rockingrobin

"Days after they were found dead,

Which means the got the phone (18) days after they were found dead and then an urgent request was made

If they had the phone they day of the murders then put a request in days later it would not be urgent would it ?"

You're hopeless Dan . Your timescale would be referred to as 'weeks', just as 80 days would be referred to as 'months' and 800 days would be referred to as 'years'.

The article states why they verbally provided the IMEI, killers on the loose

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!

Yes, there are and yes, it is relevant,there may well be others involved such as Sean and mm.

But this discussion is about b2. So we talk about the footage they were in. They were not in the peer footage so it is irrelevant to their case.

The peer footage was not examined , court testimony

Who cares. They weren't in it.

That's why it was not considered relevant to their case.

Thats why they lost the case, because of some silly story about the village mafia and pllease don't try to take me down that road.

The prosecution must present and focus their case on the accused.

The defense must defend all evidence presented that is particular to their clients.

Not try to convict some other entity true or imagined that wasn't in the court room.

Greenchair the cctv was examined

"Do you think every police officer involved in the case is huddled in one big group and all moved as one big swarm ? how do you expect each police officer to know what every other police officer is doing?."

What has kept happening is: every time a large hole in the police's concocted evidence has been exposed (usually by a social media revelation or some decent cross-examination at the trial), they just send a different officer out to contradict the officer who inadvertently messed up their concocted case. Every rational person can see that it's the most basic and infantile lying, but the police don't care because that's how it works in Thailand, and the system just accepts it.

On a personnal note I think it is implausible the cctv was not examined, but somewhat curious why one senior officer would state that .

Is it possible that it may be to do with this report

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

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

Still peddling the lie that the cctv at the pier wasn't checked you really are getting desperate.

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

(Article Written by Andy Hall favorite journalist Sarah Yuen)

I don't see why the court would need to watch cctv of a pier with no one on it for a few hours when they had over 4000 of pages of evidence to get through do you ?

We also know there was a second weapon this was reported by a german reporter at the court the only reason it did not make it on a certain persons twitter feed was most probably due to the fact it did not help the defense.

Blonde hair was a fallen hair (confirmed by truthers favorite ex barista Robert Holmes) a hair has to be pulled out to have dna, it was consumed in testing and not lost.

Its up to prosecution what they use to get a conviction if they choose not to use Hannah's clothes as evidence that's up to them, and even if dna was found on her clothes what would that prove ? they already have dna from inside the victim.

Disco

So what we have is trait developing where one police officer doesnt know what another one is doing

First it was the not blood stained trousers in Milers luggage

Next evidence lost or used up / not lost everything is available,/ well actually maybe some is not available

Then

Under questioning, Pol. Col. Ruangtong contradicted earlier testimony, from another senior police officer, who had said CCTV images of the port area were not checked after the bodies were found, even though any perpetrator may have had time to take the early boat to the mainland.

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

The perfect case as been riddled with statements , contradictions from day one right up to the court case, is it any wonder people have suspicions

Do you think every police officer involved in the case is huddled in one big group and all moved as one big swarm ? how do you expect each police officer to know what every other police officer is doing?.

Prime example is the defense asking where all the samples are and he said lost (even though the word lost may have been mistranslated) when the right person came along to ask, she explained they had been used up in testing but they still had the replicated dna from the items.

Its a bit like going in the supermarket and going to the meat counter and asking them what time the next batch of fresh bread is coming out, go ask the baker!

Its nothing like going to a supermarket, if the police officer doesnt know the answer to the question he should say so , not give an answer which he thinks is correct.

If I recall correctly the first week of the trial , one day had to be concluded earlier , because the officer did not know what evidence his department was still holding and he had to go check. He didnt come out with some spurious remark of what may be available.

The samples lost / used up was made in an interview with the BBC before the officer gave court testimony.

Still peddling the lie that the cctv at the pier wasn't checked you really are getting desperate.

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

(Article Written by Andy Hall favorite journalist Sarah Yuen)

I don't see why the court would need to watch cctv of a pier with no one on it for a few hours when they had over 4000 of pages of evidence to get through do you ?

We also know there was a second weapon this was reported by a german reporter at the court the only reason it did not make it on a certain persons twitter feed was most probably due to the fact it did not help the defense.

Blonde hair was a fallen hair (confirmed by truthers favorite ex barista Robert Holmes) a hair has to be pulled out to have dna, it was consumed in testing and not lost.

Its up to prosecution what they use to get a conviction if they choose not to use Hannah's clothes as evidence that's up to them, and even if dna was found on her clothes what would that prove ? they already have dna from inside the victim.

