AleG

Also from the article found by Jimmy:

"Police also found a pair of Ware's blood-stained pants from in Miller's luggage and an Apple iPhone with long blonde hairs snagged on it."

Note that the report is dated 18 September 2014

It's been stated that David only had 1 iPhone so there goes the theory that the B2 stole that one if the police found it in his luggage before the 18th Sept.

That section of the article is about when Chris Ware was investigated, Miller was staying with him and another person in the same room, you are just assuming that this other iPhone was Miller's, even though only the blood-stained pants are mentioned to had been in his luggage; which turned out not to be blood stained but you still prefer press reports that have been proven to be unreliable over the trial records... go figure.

"No other source makes the same claim as that article, so obviously the article is poorly written and the "they" is referring to the two Burmese suspects, not the police and it should read "where police claimed they (the suspects) had found Mr Miller's mobile phone"" Hmmm... is that really what you believe? That if no other source makes the same claim it is an obvious sign that an article is poorly written? No possibility that the author spoke to a cop that other journos didn't have access to? Never heard of the term "exclusive" in journo parlance? Wow - you're a little more naive than I had previously given you credit for. It is now becoming abundantly clear why you are so convinced the 2 Burmese lads are guilty. Awww.... Bless!

"What you are doing is cherry picking the only place were such thing is said ignoring that every single other source says the phone was found, by the police, near their lodgings." No, but I think there is no disguising what you are doing, which is unilaterally deciding that a published news article is poorly written and re-writing it to give it a meaning that fits with your propaganda, or in fact re-writing it so that it can become part of your propaganda... (Pssst: You're being way too obvious here AleG - I know you can do better than this - time to step up your game, son!)

"I will point out though that from very early on the investigation:"The three men seen drinking near the crime scene were believed to be the prime suspects in the murders of Miller and Witheridge."

Zaw Lin, Wei Phyo and MM admitted being those three men."

"The only thing you have proven with your post is that the police were not simply looking for Burmese scapegoats. Also that you have trouble following what is being said, the police found out those six men were not together on the night of the murder, therefore the three men seen on the beach would had been some other group of people and the police was still looking for those three men at that time. " Oh dear! You're really not doing yourself any favours at the moment son - it seems you're having an off-day... Either that or as Cyndi Lauper would've said, your true colours are shining through <**that one's for you Mr Crabs...**> It's you that appears to have difficulty following what is being said - by what twisted, self-serving logic are you able to deduce that because the six men were not together on the night of the murder that the three men seen on the beach must have been a different group of people? Are we to believe that this group of six men only venture outside when there are six of them together? Sounds a bit far-fetched to me. I think anyone who can stay off the happy pills for a couple of hours would be capable of understanding that the three men who were seen on the beach drinking were part of the six, only they hadn't gone out as a group of six that night, but thanks for confirming that "Zaw Lin, Wei Phyo and MM admitted being those three men."

Maybe the following will make things clearer and help you understand why the DNA evidence in which you have such faith is such a farce (I have added some comments in red to help you follow what is being said):

"The focus on the suspect seen in the video footage came after police tried in vain Tuesday to identify the killer, detaining six Myanmar workers for questioning for possible involvement in the crime. (6 Myanmar workers...)

Each was released without charges. (All 6 released...)

Police said three of the Myanmar migrant workers (3 of the 6...) were seen drinking near the beach where David William Miller, 24, and Hannah Victoria Witheridge, 24, were found dead on Monday, a police source said Tuesday.

Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong Khawsamang, Surat Thani police chief, said the six Myanmar nationals worked for a resort called Inthat, just 300m from the crime scene, and lodged in nine rooms there.

The six were detained after a pre-dawn search of their rooms uncovered four iPhones, two of which had shattered screens, along with a bloodstained pair of jeans, Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong said. (There are those iphones...)

DNA samples were collected from the six and another four people for analysis, he said. (And there's them getting their DNA tested...)

Although the six men were colleagues and lived as neighbours, they appear not to have been together on the night of the murders. (Not as a group of 6...)

The three men seen drinking near the crime scene were believed to be the prime suspects in the murders of Miller and Witheridge. (As you said, Zaw Lin, Wei Phyo and MM admitted being those three men...)

But police have yet to press any charges against them pending an investigation outcome, Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong said.

They were freed after two rounds of interrogation by the police. (Guess their DNA didn't match then... I mean... the 3 men who were seen drinking near the crime scene... the ones you seem to agree were Zaw Lin, Wei Phyo and MM...)

