rockingrobin

And by the way transcam, it is only andy hall, that said the UK report did not show rape. As the judge said, he was not qualified to make his evaluation, therefore the judge could not consider it.

Greenchair

I think you are mistaken , it is my understanding that the coroners 2nd autopsy is for the defence only and its purpose to ensure the defense as an expert witness , thus the report is classed as the expert witness

Re; mention of how prosecution should bring details of DNA trail to the appeals court. I don't think prosecution will do much or any of that sort of thing. I picture them sitting back with their arms folded, staring at the defense team with looks that say, "what are you going to do now? You already lost."

With 'guilty until proven guilty' entrenched in Thai system of justice, prosecution doesn't need to prove anything more. They've already proved the two Burmese boys are vicious rapists and murderers. What else do they need to do? In their view, it's up to the defense to put up or shut up. Prosecution also knows which side of the fence the judges sit. They and RTP and all the PM's men are paid from the public coffer. All are beholden to the PM and know what the PM wants. Sorry to say, the defense has a monumental task ahead. No amount of expert testimony is going to sway the inevitable. Sorry for being cynical, but cynicism is about all that's left after seeing how things have unfolded in the past 16 months.

It's not cynicism it's realism and well done for facing up to the facts!!

You are right when you say that it has been proven that they are rapists and murderers - how long before the rest of you experience a good dose of realism instead of sticking to the 'party line' when it's so blatantly obvious what they did?

When I wrote, "They've already proved the two Burmese boys are vicious rapists and murderers." I meant it was proven to the judges, not to me. If you have been paying attention you know where my sentiments lie.

I can see that you are resigned to the outcome of the appeal.

All of the others with your sentiments are firmly in the 'wishful thinking' (no-hopers) camp.

If the trial went so disastrously for the defence in the initial trial then how do you imagine the appeal is going to go - when using the same team of amateurs that cocked up first time around.

They don't seem to carry out the death penalty in Thailand anymore so I guess it being reduced to life imprisonment is the best they can hope for.

Lucky

So if the defence was a proffesional outfit , it is your understanding they would have been found not guilty, because the original team cocked up

Thailand does carry out the death penalty, last person executed 2009, and the prosecution was pushing for the maximum punishment.

I agree with somo and some others. The case was shoddy.

The police had everything they needed. Witnesses, dna everywhere , video footage of the suspects, belongings of the suspects at the scene, belongings of the victims at the suspects. They had everything and still they let one go.

I am shocked and angry about that. That beautiful lady was held down and raped in the worst possible way. And there are posters here that would like to see them out on a technicality. You are all correct, there was no need for torture . there was no need for a confession. And that has stained the case and gives posters fodder to defend them.

GC

' They still let one go ' I am presuming you mean Muang Muang

Now why would they let MM go, the RTP detained and questioned him and found he was not involved.

The reason I changed my mind is Wei Phyo story got to difficult to explain anymore. Muang Muang story is a carbon copy of Wei Phyo. The only difference is he didn't have the phone. He is there at 2am. He is back at 5am. It is his shoe left at the scene. He is on video walking around with one shoe. the oldest alibi in the world. I was with my girlfriend. not to mention that he has kept very quiet about all this

Strangely, I find the 2nd defendant story quite plausible. He went to the beach, and went to his bungalow to sleep. I think the first theory is correct, there were at least 3 people there. Muang Muang fits into all of it like a jigsaw.

GC

If you dont mind can you clarify how you know it is Muang Muang shoe left at the scene

Like I said, I expect them to challenge the verdict. There is no point in raising five key points from the original trial if they aren't. Challenging the severity of the sentence doesn't involve challenging the original evidence.

What planet are you on? ?

They are going to challenge the sentence not the verdict. They could possibly use humanitarian grounds such as

1.the b2 were tortured.

2. they were forced to confess

3.the translaters were not fluent in any of the languages.

4. They are young and did not understand fully their decision to go to trial.

5.the dna fiasco.

All of the above is true, but there were many other evidences.

The story says they are appealing the death sentence.

Not the verdict.

Bless. We all wanted them to be innocent. But alas they are not.

Hey Deckchair, keeping the B2 alive is the first step....Stay tuned....

Hey, transcam, didn't you know that death penalty cases in thailand are commuted to life and reduced by 5 years every year by the king.

