loonodingle

Good photoshop.

Just about sums up the whole case for the prosecution,

thanks for sharing

A Few more for you all. Ref Reconstruction etc.

These are observational pictures and do not imply any guilt by the party included for legal reasons.

The Sun article inked above was a reprint of copy written by Jonathan Samuels of SKY News:

By JONATHAN SAMUELS, Koh Samui, Thailand

— Jonathan Samuels is a correspondent for Sky News

From Mr. Samuels WikiPedia bio:

As Sky News Chief Correspondent, Samuels has covered the main domestic and international stories. In the last few years he has reported from Iraq, covered the crisis in Zimbabwe, broadcast from the Falkland Islands, was in the United States for the recent election and covered the conflicts between Israel and Gaza, and Israel and Lebanon.

So what does this prove? That he's been around. He might be talented and well travelled but does it mean that whatever he says is gospel?

Lord Give me Strength!!!!!

I wonder if any of the suspects (and not just the 2B) are left-handed? Looking at the major wound and the rocks around the body, the perpetrator probably was standing to the left side when the skull was fractured. The wide wound is consistent with the wide blade of a hoe- it could certainly be compared to see if it matched.. The angled break in the skull would seem to indicate that the blow was struck at a downward angle from the left. It would be difficult for a RH person to strike that blow (try it). The angle of the fracture and the rocks above her body indicate that the blow was not struck from a person standing above her head. The blood spatter on the rock to her right would seem to indicate the the blow was struck at that location, not that the body was moved from another location. Detailed CS pics would make these determinations easier, but they appear to have been lost, due to "...lack of money...".

Was there ever a re-enactment of the crime? Would be interesting to see how the re-enactor handled the hoe

Actually, there was an re-enactment of the crime, and photos clearly showed the police directing the totally clueless boys as to what to do. And they used a metal dustpan for the hoe. The whole thing was a completely staged set up by the BIB.

Correct I have a picture of it

Do not know how reliable this is but an article in the BP on the 24th October 2014, indicates that two weeks after the murders, three people were arrested, the two who have since been charged and a friend, who was treated by Police as an eye witness. To what I do not know, as it does not stipulate but maybe this is what GB was referring to. It appears that his name I Maung. If I can locate it, why can't you? Maybe you should try a little harder, remember, seek and ye shall find.

Is this the eye witness that allegedly was having a drink with the defendants before going home to bed and not actually witnessing anything?

Can't help you with that the media report wasn't that detailed. It did list his name and said he was a friend, that's all I can say, other than to reiterate I cannot vouch for the veracity of the report.

There was pictures of several Burmese who had been tortured into providing evidence or a story. They had burn marks down their backs they claim from scalding water. also bruises.

There is many ways to torture people though without leaving marks. One thing they do is tie them to the chair and hit them over the head repeatedly with telephone directory's. My m8 worked with immigration and witnessed some of the treatment they dish out when they pick up foreigners who have broken the law. Theres plenty more to go with that, but don't be surprised if you don't see marks. Plastic bags over your head doesn't leave a mark either and how do u prove it?

TBH Mr McKenna's silence is quite deafening - I think he is a very important cog and the fact that he has chosen to stay silent even in the uk away from intimidation in Thailand seems that he knows something and might even been involved, he should at least be interviewed, he may not have murdered anyone but may have been there at some point, his nightmares will stop if he comes forward and tells his story - innocent or not he needs to speak out,

McKenna - take a look at the pictures of this innocent lovely girl with her head battered to a pulp and reflect how you knew her before, I don't think you did it but you need to come clean even if you were slightly involved and are scared of facing charges - you won't but what a relief to you if you come clean

I have seen many horrors in my time but the pictures of this beautiful innocent young girl with her head battered to a pulp was pretty hard going - very sad indeed

his name is Sean McAnna. He is from Shotts near Glasgow and the blood was his we believe. He Went to Milan and lived there u till recently. You can find him under the Facebook name Sean Dilupo you will know if you have found him as he has a Nic McAnna that's his sister and a Anne McAnna that's his mother as his friends.