The other three suspects were released earlier in the day after investigators could not link them to the murders, said Pol Col Prachum Ruangthong, chief of Koh Phangan police station." (In case there was any more confusion, I guess the DNA of the other 3 didn't match then...)

<Source: A national publication that we cannot link to...>

But what the hell... Just coz the DNA don't match today it don't mean it won't match tomorrow, right...?

You quoted isolated paragraphs in your first post, out of context this:

"The three men seen drinking near the crime scene were believed to be the prime suspects in the murders of Miller and Witheridge."

Reads as what the police was saying since very early on, that three men seen drinking, playing a guitar and singing while sitting in a log near the crime scene were prime suspects.

And yes, if an article in one paragraph says that six men were not together on that night and then on the next talks about three of them being together that article is poorly written.

Obviously the full article talks about another group of three men men drinking in that area on that night since WP, ZW and MM have never mentioned being detained at that early stage; what they all have testified (even after they recanted their confession) was that they were on the location were those "prime suspects" were seen sitting on a log on the beach (as they were), drinking (as they were) and playing a guitar (as they were)... yet they never came forward to clear things up, nothing suspicious about that, right?

Again, the only thing you have demonstrated by bringing up that article is that the police were not out simply to grab Burmese scapegoats, if there was no evidence they let them go.

Seems like there were loads of Myanmar migrant workers sitting around drinking on the beach in the vicinity of where the bodies were found and most of them had smashed iphones in their possession:

"Police said three of the Myanmar migrant workers were seen drinking near the beach where David William Miller, 24, and Hannah Victoria Witheridge, 24, were found dead on Monday, a police source said Tuesday.

Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong Khawsamang, Surat Thani police chief, said the six Myanmar nationals worked for a resort called Inthat, just 300m from the crime scene, and lodged in nine rooms there.

The six were detained after a pre-dawn search of their rooms uncovered four iPhones, two of which had shattered screens, along with a bloodstained pair of jeans, Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong said.

DNA samples were collected from the six and another four people for analysis, he said.

Although the six men were colleagues and lived as neighbours, they appear not to have been together on the night of the murders.

The three men seen drinking near the crime scene were believed to be the prime suspects in the murders of Miller and Witheridge.

But police have yet to press any charges against them pending an investigation outcome, Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong said.

They were freed after two rounds of interrogation by the police."

So if none of the Myanmar migrant workers being referred to in this statement from the police were the ones who eventually stood trial then it's obviously the norm for Myanmar migrant workers to have smashed iphones in their possession and so should not be seen as being incriminating.

And besides which, the police originally claimed to have found David's phone near the clock tower:

"The British team went to Sairee beach, where the two were murdered, and inspected the nearby location where the two suspects stayed and were seen playing guitar. They also went to the AC Bar where the two victims had been seen before their deaths, and stopped at a place near the clock tower where police claimed they had found Mr Miller's mobile phone"

"The British team went to Sairee beach, where the two were murdered, and inspected the nearby location where the two suspects stayed and were seen playing guitar. They also went to the AC Bar where the two victims had been seen before their deaths, and stopped at a place near the clock tower where police claimed they had found Mr Miller's mobile phone"

No other source makes the same claim as that article, so obviously the article is poorly written and the "they" is referring to the two Burmese suspects, not the police and it should read "where police claimed they (the suspects) had found Mr Miller's mobile phone"

What you are doing is cherry picking the only place were such thing is said ignoring that every single other source says the phone was found, by the police, near their lodgings.

(Edit to add: of course is possible that the clock tower is near their lodgings, the article is correct and still you are wrong in assuming the phone was found by the police anywhere else but where they have always stated)

I guess that is why you all hate to see quotes from the court report, because the information there has been examined, contested and verified, as opposed to blurbs from the press that has consistently been found to have published wrong information, that allows you to go quote mining for whatever you may want to pass as the ultimate truth.

I will point out though that from very early on the investigation:"The three men seen drinking near the crime scene were believed to be the prime suspects in the murders of Miller and Witheridge."

Zaw Lin, Wei Phyo and MM admitted being those three men.

The only thing you have proven with your post is that the police were not simply looking for Burmese scapegoats. Also that you have trouble following what is being said, the police found out those six men were not together on the night of the murder, therefore the three men seen on the beach would had been some other group of people and the police was still looking for those three men at that time.

