned his DNA sample taken, he was NEVER "arrested" that article you post from Sept 23 was corrected the very next day Sept 24 to this...

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/63857

Police interrogated Woraphan Toovichien, 49, a village headman and owner of AC Bar which is located near the murder scene, and his brother, Montriwat Toovichien, owner of In Touch resort and caretaker of AC Bar.

Both gave good cooperation to the police and they denied they had any connection.

DNA samples of the two brothers were collecting for testing and were later proved to not match with DNA collected from the scene and the victim’s body.

And the bit you add in about " used up." DNA evidence - It was a miscommunication seized on as " evidence" the police were liars. I'd say about 80% of what I've read here on on the other threads exonerating the convicted is miscommunication and elaborations gleaned off those very same FB pages- quite the study in social media as a propagator of propaganda.

Moonsterk

It is not clear from the articles linked when Mon provided his DNA ,

23rd September Mon is a suspect, no mention in the article about dna

24th September DNA samples of the two brothers were collecting for testing and were later proved to not match with DNA collected from the scene and the victim’s body

Edit

The BP stating Mon was allowed to leave at 1:50 after giving a dna sample

Disco

The guitar , if it was where they left it , as you say whty did MM , who is not involved ,not retrieve the guitar. The person who was in possession of the guitar was not to eager to come forward with it

The doctor dod find injuries, and lets not forget the prosecution witness in the same cell who stated he saw a bruise

Yes, the judges weighted all the evidence, for example when examining the matter of the torture allegations Zaw Lin claimed he was beaten nearly to death, yet the court report cites the doctor who examined after the alleged torture and the photos taken at that time to determine that he showed no signs of such thing, so no guessing how that's going (not) to fly during the appeal. The same with the DNA, again the judges didn't just focus on whether they dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's, they considered everything together, for example they pointed out that the results were produced just a few days after the murders, therefore the notion that they had been already adulterated to incriminate those two guys, caught two weeks later was, and is, absurd.

The thing is the "reasonable doubt" in this case is in fact an implausible list of amazing coincidences coupled to an elaborate conspiracy; there may be a doubt but reasonable it ain't.

Yes he did have a injury to his chest and also a injury to his wrist, but we also know that David managed to put up a bit of a fight, so this could explain the chest injury wrist injury could have been from using the hoe with excessive force.

So the prosecution case is wrong

If the confessions are correct , it would have had to been Hannah if the injuries was from the attack

Yes, the judges weighted all the evidence, for example when examining the matter of the torture allegations Zaw Lin claimed he was beaten nearly to death, yet the court report cites the doctor who examined after the alleged torture and the photos taken at that time to determine that he showed no signs of such thing, so no guessing how that's going (not) to fly during the appeal. The same with the DNA, again the judges didn't just focus on whether they dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's, they considered everything together, for example they pointed out that the results were produced just a few days after the murders, therefore the notion that they had been already adulterated to incriminate those two guys, caught two weeks later was, and is, absurd.

The thing is the "reasonable doubt" in this case is in fact an implausible list of amazing coincidences coupled to an elaborate conspiracy; there may be a doubt but reasonable it ain't.

I believe there is ample doubt. The fact that there were traces of DNA on the murder weapon, yet none of it matched any of the two suspects would be reason enough to doubt they did in fact murder the two victims.

3 profiles on the hoe 2 full profiles 1 partial profile

the 2 full profiles were Hannah & Davids

and the 3rd a partial profile matched defendant but because it wasn't a full profile it could not prove they handled it.

If you are saying it can't be them because there dna is not on the hoe the only other reason there can be is that the hoe committed the murders.

The "partial" profile didn't match a defendant. It was a cynical and dishonest ploy by the police to present it as such, and is perpetuated quite disingenuously by the likes of yourself and greenchair, despite it being explained over and over by DNA experts that this "partial match" 'evidence' is nonsense.

The real question is , if the RTP did not dna test the hoe, how would they know

The doctor dod find injuries, and lets not forget the prosecution witness in the same cell who stated he saw a bruise

Yes, the judges weighted all the evidence, for example when examining the matter of the torture allegations Zaw Lin claimed he was beaten nearly to death, yet the court report cites the doctor who examined after the alleged torture and the photos taken at that time to determine that he showed no signs of such thing, so no guessing how that's going (not) to fly during the appeal. The same with the DNA, again the judges didn't just focus on whether they dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's, they considered everything together, for example they pointed out that the results were produced just a few days after the murders, therefore the notion that they had been already adulterated to incriminate those two guys, caught two weeks later was, and is, absurd.