Personally I think he has knowledge of what happened and was shooed of the island as it was the only option left after he called the sky reporter Jonathan Samuels.

Let's be honest he was the only one naming the suspects and running away from them before they shut him up permanently which is how it plays out in most instances.

Post #1836 above: right on. or, for a person from the little island called England, 'spot on'

I always wanted the Brits to find something but I understood the following. Please correct me.

1. The Brits weren't allowed to participate in the actual investigation. They were stonewalled in Thailand.

2. The Brits may have gotten DNA from Hannah upon the return of her body to the UK but:

a. They weren't allowed to independently get DNA from the suspects to compare.

b. The bodies were thoroughly cleaned and embalmed before being returned to the UK.

Not sure about 2b. I hope that's wrong. If the bodies were cleaned before sending to their home country, then that's despicable. However, after observing all the other screw-ups in this case, it wouldn't surprise me.

I recall articles and discussion that the bodies were "prepared for repatriation" and that standard practice was to embalm before shipping. I did a search of TVF for "Hannah Witheridge embalmed" and got all of these hits. LINK

Dunno?

Try this

http://www.facingbereavement.co.uk/repatriationdeath.html

Returning home with the body of the deceased will require having it embalmed and then secured in a zinc-lined coffin. The British Consulate should be able to put you in touch with funeral directors in the country who will be able to prepare the body in this way. You will also need to carry a certified English translate of the death certificate, written authorisation from local authorities to remove the body, and a certificate of the embalming. The cost of repatriating the body may be covered by one of your insurance plans, but if it is not then you will not to cover the cost yourself. Depending on the circumstances of the deceased’s estate, these costs may be reimbursed later.

Once you arrive home with the deceased, you will need to arrange for a funeral within the United Kingdom. To do this you will need to bring the certified English translation of the death certificate to the register office or registrar in the area in which you hope to hold the funeral. Formal certificates will then be issued by this office and the funeral will be able to proceed.

Repatriation following a death is a confusing, emotional process. In the UK the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can offer more information on repatriating a body, while the British Consulate in the location of the death will also be helpful in arranging for your loved one to return home.

That video should be required watching for everyone involved with or interested in the case - particularly Thai and British officials. Sonthi's stock just went up in my estimation.

Resignation would be too cushy. They should be subject to stern disciplinary inquiries. If it it'shown: the people who are entrusted to protect the public are actually intentionally endangering the public (by enabling killers to roam free), there should be no mercy. This being Thailand, the worst that could happen is assignment to an inactive post, with full pay and benefits. - except for those quick enough to empty their bank accounts and take the first jet to a farang country to live high on the hog.I agree with most of your comment, only disagree on Pornthip. She maybe the best forensic expert in Thailand, but she sold her soul with the BT 2000 test. After the fake devices failed a test the army claimed that the operator was a little sick which caused his magnetic field to be weak and thus the BT 2000 didn't work. When the press asked her about the armys claim (about the magnetic field) she said that there are certain things science cant explain, thus she backed the army up. At that point I lost my respect for her. Her payback was her reappointment after the coup, which was dead give away of her relationship with the army.

She doesn't have to be a Messiah to do her job and who hasn't made a mistake in theirs. That doesn't write her off in every other aspect of her working life and its rather foolish perhaps to make those judgements.

Dozens of countrys fell for the bomb finders.

It isn't "a mistake": a mistake is something you do unintentionally and regret.

She still maintains this nonsense is true, and she has said that in this case she does not believe that science can explain how these things work.

This is completely and permanently compromising for someone whose entire job is based on the premise that you must trust scientific evidence to prove your claims.

It is not claiming messianic status to insist that someone who represents science should not say they do not trust science!

The fact that she still maintains that in the case of these detectors that they work despite the fact that science cannot prove they work disqualifies her from being a scientific expert. The fact that she made these statements to support the army's ridiculous claims shows that she can be influenced by political allegiances to deny the importance of scientific evidence.

Would you want someone who will readily deny the necessity for scientific evidence to prove a case to be an expert scientific witness? What stops her from saying in this or any other trial that science cannot explain it but guilt is obvious?