Disco

So what we have is trait developing where one police officer doesnt know what another one is doing

First it was the not blood stained trousers in Milers luggage

Next evidence lost or used up / not lost everything is available,/ well actually maybe some is not available

Then

Under questioning, Pol. Col. Ruangtong contradicted earlier testimony, from another senior police officer, who had said CCTV images of the port area were not checked after the bodies were found, even though any perpetrator may have had time to take the early boat to the mainland.

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

The perfect case as been riddled with statements , contradictions from day one right up to the court case, is it any wonder people have suspicions

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!

Yes, there are and yes, it is relevant,there may well be others involved such as Sean and mm.

But this discussion is about b2. So we talk about the footage they were in. They were not in the peer footage so it is irrelevant to their case.

The peer footage was not examined , court testimony

The phone was confirmed as David's by UKCA also confirmed by Mr Miller who got the details from David's computer

We also know the phone WP found is the same model as Davids

So what are the odds of 2 phones both in the vicinity of the crime scene that are exactly the same model ?

Who had Davids phone between his Murder and the discovery of the smashed phone that WP gave to his friend ?

How did the person who was holding Davids phone (incriminiting evidence) for 2 weeks know that WP had found a phone that night (same model phone) and that it was dumped behind his friends house smashed to pieces & marinating in a bag of water ?

No media reports after the crime mentioned a mobile phone being stolen so why would they think it was connected to the murder and destroy it ?

And why did WP lie to his friend and say he found the phone in a bar ?

Exclusive: Critical evidence used to sentence two Burmese bar workers to death last year for the brutal murder of two British backpackers in the Thai resort of Koh Tao was secretly supplied by Britain’s elite crime-fighting agency.

But sources close to the case and documents seen by BuzzFeed News have revealed that the National Crime Agency (NCA) passed on the information linking the Burmese suspects to the crime “verbally” without seeking any written assurances that it would not be used to sentence them to death

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomwarren/how-the-nca-helped-put-two-men-on-death-row?utm_term=.fxn1VvraX#.rn29DJlon

Disco the extract from the artice is not the complete picture and does not place the quote in context.

The article also states

' BuzzFeed News has established that the agency received an urgent request from the Thai police for the serial number of Miller’s missing iPhone days after the young backpackers were found dead'

'Capital punishment is still used regularly in Thailand and human rights groups have repeatedly raised concerns that migrant workers in the country are persecuted by police. But officers at the NCA were concerned that other British holiday-makers were at risk with the killers still loose, and they feared that the quality of the crime-scene evidence would deteriorate quickly.'

Therefore before the iphone associated with the B2 is discovered or even before the arrest of the B2 the RTP are in possesion of Davids iphone IMEI

Lol. They did see hours of cctv footage. Mm, wp, and zl were in all of it. From the beginning of the evening at 1am through to the end of the evening at 6am.

They were all over the cctv footage right next to the crime scene that had no footage behind the rocks.

Can you be a bit more specific about which cctv footage ,

Khun Han and rockin Robin, the site is blind justice thailand.

Greenchair

I am not infuenced by facebook groups or forums,

The issue of WP being on the beach alone in the early hours is irrelevant , and immaterial to the murders.

If you still believe ZL is not guilty then the only reasonable conclusion would be WP conviction is unsound.

^So he told them he found a phone and where it was. They retrieved it and claimed it was Hannah's? After all, who atteding the trial would have known Hannah's iphone was pink if that video of it being handed in to the police hadn't surfaced on social media?

Who knows.

How many phones do you think were lying around at a murder scene.

Who know if it was Hannah's or David's or jack frosts on a hot day.

He had a phone taken from the beach at 4am. He lied about the phone. He changed his story about the phone (several times). He tried to get rid of the phone.

If you can't see something wrong here Khun Han, I can't help you.

Dont forget the phone found near the crimescene by the RTP that they do not know who it belongs to

Have you checked the testimony of the lawyer regarding ZL confession

There is a fb site.

I think it is thailand justice.

Or justice thailand.

It has the judge's ruling in English. He explains every point on how he came to his decision. He was fair. Posters just need to understand that after 2 years exact details do get a little mixed up. But the essence of the story stays the same.

According to court testimony ZL freely admitted to following and attacking the victims. Earlier you disagreed do you still contend that.

^So he told them he found a phone and where it was. They retrieved it and claimed it was Hannah's? After all, who atteding the trial would have known Hannah's iphone was pink if that video of it being handed in to the police hadn't surfaced on social media?

Who knows.

