rockingrobin

The death of an innocent is inexcusable , regardless of which side you favour.

If I understand correctly we are talking about professional soldiers who are trained to act and conduct themselves under pressure firing indiscriminately

The person gave the order to use live ammo must bear some responsibility , for 2 reasons

It suggests there was an alternative to using Live ammo and secondly it is reasonable to assume that with the issue of that order it would be known that deaths would occur

Now I dont think any side is or has been a paragon of virtue for the past 10 years, but I cannot agree that the ends justify the means, as the past 70-80 years have repeatedly demonstrated

What I know is that there is more gaps and holes than Swiss cheese, as for the phone well considering it was a top RTP the contradictions continued , leaving me to question if they actually do know who it belonged to .

An interesting report early ( a few days after the murders ) claimed that the residence of 3 Burmese migrant workers were raided and blood stained jeans was found along with a broken iPhone

Thailand is like a bunch of schoolchildren in the playground, they accept the rules of the game and then the losers cry foul declaring that it is unfair

Really, it's neither here nor there whose phone it was.

The fact is there was a phone of one of the victims. It is possible that the phone was given to the b2. By the same person who conveniently gave the police the guitar and their clothes. The person who produced these evidence has never been revealed. These objects were not part of the original items found at the scene. Apparently they were given to the police by a concerned citizen. Stands to reason, that if said person has clothes and guitar. Then also could have phone of victim. Could it be he was a thief, that stole clothes and phone.

The Phone is currently being Verified at the moment.

Loonodingle I dont understand, are you saying the phones owner is uknown at present

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:35, said:

Is it possible to clarify who lived in the same accommodation/room as the B2

See my post #1905

Islandlover

Are we saying Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin, are the B2 roommates, if so then could they not clarify what times they the B2 arrived back

I have

Oct 3rd National Post

Police searched the residence of the suspects and found a mobile phone suspected to belong to one of the British Tourists

So I conclude that on the 3rd Oct the police had not verified who the phone actually belonged to

Is it possible to clarify who lived in the same accommodation/room as the B2

One thing they had Burmese witnesses who said the 2 young men gave them David's phone. Well who is to say they hadn't been paid to say that. It's already known they offered money to the taxi driver. Also the 3rd person was released as long as he gave evidence?

I dont recall the burmese witnesses claiming it was Davids Phone, however I do have an account where they say a phone was given to them by the 2 accused but where suspicious of its origin.

Does anybody still have the links to the confessions statements including contents

Here is the report where a friend says they left AC between 3 and 4am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764038/Did-Thai-murder-victims-argue-island-gangster-hour-brutally-killed-Locals-claim-no-one-speak-scared.html

Sorry it is blocked by the big boss.

Here is another

http://sheffieldinnews.com/did-thai-murder-victims-argue-with-island-gangster-before-they-were-brutally-killed-locals-claim-no-one-will-speak-out-because-they-are-too-scared/

It is in the summary date 20th september

That was an interesting read, but it is just hear say. There were a couple of conflicting times in the report too.

I still firmly believe, hannah was on her own and attacked. Then David stumbled on to it.

Here are the relevant parts from the Daily mail article regarding times

At 7.47pm David and his friend Chris Ware were filmed walking towards the bar. They were then recorded at 12.55am leaving, stopping in a convenience store for a toasted sandwich, before walking back to their bungalow.

In a police interview Mr Ware told officers that David then told him he was going out to get some cigarettes but another friend revealed he went instead to nightclub AC to meet up with Hannah and her friend (her friend is named but I have omitted )

At 1.26am he is recorded walking from the club, and returns at 1.57am. That is the last time he is seen on camera.

Friends told police that Hannah, from Great Yarmouth, and David, from Jersey, left the club together between 3am and 4am. Their bodies were found at 6am

What can be ascertained is that David and Hannah did not slip away from a beach party at 1am , it does not fit with statements and cctv

The times fit in nicely with the Man Utd game, (22:00 to Midnight),

Was David a smoker ?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764038/Did-Thai-murder-victims-argue-island-gangster-hour-brutally-killed-Locals-claim-no-one-speak-scared.html#ixzz3RLUleRio

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Does this mean you will also have to have a return ticket in order to board flight , even though you will probably will collect permit and be staying longer than 30 days

Here is the report where a friend says they left AC between 3 and 4am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764038/Did-Thai-murder-victims-argue-island-gangster-hour-brutally-killed-Locals-claim-no-one-speak-scared.html

Sorry it is blocked by the big boss.