Why don't you just forget her and wait for the trial to reveal shrapnel in the victim and then try to explain the Hoe was the cause of death.

There's a fat file from the UK autopsy. And they can afford to print the pictures as well as, X ray the victims for fractures and all the other things that get left when you shoot someone . Its a very strong possibility.

You just want to hope one of your loved ones doesn't end with the brains splattered across a beach in Thailand or you will know how the parents feel.

That video should be required watching for everyone involved with or interested in the case - particularly Thai and British officials. Sonthi's stock just went up in my estimation.

Resignation would be too cushy. They should be subject to stern disciplinary inquiries. If it it'shown: the people who are entrusted to protect the public are actually intentionally endangering the public (by enabling killers to roam free), there should be no mercy. This being Thailand, the worst that could happen is assignment to an inactive post, with full pay and benefits. - except for those quick enough to empty their bank accounts and take the first jet to a farang country to live high on the hog.I agree with most of your comment, only disagree on Pornthip. She maybe the best forensic expert in Thailand, but she sold her soul with the BT 2000 test. After the fake devices failed a test the army claimed that the operator was a little sick which caused his magnetic field to be weak and thus the BT 2000 didn't work. When the press asked her about the armys claim (about the magnetic field) she said that there are certain things science cant explain, thus she backed the army up. At that point I lost my respect for her. Her payback was her reappointment after the coup, which was dead give away of her relationship with the army.

She doesn't have to be a Messiah to do her job and who hasn't made a mistake in theirs. That doesn't write her off in every other aspect of her working life and its rather foolish perhaps to make those judgements.

Dozens of countrys fell for the bomb finders.

This case is crap.

jup. that I knew 68 pages ago already...

I think most of us knew that 10 months ago

So did I but I was too busy having a life then, ie. not really checking in on TV, hub of speculation, wanna-be sherlocks and bored geriatrics.

Good to see you have joined the club now then. What a daft @rsed comment to make...

The CV is impressive. However, whatever he presents to the court, unless it's alive and kicking, will be dismissed by the prosecution/police witnesses using the simple counter phrase 'we are the experts, he is mistaken'.

IMO, that is (in essence) what will happen as it's already happened in the trial. And that's the end of it. No more cross-examining. Down to the judge to decide on whose evidence to rely on.

So what if part of the autopsy involves an X ray which showed fragments of a bullet in the victim. As you probably know they breakup on entry Stephen.

No I didn't know that, Loon. But that would be a perfect example of 'alive and kicking' in the sense it can't be dismissed. However, I have a feeling it's more to do with a different DNA autopsy finding (that is regarded as significant), and I think even if they come up with a non-asian DNA present it could still founder on the mistake/contamination counter-argument.

I sincerely hope it's more than that, and if it is a bullet fragment, I think everyone on here (apart from the odd few) will be celebrating. That reminds me, it's pre-dinner beer time. Thanks for putting me in a good mood.

Its normal practice Stephen. It will show any fragments and the damage to the bone structure that the old scalpel and probing doesn't highlight. I would be extremely surprised if the file didn't include these facts

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/emfpu/imaging/brief-history

Re Andy Hall's comment regarding the lack of 'interest' from Thai media. It could be that the Thai media has been 'warned off' reporting on this trial, in case it brings a backlash from the Thai populace. Internal face-threatening antagonism could be more serious to the ruling elite, than fielding foreign media by insinuating that they misunderstood. Thailand is all about Thailand, no-one else.

I would go as far to say that they couldn't give a s*it about the B2, the foreign media, or the views here on TVF. They couldn't give a sh*t about the defence or its (proposed) destruction of the prosecution's case. As long as there are stars in the sky, they'll carry on doing what they've been doing for centuries.

If I'm correct, it could be more likely that the trial would continue its course and that the B2 would be found guilty, despite everything. I think saving face over this is not even dreamt about at higher levels - unless the Thai populace intervenes.

Thus I would hope the defence don't miss out on educating and enlightening the masses along the way. That would be the straw that breaks officialdom's backs.

I believe you are right, despite the case being seriously flawed it rolls along and no matter what new evidence is presented by the defense it will still roll along with the occasional attempt at deflection of criticism by the big chief in Bangkok.