The thing is the "reasonable doubt" in this case is in fact an implausible list of amazing coincidences coupled to an elaborate conspiracy; there may be a doubt but reasonable it ain't.

Yes he did have a injury to his chest and also a injury to his wrist, but we also know that David managed to put up a bit of a fight, so this could explain the chest injury wrist injury could have been from using the hoe with excessive force.

So the prosecution case is wrong

Yes, the judges weighted all the evidence, for example when examining the matter of the torture allegations Zaw Lin claimed he was beaten nearly to death, yet the court report cites the doctor who examined after the alleged torture and the photos taken at that time to determine that he showed no signs of such thing, so no guessing how that's going (not) to fly during the appeal. The same with the DNA, again the judges didn't just focus on whether they dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's, they considered everything together, for example they pointed out that the results were produced just a few days after the murders, therefore the notion that they had been already adulterated to incriminate those two guys, caught two weeks later was, and is, absurd.

The thing is the "reasonable doubt" in this case is in fact an implausible list of amazing coincidences coupled to an elaborate conspiracy; there may be a doubt but reasonable it ain't.

I believe there is ample doubt. The fact that there were traces of DNA on the murder weapon, yet none of it matched any of the two suspects would be reason enough to doubt they did in fact murder the two victims.

3 profiles on the hoe 2 full profiles 1 partial profile

the 2 full profiles were Hannah & Davids

and the 3rd a partial profile matched defendant but because it wasn't a full profile it could not prove they handled it.

If you are saying it can't be them because there dna is not on the hoe the only other reason there can be is that the hoe committed the murders.

The RTP did not even bother to dna test the handle of the hoe, but used a magnifying glass to look for fingerprints. How absurd

See. They will fight on the technicalies of the case.

The new mantra.

Maybe they are innocent.

Maybe they are guilty.

It doesn't matter ☺☺

Protocol was not followed.

Bullshit.

Guilty as sin. even their own lawyers don't shout their innocence anymore.

Would like to see the death sentence overturned. Other than that, right where they should be.

Well many people have genuine concerns that the two Burmese blokes didn't get a fair trial. The evidence presented has been put into doubt.

From the evidence that was presented, I fail to see how their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

And therefore they should not be where they are now.

What you should be saying is there are some evidences that in doubt.

I recognise that ,which is why I look at all evidences available to the public foremostly other evidences that are not in doubt. Those evidences the defense continue to refuse to address and would like swept under the carpet. That's why they lost, because they will not address certain evidence. The defense has tunnel vision. The judges did not.

Yes, the judges weighted all the evidence, for example when examining the matter of the torture allegations Zaw Lin claimed he was beaten nearly to death, yet the court report cites the doctor who examined after the alleged torture and the photos taken at that time to determine that he showed no signs of such thing, so no guessing how that's going (not) to fly during the appeal. The same with the DNA, again the judges didn't just focus on whether they dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's, they considered everything together, for example they pointed out that the results were produced just a few days after the murders, therefore the notion that they had been already adulterated to incriminate those two guys, caught two weeks later was, and is, absurd.

The thing is the "reasonable doubt" in this case is in fact an implausible list of amazing coincidences coupled to an elaborate conspiracy; there may be a doubt but reasonable it ain't.

The doctor dod find injuries, and lets not forget the prosecution witness in the same cell who stated he saw a bruise

Mm only alibi is that he was with his girlfriend. The police excluded him because of that. I was with my girlfriend would not pass the sniff test in the west. The defense told the public for almost a year that they went back to sleep, and that's where mm found them at 5am, everything seemed normal says mm.

The next couple of hours, going back to the beach at 4am,finding the phone, was all kept back from the public by the defense. Why did the defense feel the need to hide that information for a year. We were only let know what the defense wanted us to know to perpetuate the illusion of innocence. If you have to hide information ,there is always something that someone should not be doing.

Why RTP deemed MM was not involved I do not know , however it is somewhat a moot point as the case was not about him.

For the Prosecution scenario to fit , the phone as to have been stolen during the attack before they return to the aacommadation and MM return, otherwise MM gives ZL an alibi. The alternative is ZL and WP commit the murders return to their accomadation , asleep when MM returns , then WP goes back to the crime scene and steals phone

Fab99 I agree, I absolutely do not agree with the rtp version of events. I also believe with out a doubt that there were others. I really don't know who held the hoe.