In any case the bottom line is this:

"After having seized exhibited evidence, the police officers immediately investigated the exhibited mobile phone and the Plaintiff’s witness testified to confirm as to Evidence Document number Jor 30 that the identification number or IMEI of the exhibited mobile phone matched the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. Moreover, Document Jor 77 obtained from the father of the First Deceased made this factual issue more sound and credible. In this regards, the Second Defendant are unable to present any evidence at all to contradict this matter. The evidence brought by the Plaintiff is therefore credible and supports beyond doubts that the exhibited mobile phone is definitely that of the First Deceased."

They had their opportunity to clear the matter during the trial, they couldn't contest the facts or deny the testimony. That just leaves you to try to conflate things or create alternative, imaginary scenarios to try to explain away the facts.

Oh dear Aleg. 'The Boy Who Was Late For School' (or: here we go with more convoluted excuses).

Chris Ware stating that David Miller owned an iphone is not evidence of anything other than that he owned an iphone (as do hundreds of millions of other people, and probably several thousand people on Koh Tao at any given time). As corroborating evidence, it's meaningless.

And the NCA don't have any need to go 'off the record' with the British Embassy. Their mutual dealings are 'off the record' anyway, as far as anyone outside the loop is concerned. But the British Embassy connection was denied anyway, and the RTP (as on many other occasions during the trial) were caught in a lie.

Chris Ware (at least) providing information about David Miller's phone and the fact that the phone was missing was evidence that a particular type of phone was taken from the victim, therefore the police knew what to look for based on that information.

You are trying to be smart, it's not working.

As someone who has spent quite some time in Myanmar and has experienced the local culture it is not beyond belief that the two convicted murderers did actually commit the crime. Up country people have very strong beliefs and it is possible that two drunk Burmese guys came across two people copulating on the beach and simply could not control their urges. Remember Myanmar is a country where you will rarely see two young lovers holding hands...god forbid kissing in public.

If the B2 did the murders on their own then it was really nice of all the Koh Tao locals to go out of their way to try and help the B2 get away with it by with holding vital CCTV, Mon admitting he was the running man. washing one of the murder weapons, hushing up all the local witnesses etc.

And all of that is true because the echo chamber told you so, right?

By the way, you happened to have missed post #186

We can fight about that number on the phone till the cows come home.

Since the

"the rtp planted the phone "

Theory fell in the mud.

I want ask

What are people's "theories" about who the phone belongs to ,that Wei Phyo "found"at 4am as he was out strolling around next to a murder.

You keep trying to equate that the phone equals the murders, which of course it does not. Whatever happened with the phone is not proof that either of the B2 murdered the 2 tourists. There are plenty of other scenarios such as they witnessed a bunch of locals do it and they stole the phone from the scene, but you will only accept the scenario that the B2 definitely killed both victims on their own with one weapon and your biggest proof of this is that you say they stole a phone which belonged to one of the victims, so either you are totally naive (which I don't think you are) or you are here with a purpose which makes you an appalling person when you consider what has happened and what you are doing.

As I said before in this thread, the hoe was not used to kill David and even if you have never seen or held one to realise it's capabilities all you need to do is to look at the injuries on both victims to realise that the same weapon was not used to cause such massively different injuries, to say otherwise is just further proof of deliberate ignorance for a reason. But despite everything else all you want to talk about is a phone which may or may have been stolen by one of the B2. The fact that you are trying so hard to derail any conversation by continually posting about something relatively irrelevant to the actual murders and you use the flawed trial verdict as your major source of proof just shows that you are either here to wind everyone up or you are here because it is in your best interests to post as much misinformation as possible to try and confuse anybody trying to read up on the case, so whichever it is it's a pretty abhorrent thing for you to do.

Greenchair is discussing the phone (element) BECAUSE this thread is about the phone - seems a justifiable reason to me!!

Are you trying to make everyone go off-topic because you don't like what is being revealed!!

As en exercise let's deconstruct KunMatt's post, shall we?

-"You keep trying to equate that the phone equals the murders,"

Strawman Argument, deliberately misrepresents Greenchair's views.

-"Whatever happened with the phone is not proof that either of the B2 murdered the 2 tourists."

What did happened with it is strong evidence against them, as per their own testimony.

-"There are plenty of other scenarios such as they witnessed a bunch of locals do it and they stole the phone from the scene, but you will only accept the scenario that the B2 definitely killed both victims on their own with one weapon"

Ignore their testimony and actual evidence, invoke imaginary scenarios not supported by either instead... Also, again, a Strawman Argument.