Oh the UK DNA does not match, there must have been some mistake in the UK forensics. Case proceeds.

One of the major problems is that when these revelations come out such as the lack of original DNA samples or the contradictions on the hoe and where it was and who wiped blood of it etc, they do not get adequately challenged in court because of the system. The experts are the police and the police witnesses, anybody else is shrugged off. The have been reports of this in the case already by the defense.

As far as the prosecution is concerned its just a script their following, the case is wrapped up, they don't even bother bringing some of the crime scene photos with them in their shopping trolley saying they had no budget for it!

My gut feeling now is that this new evidence the defense has from the UK is in fact DNA that contradicts the present DNA results and thats why they've been conveniently finished by the RTP forensics so they cannot be checked again.

The expert Mike Moulden that is the expert field of expertise is CRIME SCENE forensics. Whilst he will no doubt have DNA expertise my gut feeling is the crime scene and what really took place. What wounds the body has that contradicts the version put forward.

Have you seen the guys CV?

The CV is impressive. However, whatever he presents to the court, unless it's alive and kicking, will be dismissed by the prosecution/police witnesses using the simple counter phrase 'we are the experts, he is mistaken'.

IMO, that is (in essence) what will happen as it's already happened in the trial. And that's the end of it. No more cross-examining. Down to the judge to decide on whose evidence to rely on.

So what if part of the autopsy involves an X ray which showed fragments of a bullet in the victim. As you probably know they breakup on entry Stephen.

https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/michael-riggs-moulden/16/289/73a

CV FOR THE EXPERT.

it ain't new york city there, buddy.

'mafia' is the same word but has a different meaning. even different to bangkok or other cities.

think of small population with large land ownership. generations of land ownership.

they own the islands. police are under them.

This of course is the reason police early on had no problem publicly accusing them and humiliating them on only unsubstantiated rumor.

huh? You mean when the initial police team was following evidence - which led to announcing Mon and Nomsod as prime suspects? You can call that 'accusing them' if you want. Following evidence/leads and announcing suspects is what inspectors are supposed to do - it's part of their job description. However, JTJ, you mention 'humiliating them' in the same phrase. Well yes, perhaps the accused were humiliated by being named suspects. But look at what happened at the crime: a lot more than humiliation. Should we shed crocodile tears for men being 'humiliated' by being named as suspects? You can if you want. But not to worry, JTJ, your humiliated-for-3 days buddies were quickly declared innocent by the replacement head cop. So they're free forever - to do in the next uppity farang victims who don't submit to their sexual advances. Feel better now?

Interesting bit of incoherent deflection but the fact remains -- police has absolutely no issue what-so-ever naming them as suspects as they did many people early on before clearing them. So, it is lunacy to think they tiny island headsman's power trumps that of the Thai Police, investigators, forensic teams, witnesses, video, DNA, laboratories, UK observers ....

It can't be that incoherent as u have managed to be interested in it JTJ.

You also need to watch Sonth's video with sub titles to get a better understanding of Thailand and the culture that's inbred into how they work.

Re Andy Hall's comment regarding the lack of 'interest' from Thai media. It could be that the Thai media has been 'warned off' reporting on this trial, in case it brings a backlash from the Thai populace. Internal face-threatening antagonism could be more serious to the ruling elite, than fielding foreign media by insinuating that they misunderstood. Thailand is all about Thailand, no-one else.

I would go as far to say that they couldn't give a s*it about the B2, the foreign media, or the views here on TVF. They couldn't give a sh*t about the defence or its (proposed) destruction of the prosecution's case. As long as there are stars in the sky, they'll carry on doing what they've been doing for centuries.

If I'm correct, it could be more likely that the trial would continue its course and that the B2 would be found guilty, despite everything. I think saving face over this is not even dreamt about at higher levels - unless the Thai populace intervenes.

Thus I would hope the defence don't miss out on educating and enlightening the masses along the way. That would be the straw that breaks officialdom's backs.