Greenchair through my innoccent eyes I have difficulty believing you are genuine.

It seems that you are ready to forgo the cornerstone of justice and that is innocent untill proven guitly beyond reasonable doubt. It is a fact of life that nobody can know anything for certainty and the level of proof required varies depending upon the crime . In the case of an homicide the bar is raised to a considerable level.

It should also be remembered that it is not the burden of the accused to prove their innocence , but the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reaonable doubt.

I fail to see how you can agree with the conviction if you make the statement ' I absolutely do not agree with the rtp version of events. I also believe with out a doubt that there were others. I really don't know who held the hoe.'

Here you are casting doubt over the prosecution , it is the prosecution claim that both the defendants held the hoe ,

In an earlier post it is WP walking on the beach in your words 'cleaning up', it is the prosecution claim that both defendants are involved , are we to believe that WP was so concerned that he needed to fix things at the crime scene whilst ZL nonchantly returned to the accommadation and went to sleep

No, they did both go back to the room together. Then mm strangely left his girlfriend at 4am or there abouts and went to their room to wake them up. Apparently he was worried about his guitar and wp was worried about his shoes. So they went to retrieve them. I find mm story very strange. These island guys work late into the night. I just don't believe that he would sleep for only a couple of hours, then urgently leave his girlfriend. Why would he be worried about his guitar. He couldn't have known it was left behind, so why the urgency to leave his girlfriend? ??if wp thought his shoes were stolen, why would he go back for them? ?

If they were not stolen, why would he not take them back to his room, since he is so poor.

None of the night activities bothered me. But these morning activities are the strangest events. I'm not buying it was normal.

Greenchair MM wax a prosecution witness , and the RTP stated he was not involved, there is reports that MM made torture allegations against the RTP once he had taken refuge under the myanmar embassy.

To be accordance with the RTP scenario any events after MM returns to his accommadation is irrelevant,

However it is a pity that MM did not give testimony at the main trial , he should have been able to give some clarity

Fab99 I agree, I absolutely do not agree with the rtp version of events. I also believe with out a doubt that there were others. I really don't know who held the hoe.

Greenchair through my innoccent eyes I have difficulty believing you are genuine.

It seems that you are ready to forgo the cornerstone of justice and that is innocent untill proven guitly beyond reasonable doubt. It is a fact of life that nobody can know anything for certainty and the level of proof required varies depending upon the crime . In the case of an homicide the bar is raised to a considerable level.

It should also be remembered that it is not the burden of the accused to prove their innocence , but the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reaonable doubt.

I fail to see how you can agree with the conviction if you make the statement ' I absolutely do not agree with the rtp version of events. I also believe with out a doubt that there were others. I really don't know who held the hoe.'

Here you are casting doubt over the prosecution , it is the prosecution claim that both the defendants held the hoe ,

In an earlier post it is WP walking on the beach in your words 'cleaning up', it is the prosecution claim that both defendants are involved , are we to believe that WP was so concerned that he needed to fix things at the crime scene whilst ZL nonchantly returned to the accommadation and went to sleep

This trial has not shown Thailand up in a good light.

But I fear the appeal will simply fail. Why? The ex Chief of Police and the Leader of the Military Junta have both put thieir considerable reputations on the line. In Thailand the loss of face of two very senior elitest fugures will not be allowed to pass.

I do think the Burmese have a case to answer, and their defence lawyers did a simply appaling job in the original trial.

But this whole incident has been a tragedy.

I just don't understand what your stance is runt.

In 1 sentence you say the are scared of losing and that's why the b2 will not win.

In another you say the b2 have things to answer and the defense did an appalling job.

I personally think there was so much to answer, the defence ran out of answers. They had so much against those boys, the case became undefendable. They will be lucky indeed if the death sentence is overturned.

Greenchair I accept you think the B2 are guilty , but is there any explanation / reason forthcoming from yourself as to their guilt

Now they are coming out with a new regulation ILAC G19 maybe the now know they have not got a chance with the ISO rules desperate times.

It also said they don't know if Hannah's clothes were tested or not and why the were not entered as evidence still failing to understand its up to police what they put in there case to get a conviction.