"your biggest proof of this is that you say they stole a phone which belonged to one of the victims"

Another Strawman Argument. Greenchair's position, as she has explained several times, is not just that they had that phone, but their actions regarding it are highly suspicious and not ones to be expected from people uninvolved in the crime.

-"so either you are totally naive (which I don't think you are) or you are here with a purpose which makes you an appalling person when you consider what has happened and what you are doing."

The tired, old tactic of accusing people of having some vague but nefarious hidden motives to hold a particular opinion.

-"As I said before in this thread, the hoe was not used to kill David and even if you have never seen or held one to realise it's capabilities all you need to do is to look at the injuries on both victims to realise that the same weapon was not used to cause such massively different injuries"

He says... contradicting what the professionals who performed the autopsy on the bodies determined (and the defense didn't contest), because apparently he thinks he knows better by virtue of having no qualifications and poring over a few photos on Internet... This is formally known as an Argument from Ignorance.

-"to say otherwise is just further proof of deliberate ignorance for a reason."

Again ascribing ulterior motives for disagreeing with his unsubstantiated claims.

-"But despite everything else all you want to talk about is a phone which may or may have been stolen by one of the B2."

-"The fact that you are trying so hard to derail any conversation..."

Derailing a thread, by talking about issues central to the topic topic of the thread... right.

-"... by continually posting about something relatively irrelevant to the actual murders"

Belongings from one of the victims being in possession of the suspects, the suspects actions being concordant with the beheaviour of someone trying to destroy incriminating evidence (as per their own testimony), all that, according to KunMatt is "relatively irrelevant to the actual murders". I mean, what to say to that but

-"you use the flawed trial verdict as your major source of proof"

As opposed to just plucking theories and "facts" out of thin air to support alternative theories?

In any case, another Strawman Argument, she is not using the verdict as a source of proof, she is using the facts disclosed during the trial as evidence, so a complete misrepresentation.

-"shows that you are either here to wind everyone up or you are here because it is in your best interests to post as much misinformation as possible to try and confuse anybody trying to read up on the case, so whichever it is it's a pretty abhorrent thing for you to do."

To finish it off, and for the third time, insinuate some vested interest for holding a position and attack Greenchairs character based on that assumption.

The term omnishambles comes to mind to describe a post like that.

"It doesn't say anything about Chris Ware being around at the time the phone was found, only that the testimony he gave (which he did in the immediate days after the murders) was used to help identify the phone, for example information about the brand, model and colour of the phone."

Complete and utter bs. "Yes officer, It was a black iphone." " Oh good. Thanks for that. That narrows it down to only a few hundred million potential owners." Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

And the RTP either got the IMEI from the British Embassy (British Embassy denied this), from the Royal Thai Embassy in London, or in an off the record phone call from the NCA. It can only be one of those three because they are all mutually exclusive, whatever pairings you put them in. Why you think you can pull the wool over peoples' eyes all the time is something you'd need to talk to a professional counsellor about.

The police knew there was a black iPhone missing from Miller, obviously from testimony of people who knew him and that he had such phone, such as...oh, I don't know, Chris Ware.

What is pathetic is how hard you try not to be exposed to facts and reason.

"And the RTP either got the IMEI from the British Embassy (British Embassy denied this), from the Royal Thai Embassy in London, or in an off the record phone call from the NCA. It can only be one of those three because they are all mutually exclusive, whatever pairings you put them in. Why you think you can pull the wool over peoples' eyes all the time is something you'd need to talk to a professional counsellor about."

The only person here trying to pull a wool over people's eyes is you, for example by claiming that your three options are the only ones possible, conveniently ignoring the most likely one, that the investigators got the IMEI number by reading it from the smashed phone found were Wei Phyo said it would be, which just happens to be the one concordant with the order of events described in the article in the OP, that the request to the UK authorities came after the two Burmese were detained as suspects; the confirmation that the IMEI matched David Miller's phone came from the NCA through the British Embassy in Thailand and through David Miller's father through the Thai Embassy in the UK, you are just flailing around trying to muddle things.

We can fight about that number on the phone till the cows come home.

Since the

"the rtp planted the phone "

Theory fell in the mud.

I want ask

What are people's "theories" about who the phone belongs to ,that Wei Phyo "found"at 4am as he was out strolling around next to a murder.