I believe you are right, despite the case being seriously flawed it rolls along and no matter what new evidence is presented by the defense it will still roll along with the occasional attempt at deflection of criticism by the big chief in Bangkok.

Oh the UK DNA does not match, there must have been some mistake in the UK forensics. Case proceeds.

One of the major problems is that when these revelations come out such as the lack of original DNA samples or the contradictions on the hoe and where it was and who wiped blood of it etc, they do not get adequately challenged in court because of the system. The experts are the police and the police witnesses, anybody else is shrugged off. The have been reports of this in the case already by the defense.

As far as the prosecution is concerned its just a script their following, the case is wrapped up, they don't even bother bringing some of the crime scene photos with them in their shopping trolley saying they had no budget for it!

My gut feeling now is that this new evidence the defense has from the UK is in fact DNA that contradicts the present DNA results and thats why they've been conveniently finished by the RTP forensics so they cannot be checked again.

The expert Mike Moulden that is the expert field of expertise is CRIME SCENE forensics. Whilst he will no doubt have DNA expertise my gut feeling is the crime scene and what really took place. What wounds the body has that contradicts the version put forward.

Have you seen the guys CV?

I watched the video but where are the sub-titles?

There is a little button on the bottom of the player that turns subtitles on.

This whole thing is a farce. It is obvious that much effort is put into the coverup. it shows connections with police, mafia and even politicians.

One needs to ask , what kind of country is this. How low can they go to pin a death sentence on innocent people to cover their trail.

Foreigners should let their voices heard all over the world. let their media know and let this destination be exposed for what it is. if we foreigners sit idle and continue to pump billions into this economy and fatten these criminals , then wee too have to share a guilty conscience.

Tourist need to know what the corruption and justice system here is like before they spend their hard earned cash. we should never , never help crime to flourish.

100% agree with you Waden. Having lived here and in other "developing" countries with similar levels of corruption and accepted it as part of life there, this case has really revealed how despicable the situation is here from top to bottom and is causing me to seriously re-evaluate my stay.

I am comforted though by the fact maybe, just maybe, all the international attention could bring the beginnings of change. That is why we must keep attention focused and give Andy all the help we can. Maybe that will also be a very small consolation for the tragic loss of 2 young lives although it will likely give scant comfort to the families.

The reports are that a UK F&CO Officer accompanied the 2 families of the two victims and sat with them in the Samui Courthouse. Say what you want of the F&CO's involvement (or lack thereof) in this case, how many murder trials in Thailand have representative's of the victim's Embassy sitting in the Courtroom?

This whole trial is unprecedented. We have never seen any instance were 100000 plus people signed a petition to David Cameron to send UK investigation teams to Verify DNA.

The thing is beyond anything previously. Driven in part by the Thailand societies revulsion and what they perceive tobe an unjust trial. To the extent that several high profile TThailand People have made public statement and criticisms about the procedures and the arrest and guilt of the suspects. In all my 20 odd years in Thailand I have never seen this and neither have any of the TV Forum I guess.

I think it's natural for the Embassy to send a rep to support the family. The Witheridge's conservative MP is a

neighbour and he is also a cabinet minister. Know doubt friends of the FCO minister Hugo. So they will want to hold out a helping hand in the tragic case. It's very daunting if it your first time in Thailand let alone the trial regarding the murder of your children.

I think they are keeping an open mind comments from the family's indict an acknowledgement that it may no go as they thought when they made their comments in the previous FCO press release. We're they stated there was convincing evidence. That's been rowed back to open mind.

What I don't understand out of everything is how Hannah ended up alone in the beach after midnight with her killers when she was travelling with 3-4 friends?

And CCTV footage showed she was surrounded by people. It makes no sense.

Unless she had her own room and they sneaked up on her, shot her there and brought her to the beach to rape and bludgeon her. However I remember them showing her hotel room and she was sharing with a friend as it was a twin room.

How did her friend not know she was missing?

It makes no sense.

If my friend was missing from the bedroom, I'd go out a find her. Hannah wasn't found until the morning.

Hannah was originally going to travel on her own, she might as well have done!