This is what they have written about the hoe in there press release (from MWRN fb page)

Its point 3 on their list

"There was no link between the alleged murder weapon (hoe) and the accused. DNA samples from the hoe did not match the accused dna profiles but instead matched profiles of other individuals and hence could not support a conviction."

Matched other individuals yes correct those individuals being Hannah and David but there was a partial profile the matched one of the accused but it could not prove if they had handled the hoe or not.

And the prosecutor also did not enter it as evidence. so why appeal it ?

Also according to Robert Holmes the defense wrote to the prosecutor to request the documentation related to the DNA the prosecutor did not reply, Robert holmes claims that any other defense team at this time would of then requested a court order to hand over DNA evidence and the defense did not do this why ?

Ref ILAC G19

This document is intended to provide guidance for forensic science units involved in examination and testing in the forensic science process by providing application of ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/IEC 17020.

http://ilac.org/news/ilac-g19082014-published/

See. They will fight on the technicalies of the case.

The new mantra.

Maybe they are innocent.

Maybe they are guilty.

It doesn't matter ☺☺

Protocol was not followed.

Bullshit.

Guilty as sin. even their own lawyers don't shout their innocence anymore.

Would like to see the death sentence overturned. Other than that, right where they should be.

And your reasoning ?

This is an iphone 4s connected to the investigation. It's not broken. Who's is it? It'certainly not Hannah's: Her phone was pink.Hannah-With-Ware-mob2.jpeg

If the scenario you are alluding to is correct it would mean that Chris Ware would be fully aware that the phone police found was not Davids also UKCA would have known this as you claim they confirmed phone belonged to David before the phone that was destroyed was found and WPs arrest.

Shall I put them on the they must of been paid off list ?

Sorry I dont follow your reasoning

Are they also on the "hours" of reviewed CCTV-footage of the pier, where boats may have left in the early hours of....oh...right...the RTP decided, that footage wasn't relevant!

My sincere apologeze!

Not!

Another mistruth spoken as fact... oh so many.... regurgitations of crappy reporting into " facts" quoted on fb and then re quoted and posted here as arguments.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, can you be a bit more specific which mistruth spoken as fact

That police had made a statement CCTV "footage from the pier was not relevant," is misleading- as it's meant to be.

They did indeed look at footage and discovered nothing from it- that's why it was not relevant.

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

http://news.sky.com/story/1523975/police-never-checked-cctv-after-britons-killed

Police Colonel Ruangtong told the court police had indeed checked the CCTV images from the cameras at the port but they had not shown anything

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/koh_tao_murder_trial_defendents_did_not_have_representation_during_interrogations_court_hears_1_4211590

To me the two statements are mutual exclusive,

Are they also on the "hours" of reviewed CCTV-footage of the pier, where boats may have left in the early hours of....oh...right...the RTP decided, that footage wasn't relevant!

My sincere apologeze!

Not!

Another mistruth spoken as fact... oh so many.... regurgitations of crappy reporting into " facts" quoted on fb and then re quoted and posted here as arguments.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, can you be a bit more specific which mistruth spoken as fact

That police had made a statement CCTV "footage from the pier was not relevant," is misleading- as it's meant to be.

They did indeed look at footage and discovered nothing from it- that's why it was not relevant.

What is not indispute is

that a senior police officer said the cctv was not examined

Another officer said it was examined

Now this clealy as been discussed earlier in this thread.

Are they also on the "hours" of reviewed CCTV-footage of the pier, where boats may have left in the early hours of....oh...right...the RTP decided, that footage wasn't relevant!

My sincere apologeze!

Not!

Another mistruth spoken as fact... oh so many.... regurgitations of crappy reporting into " facts" quoted on fb and then re quoted and posted here as arguments.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, can you be a bit more specific which mistruth spoken as fact

It is an accepted fact that Hannah was sexually assaulted, and I'm not disputing it. Whether that means actual rape or not is open to question.

What's the difference between rape and sexual assault? I use Sex assault as rape is so often used in a pornographic manner sexualises assault. (And was the anal reference Phuket Wan misreporting David's alleged rape? - a report that was deleted with no correction issued. )

I would like to clarify something re was she sexually abused or not... When a woman is unconscious (or already dead) there are few signs of vaginal bruising. It does mean she was not sexually abused- just she was not in pain, and resisting while it occurred.

The anal rape as no connection to the Phuket Wan article you mention, but you would know that already