How many phones do you think were lying around at a murder scene.

Who know if it was Hannah's or David's or jack frosts on a hot day.

He had a phone taken from the beach at 4am. He lied about the phone. He changed his story about the phone (several times). He tried to get rid of the phone.

If you can't see something wrong here Khun Han, I can't help you.

Dont forget the phone found near the crimescene by the RTP that they do not know who it belongs to

Have you checked the testimony of the lawyer regarding ZL confession

Khun Han sweetie.

Wp told the police where the phone was. If he never told, it would never have been found. I think wp held back the details of David's murder and the police filled it for him. Maybe he didn't want to drop his friend mm right in it. It is certainly possible, the police added details of zl. But wp original account of himself was pretty close to the truth. After that, he changed his story every 5 minutes to match the media frenzy.

He told the police the phone was David's? Only if you believe the police.

The police asked about the phone during their confession

Whew, get with the programme people. Wp gave the phone to rin rin. Then went back to his bungalow. After a couple of hours wp went back to rin place to get phone. During that time rin rin heard about murders and smashed it,because he was afraid of being accused of the murders.

Wp first told rin he found it at the bar.

When he came back rin asked about it and he confessed he "found" it at the beach near the murders.

I am not sure if it was destroyed before wp came back or at the time wp came back.

But anyway why did wp lie to his friend about where he found it, because at that time he could not possibly know of the murders.

Unless he was there.

Greenchair you are being dis ingenious , WP did not lead the RTP to phone , his friend did , WP did not smash the phone , his frien did, WP did not discard the phone , his friend did.

.Now lets consider as you suggest, WP either alone or with other commit a double homicide and rape and steal Davids phone. Now on finding the phone cannot be opened he gives it away to a friend, although he knows this would implicate him..

His friend on hearing about the murders discuss it and decides to smash and discard the phone.Remembering during the discusion WP is present because it is at this point WP admits to where he as found the phone

So WP knowing he has commited these crimes doesnt think to retrieve the phone and discard it more securely , but is happy to leave it at their premises

Khun Han sweetie.

Wp told the police where the phone was. If he never told, it would never have been found. I think wp held back the details of David's murder and the police filled it for him. Maybe he didn't want to drop his friend mm right in it. It is certainly possible, the police added details of zl. But wp original account of himself was pretty close to the truth. After that, he changed his story every 5 minutes to match the media frenzy.

How would WP know where the phone is , from court testimony , his friend smashed the phone up and threw it away

Greenchiar with regards the confession I will refer you to the court testimony of the independent lawyer brought in by the RTP to observe the interrogation.

ZL freely admitted to following and attacking the victims

greenchair, on 21 May 2016 - 02:55, said:

No, Khun Han. He was the only person at the scene

drinking wine and

At 4am and

With victims phone and

Left butts behind and

Cannot be excluded from a dna match. And

Lied about the phone to friend and

Changed his story frequently and

Went swimming in the rain after the crime and

Left his belongings at scene and

Went back to clean up and and and

And where exactly does that leave Zaw Lin? You haven't mentioned him, yet he has also been convicted of the rape and murders, and sentenced to death along with Wai Phyo. Please explain why you think Zaw Lin is guilty?

Well there lies the problem.

Zaw has a very different story and his story was presented to all of us, which led us all to believe the innocent of both.

He was drinking on the beach.

He back to the room and went to sleep. Where mm found him in the morning. His dna was supposedly found in the 2nd cavity, however it was mixed. Very difficult to say conclusively that it was his.

Based on his story, if that is all there is! !!I think he may well be innocent.

Mm had more against him than Zaw Lin. And "I was with my girlfriend doesn't cut it with me.

However, if he wants to let wp ride on his shirt tail in efforts to save him, then he is a silly man. I personally think the lawyers used his story to save wp. They should have had separate lawyers and trials as is their right. The prosecutors would have had a very hard time convicting him without wp story also. They (especially Zaw Lin )

Were very poorly advised.

But ZL account backs up WP , they both went swimming and according to the RTP they boh confessed

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

So what happened to the wine bottle that you are trying to link WP with did it fall out of the shopping trolley on the way to court ? or did it just disappear like Hannah's clothes .

Maybe the shopping trolley was full, and there was no budget for a second trolley ?.

Who cares what happened to it .

He says he was drinking wine.

There's a wine bottle at the murder scene.

The phone was given to the friend by someone that was wweeeeelllll connected to the crime.

Circumstantial evidence

+++++++ = a crime.