<deleted> nobody shot anyone what on earth are you going on about, it seems pretty obvious that Hannah and David had developed a relationship during their holiday and were most likely spending some alone time on the beach but evidently they were not alone, stop dreaming up these stupid ideas about guns and shooting, someone started this nonsense earlier on this thread and it is absolute nonesense

Ok forget the gun. However it was reported recently in The Times (UK) that she had shrapnel wounds, which are caused by a gun.

I doubt your theory neither. David had a long term girlfriend plus Hannah and David met for the first time that night according to reports.

Plus he was seen on CCTV walking but without her and she was seen walking with friends, not David. She was last seen on CCTV at 12am where he was last seen on CCTV alone at 1:30am. It seems that he stumbled across what was happening.

Only the friends could know and none of them have given any accounts of what happened as I'm sure the media would have picked up on it.

Regardless, I still don't get how a friend sharing a room with you would not be worried that you haven't come back to your hotel room.

It could very well be that there was a shot first. This could be the very reason they have a scenes of crime and forensic expert attending. The expert has years of experience and has worked in Kosovo also as an advisor for the so a heavyweight in his field of work. He will be there to present new facts and explain what they have found in the forensic autopsy. This will be a substantial revelation I think ....

As for why Hannah went off alone well you could suggest she had an arrangement to meet someone. She even.left her phone with one of the other Hannah's. They probably didn't report her missing because they knew she was going for some hanky panky.

Hannah had travelled with 3 friends. Another two Hannah's and an Emma. 1 Hannah and Emma studied with her on the same course at a uni in Essex. The other Hannah came from Dorset.

I really do think we are going to get a debunk of the prosecution theory and substantial contradictory claims.

You will see....

and may I also add there is serious lack of CCTV images, we see lots of coverage with good resolution of the victims from numerous cameras but little else, where is the rest of the footage from these various 24hr a day cameras - oh maybe it got removed or deleted grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Perhaps you shouldn't have looked. Now you can see why so many people are so passionate about seeing justice and the correct people sentenced. I have see a lot of things but this shook me more than pretty much anything I have ever seen.

As for the poor parents well I am surprised they haven't had a stroke. Even worse will be if it's disclosed that actually vital facts have been omitted from the case. As the family have been given assurances that the case is solid against the B2.

In View of the Trauma it would likely cause Hannahs parents I doubt very much if the times published false information. In fact I bet there lawyers were all over before it went to print.

In fact I would imagine they have already been told this information and didn't wake up to read one sunday morning. Hence their non committal comments at the trial.

So it's true because it's in print. Do you believe everything that you read?. Oh you'd have to, it's on TVF so it must be true. As far as their lawyers being all over it is an assumption on your behalf. So you have never read a storey, that later proved to be false and the newspapers have been sued for defamation. I suppose their lawyers were all over it as well. They sure were, after the writs were issued. Did I say they printed false information, no, I just said that because it's in print, it does not mean it's true.

I am sure the parents are still traumatised and will be for a long time but if you say newspapers take into consideration people's feelings and the sensitivities surrounding incidents that they report on, then I'll have to disagree. They'll print and sensationalise incidents so they can sell newspapers, not to safeguard the feelings of others. You ought to apply the same thinking to some of the posters on here as to the trauma they would inflict on the parents should they read some of the insensitive remarks made.

You assume a lot, don't you?

Well certain Papers have certain standards. As it happens the Paper which published this does have a good record. Its a paper well respected by the higher echelon's of British society and one I expect David Cameron reads.

Its also probably been fed to them by someone within the loop of the defence.

Its a very sensitive case in the UK but anyway like you I have my opinions and I will surely remind you of your statements if u r still around later on in the trial.

As for assumptions,well yes, like you I make assumptions and why not?? In fact most of the thread is based on assumptions so nothing to be ashamed off is it.

The reference to their lawyers was in respect of the newspaper lawyers checking the story before it was published not the defence's lawyers.

You will also notice that the news paper standards have greatly increased since the News of the world and other revelations. But if you feel its a loada B011ocks then email the editor and tell him what you think

thailandchilli

What was it you said in an earlier post "I'm just one who is prepared to wait and continue reading the many satirical posts dreamt up by the experts."