Why are posters even talking about the RTP planting the phone? I was under the impression that was no denial as to the fact that he found the phone (and sunglasses), in a conversation with A Hall.

I think this paragraph, which I copied from a debate against a religious fanatic (and that should tell you something) explains why:

"My mind is definitely opened unlike yours, yours is blinded by faith and a doctrinal obligation to defend the sacred fables against all reason. That's what apologetics is all about, you assume your conclusions at the onset for reasons that have nothing to do with actual information and then you make up whatever excuse necessary to rationalize or justify your baseless assumptions regardless of what the facts are."

He keeps using his 'bible' (the judgement) and keeps exposing it for the pile of nonsense that it is. Mr Christopher Alan Ware had left Thailand long before the smashed iphone was found behind the B2's lodgings. So which phone did he verify as being David's? The one found at the crime scene?

And which IMEI story is it? From the British Embassy? From the Royal Thai Embassy in London? Or given 'off the record' in a phone call from the NCA?

Readers will note that my original post on this matter has caused quite a stir amongst the little hornet's nest of shills. That means we're getting somewhere with this .

Evidently you are putting no effort whatsoever in understanding things.

The quote from the the report I posted is this:

"Pol. Col. Krisna Pattanacharoen verified the IMEI number of the exhibited mobile phone via coordination with officers at the British Embassy of Thailand, considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased, according to the Record of Testimony, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 55."

It doesn't say anything about Chris Ware being around at the time the phone was found, only that the testimony he gave (which he did in the immediate days after the murders) was used to help identify the phone, for example information about the brand, model and colour of the phone. You seem to think you've caught them in a lie, you only demonstrate you don't think things through.

Of course you just hate to see the court report being referred to, it points at the facts used to arrive to a guilty verdict, and the facts don't fit what you want to believe, therefore they are not welcomed.

Also you don't seem to have understood that both "stories" were presented in court, the UK government and the Miller family confirming it was David's phone.

Finally you keep repeating there was a phone found at the crime scene, this is completely false, you keep repeating it why?

"Readers will note that my original post on this matter has caused quite a stir amongst the little hornet's nest of shills. That means we're getting somewhere with this ."

You are just trolling, aren't you?. You are here, spreading demonstrably false information about a double murder, for your own entertainment. The only place you are getting at with that is to undermine whatever vestiges of credibility you may have ever had; there was no phone found at the crime scene when the bodies were discovered. You keep repeating it, the rest of the gang keeps repeating it, all you do is demonstrating that you are running on vapors, nothing left but to retreat into a fantasy.

It is all a moot point. The police failed to link possession of the phone to the accused, yet the court went with it. Just as the court accepted the confessions which were the result of torture and written by a man who could not speak the language of the accused or Thai with any degree of competency. They also accepted DNA evidence which appears to have been done by a 5 year old in the kitchen and recorded in crayon.

If the court didn't care about any of that then...

I think he means the 'running' man. You know the one that has gait.

so, you do know that the 'running man' footage was supplied by the same family of the guy you are accusing of being the 'running man'?

I'm pretty sure they "know" the opposite, that they kept/destroyed all footage. Mind you, reality says otherwise but that's just a minor detail.

We, the general public, are still waiting for Brit experts to do their jobs. Maybe they're taking order from Donald Trump, "delay, delay, delay."

They did do their job, according to the article.

They proved the phone found at the b2 apartment (you know the one that Wei Phyo himself says he "found" at 4am ) conclusively belongs to the murdered victim.

They then passed that information on to the rtp, to assist in their investigation.

They helped the rtp, because they believe that the b2 are indeed the perpetrators, and were concerned about the safety of brit citizens should the b2 remain free.

So nobody wants to believe the Thai police, the Thai courts.

Now, nobody wants to believe the brit police either.

Let's face facts, all of the defense arguments have come from csi la and Thai visa.

GC your surmisation of the events is incorrect

From the article

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

The NCA retrieved Millers serial no and passed this onto the RTP,

At this point the mobile phone at the B2 apartment had not been found or indeed the B2 arrested . Your assertion that they believed that the b2 are indeed the perpetrators and were concerned about the safety of Brit citizens should the b2 remain free ,is just plainly incorrect.

More spin, or is it just self deception?