If they pled guilty they would have gotten an automatic half sentence of a life sentence and it would have reduced every year. But because some idiot filled their young heads with fantasies that they would walk away from this ,they got the full sentence. So, first it will reduce death to a life sentence.

Then it will reduce 5 years every year from the kings birthday pardon. But still they will do an extra 10 or 20 years

More than if they fessed up. The judge warned them at the beginning. If you did this, and lose this case, you will get the death penalty. Nobody listened.

The last person to be executed in Thailand was in 2009

GC

I would like to take you back to Sept/Oct 2014 when you were more concerned about the hoe.

Are you not curious why the RTP tried to cajole the owner of the hoe to say that he had washed it .

God speed boys. The world is with you. Unfortunately millions (2.5 million pounds sterling I've heard so far) and a crooked system are against you.

I see that one of the troll troupe have turned up. Dispy, lala and poe to come along shortly.

Sorry,

But there is no way the figure of 2.5 million pounds (GBP) is correct, it's a nonsense figure.

Many/ most of their defence has been ' pro bono ' they have hardly been flying witnesses in from around the globe nor expert witnesses who have chosen to attend voluntarily. I think this is just people pulling figures out of their barstools.

I firmly believe there is also an error in the headline regards the reporting of this case, the lawyers will most certainly be appealing both sentence and conviction.

Scouse I agree , it is my peronnal opinion that some posters are taking the headline literally . I fail to see why the defence would make such a statement when they still have 20 plus days and if the courts allow some additional witnesses

I find it quite inexplicable that they have waited for the appeal period to expire before applying for an extension!

The Appeal Court would be well within their rights to refuse an extension...................and it might just suit certain persons for them to do so.

Wrong actually,

It is quite common also for the prosecutor to request an extension of time when he plans an appeal as well and is nothing unusual.

The appeal was extended 4 days before the expiry of the inital month timeframe ,

So am I correct in thinking the appeal has to be lodged by the 24th February.

So, they were just walking along in the rain and decided to jump in the sea with their clothes on.

Perfectly normal thing to do ?

GC

What evidence is their to actually disprove their account.

As for normal behaviour , is it normal to commit a double murder , steal one of the victims phone and then just give it away

I believe every word they said, except as aleg says they left out "and then we murdered them, and this is how it happened "

I am somewhat confused,

You claim their story is implausible , and now you believe every word they said with the exception this is how we did it

I can only conclude you cannot give any evidence to disprove their statements and thus are making it up as you go along

So, they were just walking along in the rain and decided to jump in the sea with their clothes on.

Perfectly normal thing to do ?

GC

What evidence is their to actually disprove their account.

As for normal behaviour , is it normal to commit a double murder , steal one of the victims phone and then just give it away

I agree with somo and some others. The case was shoddy.

The police had everything they needed. Witnesses, dna everywhere , video footage of the suspects, belongings of the suspects at the scene, belongings of the victims at the suspects. They had everything and still they let one go.

I am shocked and angry about that. That beautiful lady was held down and raped in the worst possible way. And there are posters here that would like to see them out on a technicality. You are all correct, there was no need for torture . there was no need for a confession. And that has stained the case and gives posters fodder to defend them.

GC

' They still let one go ' I am presuming you mean Muang Muang

Now why would they let MM go, the RTP detained and questioned him and found he was not involved.

Does anyone in the public realm have access to the UK autopsy report on Hannah? I remember reading there was no apparent sign of rape, ie tears but nothing about the DNA. In fact I thought the report was going to be released to the public this month.

What happened?

The only person that said the UK report had significant differences to the Thai one was Andy Hall. The report was submitted to the court and this is what the report says about the subject:

"Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D, testified that there was a tear to the Second Deceased’s vulva, which is consistent with the report of the second victim’s autopsy in the United Kingdom in Document Lor. 31 (page 21), submitted by the defendants, indicating that there was a tear at the vulva. This fact supports credibility to Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D,’s testimony is made in a straightforward manner."