Sounds like you've now joined in the many satirical posts you apparently identified.

My little jibe was just a reflection on what he wrote, nothing more, nothing less, so yes a little satire. Being select in what you want to have a dig about? Take the whole post in context and you well know that I was referring to some of the ridiculous theories and scenarios being put forward as objective views and conclusions to this incident.

Yep your little jibe that I was selectively highlighting, nothing more, nothing less.

Which particular ridiculous theories are you referring to?

I'll start with the first example:

Many months ago I saw on CSILA a post stating that Hannah may have been shot. I read and found it way out there, no possibility for this. But then an expert from Belgium did some scientific studies on it. It got me thinking but after a few days I again dismissed it as ridiculous.

Fast forward to a few days ago when this came up again, this time from a credible newspaper The Times who said they had seen photos which they said showed possible shrapnel wounds on Hannah. Then we get reports that the defense is going to be saying that this is what happened and that they also have new "very significant evidence" from the UK autopsy reports and other sources.

So maybe this is not such a ridiculous theory after all. Not saying that its true but apparently if the reports are true then its a strong possibility.

I have other examples of what you call ridiculous theories or what a handful of other posters called conspiracy theories that are now being proved to be correct but I'll let you respond to this first.

I think the differences in our opinions from what I make out from your original post on here is that you are prepared to wait to see the results of the trial and apparently be happy that justice will be done based on those results?

I'm a million miles from there, the trial process and the evidence presented so far or lack of, is a major concern, how can a fair conviction be made when no origianl DNA samples from Hannah existto recheck. The samples were collected by the RTP, analysed and tested by the RTP and reports delivered by the RTP. Can you trust that? Sorry I cant.

Come on you're not that dumb, you know as well as I do what I am referring to because you have been following the case just as much as most on here. You have given a prime example, fine, but to think the Times is credible, please. Anyone can print anything, just does not mean it's true because its in print. If you want to see some ridiculous examples, do what I did, read the sixty odd pages, you will find many.

Yes, I am prepared to wait until the conclusion of the trail, it can go either way, we do not know but because one wants to wait, is that a problem. Or do I have to convict them or pronounce their innocence now just to keep everyone happy. There has been an overwhelming support for the two, and there are many who have made inane comments in respect to their guilt, so I am not one sided when criticising.

What evidence has been presented or the lack of it. I don't know, do you, or are you relying on the good old media again or what some are spouting on here? As far as the DNA is concerned, all you can theorise about is what has been reported. It might be factual, it might not but if all we have to rely on is what is reported, then one would have to be cautious in their summation because you just don't know.

I have said many times that the police, from the time they commenced their investigation, left a lot to be desired, so I will go one step further, given what has been reported and suggest that they were inept and may have acted criminally in the way they allowed the crime scene to be contaminated, failed to use proper procedures when collecting evidence and made spurious allegations as to who was and wasn't involved. There was absolutely no need for a running commentary from them and yes, it did them more harm than good and made them look worse than the keystone cops. But that doesn't all evidence captured has been tainted or that the Prosecution is in cahoots with others to convict the defendants because they must.

In so far as the trail, has any poster on TV attend the trail, is sufficiently fluent in Thai to understand the process and then reported back their findings so those with infinite wisdom can reach a conclusion, thus pronouncing their guilt or innocence? I thought this was the role of the judge. But then we have those on here who are also critical of him. If they are found guilty and, as many will say, justice has not been served, then what am I able to do, rectify it, or join the bandwagon and criticise all and sundry for, as many allege, tampering with or contaminating the evidence. setting up innocents or just having a show trail, where the decision, of the guilt or innocence, has been predetermined? That is not for me to decide but yes, like you, I can have an opinion be it right or wrong.

They have a defence team, including the criminal advocate, Andy Hall, plus the media, the latter who are cajoling everyone and it is up to them to provide a defence that can destroy the credibility of the police, witnesses, etc., thus showing that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If everything is as claimed, that the evidence has been lost, that they are scapegoats, that there is a conspiracy between police and the headman and his family, it goes on and on, then it is up to the defence to highlight these failures and criminal activities through cross examination, if they know how, thus convincing the judge of the defendants' innocence. If all are corrupt, as many are alleging and then multitude of sins allegedly committed by the investigating police and their alleged conspirators, then it should be an easy enough task, don't you think?.