You don't quote these parts of the article:

"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"

"The NCA deemed the situation time-critical and rapidly made the “exceptional” decision to retrieve the serial number for Miller’s phone and pass it on to Thai police verbally. Because of concerns about the use of capital punishment, they did so on the basis that it was for intelligence purposes only and not to be used to prosecute the two suspects. However, no written assurance was secured that it would not be used in court."

It is perfectly clear they asked for the information after they had arrested the two suspects.

The phone saga is nothing more than a huge red herring created by the RTP.

First, it was Hannah's phone found behind the B2's lodgings. Then a video of Hannah's friends handing said phone in to the RTP appeared on the web. (What's the betting that a smashed pink phone would have turned up as evidence at the trial if said video never existed?)

Then it was quickly changed to David's Iphone being found behind the B2's lodgings. The problem is, an identical, though unbroken, Iphone was also found at the crime scene. David only had one Iphone, and a cheaper phone with a Thai sim card in it.

Then, in the middle of the trial, the IMEI for David's Iphone had been provided through the British Embassy. The British Embassy denied this.

Then, nearly at the end of the trial, said IMEI had been provided to the Royal Thai Embassy in London by David's family.

Then, in the judgement, it had reverted back to the discredited British Embassy story.

Now, we are hearing that Britain's National Crime Agency passed on the IMEI details.

What a farce! You couldn't make this convoluted nonsense up.....Well, the RTP clearly can.

This is completely false:

"The problem is, an identical, though unbroken, Iphone was also found at the crime scene."

The IMEI number was confirmed unofficially by the NCA and again by the Miller family, you are twisting things into a pretzel to try to dismiss damning evidence, both sources of confirmation were pointed out in the court report:

"Pol. Col. Krisna Pattanacharoen verified the IMEI number of the exhibited mobile phone via coordination with officers at the British Embassy of Thailand, considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased, according to the Record of Testimony, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 55."

"After having seized exhibited evidence, the police officers immediately investigated the exhibited mobile phone and the Plaintiff’s witness testified to confirm as to Evidence Document number Jor 30 that the identification number or IMEI of the exhibited mobile phone matched the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. Moreover, Document Jor 77 obtained from the father of the First Deceased made this factual issue more sound and credible. In this regards, the Second Defendant are unable to present any evidence at all to contradict this matter. The evidence brought by the Plaintiff is therefore credible and supports beyond doubts that the exhibited mobile phone is definitely that of the First Deceased."

When the prosecution said that the UK government had confirmed the ownership of the phone during the trial you all jumped up to accuse them of lying, now it turns out they were telling the truth and still you try to find the way to spin things to not admit to yourselves that you were wrong, by making things up if necessary.

The only people that have discredited themselves are the ones trying to defend Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin from murdering Hannah Witheridge and David Miller, time and time again by making claims that are known to not be true or are not known to be true as the bulk of their arguments., you know, like saying "The problem is, an identical, though unbroken, Iphone was also found at the crime scene."

Every single thread containing the words 'Koh' or 'Tao' degenerates into...

Isn't it time to close until something NEW emerges?

The people that can't move on are bogged down in a quagmire of their own making, no new information will motivate them to move on, so we will keep hearing only different variations of the same excuses for why everything is not what it seems to be.

We, the general public, are still waiting for Brit experts to do their jobs. Maybe they're taking order from Donald Trump, "delay, delay, delay."

They did do their job, according to the article.

They proved the phone found at the b2 apartment (you know the one that Wei Phyo himself says he "found" at 4am ) conclusively belongs to the murdered victim.

They then passed that information on to the rtp, to assist in their investigation.

They helped the rtp, because they believe that the b2 are indeed the perpetrators, and were concerned about the safety of brit citizens should the b2 remain free.

So nobody wants to believe the Thai police, the Thai courts.

Now, nobody wants to believe the brit police either.

Let's face facts, all of the defense arguments have come from csi la and Thai visa.

That is a highly false and misleading statement and you know it

The Brit experts did not conclusively prove anything apart from confirm that an IMEI "Thai police provided" belonged to David Millars phone, it is the Thai police that are claiming this IMEI number belonged to a phone found at B2 residence, they have still yet to explain or investigate who the phone found at the crime secene belonged too and verify its IMEI, that is a massive failure and just adds to the doubts and speculation people have concerning the police investigation and subsequent conviction

You are talking nonsense, or do you expect anyone to believe that the Thai police pulled a number out of thin air to check with UK records and by an astronomical coincidence it just happened to be the one belonging to David Miller's phone?