And this is what it says about his contribution to the case:

"Mr Andrew Jonathan Hall or Andy Hall to testify on the autopsy report of the Second Deceased in Document Lor. 31, claiming that the autopsy report at the United Kingdom did not indicate an abrasive tear on the perineum from the vulva to the anus of the Second Deceased. Mr Andrew also hired an expert from the United Kingdom to conduct a gait analysis of a suspect from CCTV images, comparing that suspect to the second defendant’s motion appeared on the video footage on the date of the incident. The result of the gait analysis provided in Document Lor. 47 indicated that the second defendant was not the same man as the suspect. It is found that this witness did not learn the factual issues or was not directly involved with the case, nor is he an expert on autopsy and the analysis of the two reports. Additionally, the witness is merely the coordinator and recipient of the said reports. Almost all of the facts in the testimony are his personal opinions. His testimony constitutes hearsay evidence because he only refutes what has been written in the reports or claims that an expert has informed him of such information. Unless a relevant expert can testify before the court to confirm the information in such reports, the plaintiff cannot cross-examine the witness in order to properly examine the fact. The testimony alone is without any weight and not worthy of being taken into account."

Oh dear there you go doing it again. Quoting a Thai policeman.

Have you seen the British autopsy ? I'm guessing not. I would also guess the person you are quoting hasn't seen it either. But it doesn't stop him lying about it.

And we all know you like to keep as far away from the truth as possible.

What we have is the court accepting the UK autopsy when it supports the prosecution

submitted by the defendants, indicating that there was a tear at the vulva. This fact supports credibility to Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D,’s testimony is made in a straightforward manner.

But when it disagrees it is hearsay and carries no weight

where are you getting this information from

They got it from Thai Embassy dot com

there is a lot of incorrect information on that site, but it does say 50 years of age for non 'o' for retirement, it also says 40,000 baht is required for non 'o' visa for marraige.

The consulate in Hull , Uk is stating that in order to get an O pensioner (I read this as retirement ) you have to be 65

For O married to a thai income of 65,000Bht a month

Maybe different for other countries or applying for extension of stay in Thailand

Let's not forget there was also a 25 % match to the 2nd defendant according to pornthip.

Love the way posters only select the pieces of that suit themselves.

It was also a 25% match to a banana.

Love the way posters keep repeating the same misunderstandings to suit themselves after being corrected .

That's so true, it made me laugh. Scientifically, humans are about a 25% DNA match to banana. Look it up. We're probably no further than 20% match to every life form on the planet. Peoples' DNA matches every chimp and bonobo by about 98%. Pop Quiz: Do you know which life form has the largest Y chromosome? Answer: Papaya. I shit you not. Since Y chromosomes grow slightly, the older their lineage, it's theorized that papaya were the first life form with a Y chromosome. Next time you walk by a male papaya tree, wai him, as you would a respected ancestor. (yes, papaya trees are either male and female, similar to pot plants).

Well why didn't she say there was a 25 % match to the 1st defendant. Or there was 25 % of one of defendants but not sure which one.

Or 25 % that could be from a banana holding the hoe.

Or why mention it at all of it is so insignificant.

And are you saying that I could be a 25 %match on that hoe?

Anyway, you're saying the defense witness testimony about dna is farcical lol.

The defence statement about the dna is not farcical, in order to comprehend the testimony an understanding of dna typing is needed.

In a nutshell the 1st defendant shared 25% of the dna markers when compared to the sample , the other 75% were not shared, so the conclusion is the defendant could not have been the donor of this sample

I don't know why you lot are saying GC is wrong, GC got it wrong. Answer me if you dare.

Were the b2 right next to the murder scene in the path that Hannah would have to pass?

Did they go swimming in the rain at around 1am for no apparent reason?

Did they leave their shoes behind for no apparent reason?

Did Muang and Wei go back to collect belongings at the beach at 5am?

Did wei have possession of a phone belonging to David?

Did he try to get rid of that phone?

I will try to answer in order

If Hannah and David did walk from bar To crime scene then the B3 were in that path, but there is no witnesses to say if David and Hannah where together or how they left the bar

To go swimming around 1am is irrelevant , David was still alive at 2am, seen entering the bar

Shoes and clothes missing along with guitar

On MM return went to search for missing clothes and guitar

WP found a phone which he gave to a friend, ( what was he thinking if he had just stolen it)

His friend samashed and discarded the phone

Bless and kindness just trying to make sense of this like everyone else.

Answer back in order.

There is a back door to the beach, it did not have a camera (apparently ).it is believed they left through that door since the camera at front did not see them leaving. Nobody knows if they left together. That put them on a direct path pass b3 back to room. Any other direction would have them back on cctv (I think ).