In View of the Trauma it would likely cause Hannahs parents I doubt very much if the times published false information. In fact I bet there lawyers were all over before it went to print.

In fact I would imagine they have already been told this information and didn't wake up to read one sunday morning. Hence their non committal comments at the trial.

he should be investigated and questioned again if he didn't see anything he must no more than he is letting on.

seanfacebook.jpg

I have these from an earlier post someone made

The only important thing is the proof that the DNA found in Hannah's body belongs to the 2 Burmese. The other elements come only in supplement.

All the rest is barren drivel that does not honor its authors.

There is no proof that's the problem. just someone's word and no checkable evidence. In any death penalty case verifiable evidence is the only internationally acceptable way. If you have nothing to hide don't hide it.

DNA and be found on items years and years old so finished is hog was you need just Nano grams for a sample. You wouldn't throw the fag butt or condom in the bin would you. Perhaps you would but if it was your son on trial you would soon jump up and down

So less than 24 hrs after the defense rests its case, the judge(s) will have a verdict in a capital case? That's rather convenient. One would think that there might be points of law brought up by the defense that would require deliberation.

Is it not up to the prosecution to make the case first???

Yes. You are correct. Which I believe is what started a few days ago. It also appears they have twice as much time to present their arguments than the defense.

They need twice as long to try to convince the judge they are telling the truth.

The Defence have a rabbit in the Hat that will shatter their theory..............lol.... u wait and see. Poor old TV server will melt...

Sure wish I didn't have to wade through page after page of drivel to get to the pertinent news articles. Couldn't they be pinned to the top of this thread?

Stop adding to it then. Pot Kettle black?

The UK criminal forensic expert who spent time with the KT defense team last month is named Mike Moulden.

Just in case you was all asleep in the night Mr Crabby posted the pic of the defence expert and named him as Mike Moulden.

Well Mr Moulden has an impressive CV:

Michael Riggs-Moulden

Forensic, Crime Scene & Exploitation Consultant and Trainer.

Location Plymouth, United Kingdom Industry Law Enforcement

Current

1. UK Ministry of Defence

Previous

1. EULEX Kosovo, European Union Rule of Law Mission,
2. Defence Academy of the UK,
3. UN

Education

1. Cranfield University

UK Ministry of Defence

Subject Matter Expert

Starting

January 2012

View full profile

Background

Experience

Subject Matter Expert UK Ministry of Defence January 2012– Present (3 years 7 months)Afghanistan

Counter Terrorism Forensic Exploitation

Forensic Consultant EULEX Kosovo, European Union Rule of Law Mission April 2014– April 2014(1 month)Brussels Area, Belgium

Forensic and Crime Scene Evidence Consolidation

Crime Scene & Forensic Associate Lecturer Defence Academy of the UK April 2014– April 2014(1 month)Shrivenham, England

Lecturing and Consultancy in Forensic and Crime Scene specialisms both domestically and internationally.

Forensic Expert UN September 2006– December 2011(5 years 4 months)

Head of Forensic Services Special Anti Crime Unit 2006– 2009(3 years)

Crime Scene Supervisor/Manager Dorset Police 2004– 2006(2 years)

Forensic Mentor Crime Scene Project Afghanistan 2004– 2004(less than a year)

Scenes of Crime Officer Surrey Police 2000– 2003(3 years)

He Looks very confident great to see this support team I feel that quite a few people on the prosecution side may be starting to panic now.

Look at the guys CV... Its outstanding he obviously knows his stuff about crime scene.

Afghanistan

Kosovo.

I bet those pictures that were leaked in the first instance tell a dramatic story. One that money cant buy. I think there was a concerted effort to subdue the victim. There was bruises appearing immediately it seems. A bite mark and numerous lacerations that could easily have been inflicted by shrapnel IMHO. But I am no expert I am just using my eyes.