Give it a go, think for a second were would they have gotten that IMEI number to begin with? I'd love to hear what convoluted explanation you can come up with that will by all possible means ignore the plain obvious truth that that phone used as evidence against the two murderers was David Miller's phone. (edited to add: no, actually I wouldn't love to hear that explanation)

Wei Phyo confessed to had that phone since the night of the murders in his testimony in court, and so did the friend he gave it to under false pretenses.

From court report:

"At about 8 am, the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Ren’s house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened. Then, the Second Defendant slept over at the First Defendant’s house and returned to Mr Ren Ren’s house again to ask about the phone. Mr Ren Ren said he had smashed and destroyed the phone and thrown it away because he did not want to be implicated in the crime. The Second Defendant was disinterested and did not ask further."

He lied about were he got the phone, to his friend, for no other apparent reason that he thought the truth would implicate him in the murders that had not yet been in public knowledge at that time. This is from their testimony on the last days of the trial, this is their alibi, and you still defend them.

All this speculation, deliberate denial of facts, paranoid ramblings, misinformation, outright lies, absurd scenarios and knee jerk abuse against anyone who doesn't buy your increasingly irrational arguments for the innocence of those two Burmese men is nothing but a reflection of a need to save face.

None of you will ever find the truth, because the truth that you want is not out there to be found.

"The probe has been hampered by silence from locals."

"A source said: “There is a real underbelly on this island and no one is talking. People are afraid."

"If the killer was a local, as many suspect, they just won’t speak to the police.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/thailand-beach-murders-hannah-witheridge-4297320

"The probe has been hampered by silence from locals."

We know of at least four that kept silent, the two men found guilty of the murder and their friends Muan Muan (who didn't come forward to divulge that they were near the crime scene) and Ren (the one that tried to get rid of evidence implicating them in the murders)

Very revealing as to the truth AleG - rather discounts all of the drivel and phony stories that is served up by others.

I'm sure that they will call it rubbish, not worth wasting their time reading, deflecting and all of the other rubbish they tend to churn out when they are faced with a few facts about what actually happened in the investigation and court case.

Let's see how they retort to your post - should be interesting!! Perhaps they'll wait until a few posts have passed and buried it before rejoining the game in the pretense that they never saw it let alone read it!

Response already in:

Yes it is probably a good idea have both Alice and Lucy on the block list.

The "your gay!" argument... advanced not long after DM007 calls for the other side to keep up adult standards...

Oh yes...greenchair!

The woman who can not use the word "penis" in an adult discussion and wants to "lighten up" the atmosphere on a discussion of rape and double murder!

Such high standards!

And just to drive the point home of what depths of delusion are needed to hold on to the belief that those two Myanmar men are innocent, the judge asking them directly if anyone else was involved in the crime is translated, through the magic of self delusion into: "The judge's question at the start of the trial might well have been to establish that the defendants fully understood the ground rules before the trial got underway of not implicating other people"

Black is white, up is down and it's clear that reality is not welcomed.

I would expect sane people to see that, when you claim Mon was present at the crime scene for over one hour before the police was called, and use as substantiation for your claim a citation that says A) "O" found the bodies at 5:40 AM and may have called Mon, and B ) Mon and a policeman was there at 6:10 AM, that you either have no clue what you are talking about or you are deliberately trying to mislead.

Now, since I explained to you why your claim is bogus, and you still maintain it, that only leaves the second option standing.

Sane people would also be well advised to take note of that beheaviour is not an isolated instance, but part of a pattern.

Any news or should I skip reading the last 4 pages ?

Yes some news for you from the Nation, just in. Confirmation the accused are appealing the murder verdict which was disputed here by Greenchair who was saying this was only an appeal for the death sentence.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Convicts-to-appeal-Koh-Tao-murder-verdict-30278942.html

"Nakhon said investigators had patched things together and some items of evidence used in the case were questionable.

According to him, the cell phones of the victims that police say were in the defendants' possession did not carry either of the two men's fingerprints."

The one of the Burmese admitted in court that he had that phone since the night of the murders, an admission that was corroborated by the testimony of one of his friends.

Besides that, the phone was deliberately destroyed to avoid being implicated in the murders so it stands to reasons that it would had been wiped clean of fingerprints too, which would explain why it was placed in a plastic bag to smash it.