But what we do have is the translator (roti seller) in a tv interview claiming part of the confession involved the use of a wine bottle. However when asked in court he denied ever making such a claim.

Are we expected to believe that WP committed a double homicide and rape, then after stealing Davids phone he simply gave it away , even though he knew it would incriminate him,

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

Greenchair you are correct

The next question why was the wine bottle not introduced into evidence , it is clearly there for the forensics and police to test, and as you quite rightly suggest appears to be strong circumstantial evidence.

Of course they could be an innocent explanation ,

Is Aleg claiming the blonde hair found clutched in the female victims hand is now available

His facial expression is a classic. I am telling bald lies, but I'm a big player, anyone got the stones to question me?

The chances that Karadag has been abused in the Thai prison system is about 100%. Sadly that is far higher than the chances he had anything to do with the Erawan bomb.

Yes your right when the words like dismissed are used its power speaking. I wonder if Thai's cross their fingers behind their backs when they tell a whopper? Was there any outside verification that they were not beaten.

Its the classic diverion

we have not tortured him , the doctors examined and found no injuries.

But he did try to injure himself by punching the cell wall

Ok, so the guy who cut off the dog;'s paws should go to jail. I agree.But here is the problem. First of all, it wasn't the dog's fault for running around freely. It was the owner's fault so the facts are that if the owner who apparently had been asked and warned on numerous occasions not to let the dog run free had done her job the dog would be fine today. So who is "really" at fault here? The owner.

A few years ago some farong guy used to walk his dog thru a neighborhood and it got attacked by a cop's dog and badly injured. I recall the guy taking a knife with him and the next time the cop's dog attacked his dog the guy killed it. Curious what the outcome was.

Now, I take issue with people saying having all these dogs is a cultural thing. Pure BS. You won't see any dogs running around the Convention Center in Chiang Mai. Why not if they are so revered? I guess the elites don't want their women and kids chased and jumped on. Or maybe they don't want their fancy cars pissed and sheeet on.

I have been to Prachuap Khirikhan lately and just got back from Krabi. Guess what? Hardly any dogs. They don't want the damn pests bothering the tourists I guess.

I have personally moved from three different expensive apartment complexes because of dogs, the last one a lady had 20 dogs living across the street from the complex. I put up with it for three years even called the cops who actually did come out but did nothing. They told me everyone complains but they can nothing. There ya go folks. Thais do illegal and stupid things because there is no accountability or law to prevent it I guess. Or maybe just not enforced like so many other things like burning etc.

I moved out and scoped out a new rejuvenated condo building about a dozen times before I moved in. I made a comprehensive list of all the issues that needed resolving before I agreed to move in. One of them was the fact that four dogs live on the complex. In fact, every single time I would meet with the owner or a rep we got chased for two blocks. I said I won't move in unless you get rid of them. Not only did she agree, I put it in my contract. They agreed to get rid of them and signed off on my lease agreement.

Now, seven months later the flucking dogs sit on the steps outside my door and howl and bark all night long, continue to chase anyone and everyone who comes to the complex and bark all night long. The owner has done nothing.

So, I once again took a Thai person's word (stupid I know) that they would get rid of the dogs.

So I ask all the dog lovers out there what to do and please don't say move. should I move? I'm the one paying 15K a month for rent not the f...... dogs.

Would I cut off their paws? NO. Would I poison them? Does anyone know where to buy poison that works? Rat poison doesn't work.

And I assume poisoning the owners would be a bit more of the problem. What I have learned is that talking to the owners does NOTHING. They smile and promise a laugh at you and do nothing.

So, I am open for options on what to do. But time is running out. Maybe someone knows of a service that could pick them up. No one claims to own them so no one should get upset when they disappear.

Again, to all the dog lovers what is your solution to the problem other than move and bitch and moan about what the guy did?

As I suspected not one dog lover has come up with a solution to the dog problem so there ya go. And to the guy who got attacked by the monkeys at PK, if you didn't go there to the wat they wouldn't have attacked you. You should have gone to the air force base (Ao Manow) where the monkeys you can feed out of your hand. You say you moved on" well <deleted> does that mean? You don't live there dufus. I live here. Big difference but too many little minds on TV. Solutions needed not whining. Hopefully some of the dog lovers will get bitten and get rabies and maybe the pain might change their views. I found a dog in the Arizona desert that fit in my shoe. I had to fly it home on a separate flight. Spent 17 years with that dog so nobody can tell me I don't love dogs. These are not dogs here in Thailand. The Soi dogs are vermin out of control and need to go. How many of you fools would let your 2 year old walk past a pack of 20 dogs fighting just trying to walk down the street? Where I live people try walk their dogs and have to carry a large staff with to fend off the dogs.