The time of swim and the time of death are estimated even in the courts. it maybe that Hannah got killed first and david stumbled on to it at a different time.

I am confused if the clothes and shoes were stolen from beach and if guitar was left in ac bar.

IF they thought shoes were stolen why would they go back to look for them?

1 or 2 coincidences sure next to crime, clothes stolen. it just gets a bit much with the phone. I'm not buyin, he just happened to find that phone during his morning stroll. Pigs will flew on that day too lol.

The estimated time of death is 05:30,

How do you fit the B2 and MM in with the crime.

What part of the B2 and MM statements can be disproven

I don't know why you lot are saying GC is wrong, GC got it wrong. Answer me if you dare.

Were the b2 right next to the murder scene in the path that Hannah would have to pass?

Did they go swimming in the rain at around 1am for no apparent reason?

Did they leave their shoes behind for no apparent reason?

Did Muang and Wei go back to collect belongings at the beach at 5am?

Did wei have possession of a phone belonging to David?

Did he try to get rid of that phone?

I will try to answer in order

If Hannah and David did walk from bar To crime scene then the B3 were in that path, but there is no witnesses to say if David and Hannah where together or how they left the bar

To go swimming around 1am is irrelevant , David was still alive at 2am, seen entering the bar

Shoes and clothes missing along with guitar

On MM return went to search for missing clothes and guitar

WP found a phone which he gave to a friend, ( what was he thinking if he had just stolen it)

His friend samashed and discarded the phone

It was not that long ago that dna was not even used in the courts. Even now, it is extremely controversial.

Having possession of the victims phone.

Leaving belongings next to the crime.

Revisiting the crime to retrieve belongings.

Hiding and destroying victims belongings.

30 years ago, this would have been a mountain of evidence in a western court, they have been convicted based on the many connection they had to the victims and the crime scene.

The defense lawyers said, this is the first time they have challenged dna in a Thai court.

Considering thailand is a few years behind. Throw out dna, they still had reasonable evidence that would secure a conviction in the west 30 years ago. There is too much wrong in their testimony to risk letting them go.

Who would commit a double murder steal one of the victims mobile phone and then just give it away knowing that at some point it would implicate them

I didn't say the guitar was stolen. I said their clothes were stolen. My question is why did they not take the guitar home with them. Who leaves a guitar on the beach over night. It was them that said they left their shoes behind. I am trying to understand why they would leave their stuff at the beach.

Note. . Go on say it. Oh the poor cherub faced angels forgot it in their drunken state.

Correct and wrong, it is the B2 who claim the items were missing , only the guitar resurfaced , evidently found by Mons chef.

The one thing I dont understand is your statement why did they not take the guitar home with them . If the guitar had been at AC2 bar where they claim to have left it (found by chef) then sureley MM would have retrieved it.

It was not that long ago that dna was not even used in the courts. Even now, it is extremely controversial.

Having possession of the victims phone.

Leaving belongings next to the crime.

Revisiting the crime to retrieve belongings.

Hiding and destroying victims belongings.

30 years ago, this would have been a mountain of evidence in a western court, they have been convicted based on the many connection they had to the victims and the crime scene.

The defense lawyers said, this is the first time they have challenged dna in a Thai court.

Considering thailand is a few years behind. Throw out dna, they still had reasonable evidence that would secure a conviction in the west 30 years ago. There is too much wrong in their testimony to risk letting them go.

So do you believe that the B2 murdered Hannah and David?

And do you think they did it alone?

KunMat

If you go back to Oct 2014 after the B2 arrests , Greenchair believed that they was guilty but others were involved

Cablecart, I green door have not been the one going on about the dna. I have no doubt it was collected poorly. as Jane taupin said, dna by itself is not accepted as sole evidence in criminal trials. Dna is just a piece of circumstantial evidence that must be supported by other evidences ,because as you have so clearly pointed out, it is not infallible. It is the other evidence that I like to make sure that people know about so they can form their own opinion as we were all lied to by omission. The most damning pieces of evidence being

1. They had the victims phone.

2. They left their belongings meters from the murder.

3. Their cigarette butts were at the murder scene.

4. They tried to hide the phone.

5. They went back to the scene to retrieve their belongings.

nobody believes the dna result, we just don't know .