Here is another

http://sheffieldinnews.com/did-thai-murder-victims-argue-with-island-gangster-before-they-were-brutally-killed-locals-claim-no-one-will-speak-out-because-they-are-too-scared/

It is in the summary date 20th september

Here is the report where a friend says they left AC between 3 and 4am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764038/Did-Thai-murder-victims-argue-island-gangster-hour-brutally-killed-Locals-claim-no-one-speak-scared.html

The hair if not false, can forensically reveal a vast amount of information, because of its nature it is very robust.

Hair analysis is used in drug testing , to determine what chemicals and substances have been taken, you can even tell race and if the hair has been dyed

With regards to Hannah and David , as far as I can see the only evidence we have seen that suggests they was killed together, is

Discovered at the same time

In the same location but there bodies not adjacent to each other

They attended some bars/pubs together

In reading a few of the posts above

The beach party, as it actually been established this did indeed occur, if so there would have been a fair bit of noise and people . Possibly confirming western songs, however casting doubt on the witness claiming to hear Arakenese accent, since it is reasonable to say the beach party would last beyond 1am.

Continuing with the time, Muang Muang left at 1am , did he return, David was seen on cctv at 2am

As far as the allegation that it would require a large number of people to alter the dna , this is incorrect, and woulld be possible with very few, e.g if the donors of the semen is already Known, then all that is required is to withold there sample and at some future date swap it with somebody else, (note Muang Muang dna on cigarette, but I am still working on this)

The time of death could not be established because the body had been frozen,

However what we Know , David seen at 2am, Murder discovered at 6:30 , or earlier if you believe Mon,

High tide in Samuii I understand was 2:19, therefore would be similar for Khao Tao, but what I dont know is if the high tide in september completely encompasses the beach , maybe somebody else can clarify this

There is a photo where the forensics are examining a few bottles, Pancake man

Loonodingle

If we accept the dna, that in itself does not mean guilt,

The next stage is to ask how and why the dna is present, there are many reasons why the dna could be erroneous , from contamination to human error, does the supporting evidence fit with the facts and scenario

Its a bit like a confession, there is a need to question details of a confession in order to corroborate against the known facts.

Islandlover

According to the report, found near the bodies, whatever that means in terms of distance

rockingrobin, on 04 Feb 2015 - 21:51, said:

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

A cigarette butt found near the bodies on Friday (September 19) contained the DNA of Ms Witheridge and another person. It was believed the second person was someone she knew because the cigarette was shared -

http://www.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

Maw, 23, whose DNA matched that found on a cigarette butt had not been charged as of yesterday.

Acting commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, Pol Lt-General Manoo Mekmok, said two semen samples found on the female murder victim matched that from Win and Saw, and the one found on the cigarette at the scene of the crime matched that of Maw

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

Yes, indeed Maw or Mau is Maung Maung. We see in this report that the DNA on the cigarette butt matched Maung Maung and Hannah, yet there are other reports which say the DNA on the cigarette butt matched the semen collected from Hannah. So, have they tested two cigarette butts? Most confusing.

Islandlover

Just to clarify from the reports there are 4 cigarette buts, one found on the 19th September and three before this date

If we are to believe the DNA is a fix then we cannot give credence to any DNA reports at all. We cant believe one announcement and not the other.

Whilst I agree with you that the dna could be erroneous , it cannot be dismissed based solely on the reason that it is not liked.

The dna has to be accepted until it is proved to be inconsistent with the facts supporting it

.

The cigarette but found on the 19th is interesting for a number of reasons,

It was found 4 days after the Murders, why was it not found on the first day, how did it elude being located earlier, how did Hannah's dna get on the but, who is the other person's dna , why was the but not washed away during High tides, how did the dna survive the high tides.

The first group of 3 buts found, one contained a lipstick mark, a bit of speculation , David was seen with a woman and man around 2am have these identified

rockingrobin, on 04 Feb 2015 - 21:51, said:

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

A cigarette butt found near the bodies on Friday (September 19) contained the DNA of Ms Witheridge and another person. It was believed the second person was someone she knew because the cigarette was shared -

http://www.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

Maw, 23, whose DNA matched that found on a cigarette butt had not been charged as of yesterday.

Acting commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, Pol Lt-General Manoo Mekmok, said two semen samples found on the female murder victim matched that from Win and Saw, and the one found on the cigarette at the scene of the crime matched that of Maw

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

Yes, indeed Maw or Mau is Maung Maung. We see in this report that the DNA on the cigarette butt matched Maung Maung and Hannah, yet there are other reports which say the DNA on the cigarette butt matched the semen collected from Hannah. So, have they tested two cigarette butts? Most confusing.