I dont like my neighbours , doesnt mean I would think about poisoning them

No level of violence is justified regardless of who it's against

So you would whack an old bird instead of being a man and walk....?

Are you have trouble comprehending my post?

Yes

To get another 30 days would he not have to arrive at an airport, do land borders only give 15 days

Correction the above is incorrect , 30 days is available at land borders

This was a vicious attack but to say it was a random and totally unprovoked attack is untruthful or at least misleading. Unfortunately it was a sad case of accidental bumping that turned into a tragic situation due to poor decisions by everyone involved. There is never a reason to viciously hit anyone when they are down on the ground...especially an old man and an old woman. That said all three tourists in my opinion escalated the situation instead of just walking away when they had opportunities to do so. If you watch the video closely you see the two Thai men walking and arguing before the son bumps into one of them. So the Thai man is already pissed off when he gets bumped and so he then pushes the son...the son unfortunately loses his balance and falls down. The mother then argues with the Thai man and eventually slaps him on the face (she could have walked away or just helped her son to get up). Then there is a melee and it looks to me that the father throws a punch or pushes one of the Thai men (it's hard to see as people are blocking the full view) and the son then restrains the Thai man to keep him from hitting his father (the father and son could have walked away before this scuffle). The father moves away from the crowd and the son releases the Thai man...but the Thai man circles around "to get" the father who had either pushed him or hit him. After that it was an unwarranted vicious assault and the perpetrators should go to jail. But to say the whole situation was an unprovoked random attack by a Thai gang out to attack foreigners for the fun of it is in my opinion not true and doesn't tell the whole story.

I never read anywhere that the Thai's attacked the foreigners just for the 'fun of it' ???

you blame the foreigners for not walking away, they had already pushed their son to the ground,

so why did the Thai's not just walk away ??

and the guy that king hit the woman came running in from out of now where...

Watch the full video. It is crystal clear that the son stumbled and was not "pushed to the ground" as you state incorrectly.

The Thai guy that hit the mother didn't come "from out of nowhere", he came directly from the clutches of the son who had him in an arm lock. Watch this 16 second segment from the video to see this clearly too and watch the dad swinging a punch in his direction. Mazungu's description was correct.

https://youtu.be/zw4pfwjNis4

Nobody on here has tried to justify the beating that the three foreigners received. There are no so called 'apologists' who condone the Thai violence. However many people (on here and other threads) have pointed out correctly that all three foreigners committed assaults on Thais before any Thais lifted a finger against them. It is perfectly justified for someone to question their judgement and to say that they could (should) have walked away. They instigated the aggression and they escalated the aggression. You would have to be blind, or possibly racist, to deny this.

But why did he hit the woman

That is my explanation for his proximity as already stated, you can believe it or not.

I asked you to clarify his explanation, curious as to how it would void mine.

Mòonsterk
I am not evading your question, Mons explanation is in the pulic doman and would appear to differ from yours.
In order to maintain some independance it would be prudent if this was located yourself so as to allow you to make an independant judgement.

On the issue of Mon deputuzation would I be correct in saying you have no sources formally or otherwise to this fact ,and it is your own personal summarisation of his presence at the scene

OK so you won't share his explanation, is that correct? I'd have to think it does not exist then. But perhaps putting that aside, would you be able to explain how it voids mine?

and yes as stated twice already that is my explanation for his proximity- Is there some reason to doubt it? Has your colleague refuted it in some way?

Moonsterk
I am somewhat suprised by your response, you lambast posters for re-gurgating myth,innuendo,rumours and speculation and post them as fact.Yet here you are stating Mon was deputized as an explanation for his presence at the crime scene , yet cannot back this up with a source, it is only a speculative judgement, it maybe correct or not
As for Mons explanation , as i have stated it is in the public domain , it would be unwise of me to spoonfeed you, as it is not mine or my colleagues intention to influence yourself by asking leading question on this matter.

To the interest of my colleague the deputization of Mon which you alluded to is of some importance

I lambast them for re-gurgating [sic] opinion gleaned off anonymous articles and social media as fact.
I have stated several times now this is my explanation of his presence.

I think it is well established by now you do not believe it and I cannot convince you.

On the contrary Moonsterk , I have no opinion , the only fact that I can establish is Mon was at the crime scend

And I've offered an explanation. And you not wanting to provide a link is not helping the discourse. If it is the documentary, does Mon's explanation negate his right to be there?

Did Mon have no right to be there? Or did he?