Quite frankly the dna is nothing compared to the lame excuses made to get around all the other evidence as told by their testimony. As the judge said, their story was unbelievable .

All of the above is stated by Wei Phyo himself. God help your conscience if they were to get out of this on a technicality and repeat another horrific killing of some dear young lady on holiday.

point 3 is incorrect

With the total absence of any DNA evidence connecting the accused to the crime (especially on the murder weapon) these points 1-5 are minor and easily explainable. They may wellhave found the phone then discarded it so as not to be accused of theft. Smoking cigarettes on a beach and disgarding them could lead to a fine for littering but not much else and retrieving your forgotten clothes is a natural thing to do. Leaving them behind after murdering someone would be the unnatural thing to do. These points 1-5 are not evidence of anything.

Yes, maybe you could clear this up for me then.

If their stuff was stolen, but not the shoes and guitar .

Then why did they not pick up the remaining items and take them home ?

If they did not see the items because it was dark.

Why did they go back at 5 oclock in the morning to retrieve stuff that they thought was stolen .

Greenchair

You answer your own question

But firstly the shoes was never found,

Secondly your statement why did they not retrieve the guitar is puzzling, if the guitar was stolen it would not have been recovered ,

if it was not stolen then MM who the RTP claim is not involved would have recovered it

Based on experience and tales told me by reliable sources, the graft and corruption has gotten noticeably worse since the coup.

If you and your reliable mate say so then it must be true.

Last time I went for my visa at the UK consulate, I mentioned how much better I thought Thailand was now that the dirty cronies got booted out.

The guy processing the visa told me that everyone he spoke to shared the same view. The general opinion was that under Pheu-Thai, corruption was a general free-for-all and at least the Junta were trying to do something about it.

But I bow to your obviously superior information. All the farang from UK who don't give a dam about Thai political colours, are relatively well educated and grew up in a real democracy must be wrong.

EnglishJohn

Can you inform me which consulate you visited for your visa , as it is my understanding the British had outsourced its visa service in Thailand to VFSglobal

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/18341-masked-man-at-koh-tao-rally-demands-meet-with-interpol.html

A masked vigilante yesterday stood up in a swell of protesters and said he has evidence that can prove the innocence of two Myanmar men sentenced to death in Thailand.

"Police have been made aware of reports that Hannah and David had a fight in a bar with a Thai man before they were killed, but cannot confirm if they are true."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29300765

Below is a post from Myanmar says workers innocent from Britons On Khao Tao

Post No.498

Where he agrees Mon is caught on cctv

rockingrobin

I've said that I will accept that the B2 are guilty, but only in the case that they are not alone. It's the only scenario that fits with your evidence against the B2 which you are adamant about and all of the evidence against Mon and Nomsod.

Why do you refuse to accept that Mon and Nomsod could have been involved? You dont think that they would have lied because when were accused of murdering 2 people? That's what you are basing your argument on, the word of 2 accused murderers??

What part of "I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence" is so difficult to grasp?

The problem is that when asking for it I get things like your "fact" that they were caught at the crime scene by CCTV, wishful thinking like "they could be involved", non-sequitors like "x amount of people agree with me" or convoluted, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

It as already been supplied

Blond hair

Dna on murder weapon

Dna on right shoe and the presence of the shoe

I'm open to anything that can be substantiated with credible evidence, evidence that other people were involved in the murders: 0

Evidence that Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin murdered those two people: enough to reach a guilty verdict as explained in the court report.

Blond hair

Dna on the right shoe

Dna on the murder weapon

Police statement Oct 29 2014

"If the DNA results turn out to match with the samples taken from the crime scene, Mr Warot will become an accomplice. If the DNA doesn't match, then society must give justice to Mr Warot's family too," the national police chief said - See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-koh-tao-murder-suspects-offered-2nd-dna-tests-49403.php#sthash.NBZ7xOUh.dpuf

On one hand wishful thinking that those things would produce a match with Nomsod, even though he was proven not to be on the island at that time... on the other hand evidence that was subjected to scrutiny during a trial that has proven the B2 did it.

Tough choice.

Seriously, it's nice down here on Earth. A bit complicated some times but we get by just fine.

To requote what you posted

"I'm open to anything that can be substantiated with credible evidence, evidence that other people were involved in the murders: 0 "

I take it from your response that you are not open to any other evidence