Islandlover

Just to clarify from the reports there are 4 cigarette buts, one found on the 19th September and three before this date

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

A cigarette butt found near the bodies on Friday (September 19) contained the DNA of Ms Witheridge and another person. It was believed the second person was someone she knew because the cigarette was shared -

http://www.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

Maw, 23, whose DNA matched that found on a cigarette butt had not been charged as of yesterday.

Acting commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, Pol Lt-General Manoo Mekmok, said two semen samples found on the female murder victim matched that from Win and Saw, and the one found on the cigarette at the scene of the crime matched that of Maw

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

No, it's not a reasonable conclusion because you don't know if it's the same cigarette.

"Evidences collected from the crime scene that were sent for tests of DNA include three cigarette butts found about 50 metres from where the two British tourists were killed.

One cigarette has lipstick mark. DNA of two people were found in the second cigarette and the DNA of a third person was found in the third cigarette butt.

However, the tests show that the DNA found in one cigarette butt match with the DNA found in the semen, said the sources."

Which one of those is the one with Hanna's DNA?

AleG the cigarette buts you qouted did not contain Hannahs dna,.

Hannahs dna cigarette but was found on the 19th September

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

A cigarette butt found near the bodies on Friday (September 19) contained the DNA of Ms Witheridge and another person. It was believed the second person was someone she knew because the cigarette was shared -

http://www.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

Maw, 23, whose DNA matched that found on a cigarette butt had not been charged as of yesterday.

Acting commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, Pol Lt-General Manoo Mekmok, said two semen samples found on the female murder victim matched that from Win and Saw, and the one found on the cigarette at the scene of the crime matched that of Maw

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

Maw, 23, whose DNA matched that found on a cigarette butt had not been charged as of yesterday.

Acting commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, Pol Lt-General Manoo Mekmok, said two semen samples found on the female murder victim matched that from Win and Saw, and the one found on the cigarette at the scene of the crime matched that of Maw

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Rape-suspects-charged-30244751.html

A cigarette butt found near the bodies on Friday (September 19) contained the DNA of Ms Witheridge and another person. It was believed the second person was someone she knew because the cigarette was shared -

http://www.thephuketnews.com/koh-tao-suspects-asian-men-48820.php

If accurate is interesting , am I correct in thinking that from the article the cigarette but was found during the reconstruction some 5 days after the murders. Also I have made the assumption that this is a different butt to one found 30-50m away

The other aspect about the dna is timeline,

Bodies found 15th September

Autopsy carried out dna results evening 17th http://www.thephuketnews.com/autopsy-points-to-sex-struggle-in-koh-tao-murders-48760.php

18th September 12 suspects cleared

Police today continued to hunt for clues on Koh Tao as post-mortem examinations of the victims' bodies in Bangkok found no DNA links to 12 people police have questioned so far. - See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/koh-tao-ban-full-moon-parties-48789.php#sthash.4tf7MXkD.dpuf

This seems a quick analysis

Did anybody see the footage on the tv around 16th September when a pair of bloodied jeans were discoverd at a burmese residence

The bearded man with thai woman , is holding something in his right hand between his thumb and finger, as though he doesn't want to fully grasp it.

In the cctv at 5:46 the bearded man appears to be walking away from the woman, (possibly looking to discard item in hand).

With reference to cctv showing a man walking and then running, (police gave this person a reason for his actions before they had identified him , e.g he probably saw the murder and ran away in shock) I would like to ask peoples opinions if they think during his arm movement that the palm of his hand turns upwards during its back swing

I am going to say what I see,

The first picture, its difficult to make out which foot is which, although initially the oversized foot looks to be his left, when you look closely it could be argued from a perspective point of view the right foot is more on the left then what appears to be the left foot.

As mentioned one foot (assumed to be the left) is oversized

He appears to have no footwear on either foot

Considering we know the picture as been modified , how much reliance can be placed on the image is questionable IMO

It would be more beneficial to see the original

2nd picture

Definately footwear on the right foot, not clear on the left

The presence of the rubbish truck should act as independent means of ascertaining the time

3rd Picture

footwear on right foot, possibly on left but inconclusive

Does anybody know why the area from the sideburns to around the ear to down the neck border area has been darkened

The position of his feet would suggest that he walks a bit like Charlie Chaplin, his feet pointing outwards

Now to the question is the no shirt the same as the other 2, if I was to accept the first picture at face value then no. I would like to add the following caveat the first pictur is rubbish , the image of the guy is awkward and unnatural, his leg position would be similiar to someone rocking back and forth preparing for a long jump, whilst his body is upright