From their confession:

"The Second Defendant admitted that he took the mobile phone from the crime scene and passed it to his friend named Mr. Ren Ren. As for the sunglasses, he had already broken them and thrown them away, according to the Record of Testimony of the Second Defendant as Witness, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 51, Page 1 to 4. Moreover, the Second Defendant admitted that he was the suspected man that appeared in the CCTV footage and signed his name to confirm accordingly, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 56. Having been informed likewise, Investigating Officers on Koh Tao went on to verify the facts as the Second Defendant had testified. The Officers found the First Deceased’s mobile phone in a smashed and broken condition in the back yard of Mr. Ren Ren ’s house. The phone was then seized as an exhibit and dispatched for further examination, according to the Records of Damaged Properties and the Report of Exhibit Examinations, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 29 and Jor. 30."

Article: ""The arrest might have led them into initially making a confession out of ignorance, problems related to an interpreter [used by police] and threats they faced," the lawyer said."

How does one confess to a murder out of ignorance?, and then provide details that can be verified, as with that phone being recovered after they confessed of having it? Something like: We know nothing except that we did it... and the phone from David Miller is over there... also we know nothing.

As for problems with their interpreter, the defense is telling one thing during the trial and another to sway the public, from trial report:

"Further information gleaned from questioning the plaintiff is that while both defendants were under arrest the investigating officers arranged for a Burmese translator for both the defendants and the defendants agree that this was in fact the case and the defendants spoke with the translator in Burmese, which is the language that the defendants speak and can understand well."

"In the course of witness examination by the plaintiff and the defendants, the Court does not find any convincing evidence that the translators had any bias against the defendants on the issue of their nationality as the Defendants had earlier claimed. In addition, the Court considered that the video footage of the conversation between the Second Defendant and Mr Myat Nang on VCD number Wor. Jor. 20 clearly shows that the Second Defendant is able to communicate back and forth and explain various details effectively to Mr Myat Nang for them to be clearly understood."

Article: "He also pointed out that the |two defendants did not have a lawyer by their side when they confessed."

Court report:

"Mr Phitthaya Yophetch, the lawyer who attended the interrogation of both Defendants that took place on 3 October 2014, has testified consistently in Court that the Second Defendant confessed to the fact that after having attacked and raped the Second Deceased then the Second Defendant took the mobile phone and the sunglasses belonging to the First Deceased."

And:

"In regard to the interrogation stage the facts can similarly be established that the Investigating Ofcicers made available the translator for the Defendants and an Attorney was also present at the interviews of both Defendants for the entire time."

Mon was very much involved, so why did the defence not call him?

Under Thai law are they entitled to call him?

What worries me is that there appear to have been some basic ground rules set in this trial: you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people.

That's the make-believe story, the reality is that from the outset the judge was prepared to hear about any other people supposedly involved in the crime:

"Koh Samui court head judge just asked both Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo: If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Dont be scared. Zaw Lin/Wei Phyo both replied strongly to the judges question: We really dont know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing."

We were drunk just went back home.

And that is what we were all led to believe.

We played the guitar, went home, slept and mm woke us up at 5am.

But oh no, seems they weren't so drunk to remember after all.

Oh says the prosecutor then why do we see you down at the beach at 4am.

Oops forgot we went to get our clothes.

Why were you not wearing them.

Oops we went for a swim.

Why did you change shirts with mm?

It was a cold night.

Wasn't it raining?

Yes, it was cold and raining at 2am but we just decided to have a swim.

So says the prosecutor even though you were very drunk you slept for less than 2 hours and got up to go and retrieve your belongings at 4am.

Yes, at which time I just happened to stumble on the murder victims phone. But I couldn't find my shoes.

So you did just go back to your room to sleep.

No, there was no time for sleeping I was so busy trying to figure how to get out of this mess I was now in.

On the topic of lies, there's this too, from the court judgement report:

"At about 8 am, the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Ren’s house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened. Then, the Second Defendant slept over at the First Defendant’s house and returned to Mr Ren Ren’s house again to ask about the phone. Mr Ren Ren said he had smashed and destroyed the phone and thrown it away because he did not want to be implicated in the crime. The Second Defendant was disinterested and did not ask further."

What that means is that Wei Phyo, before the news of the murders had spread, lied to his friend about where he found the phone and his friend destroyed it because he didn't want to be implicated on the crime. Two questions then, why did Wei Phyo lie if he knew nothing about the crime, and why did his friend destroy the phone, so as not to be implicated with the crime if he didn't knew a phone was missing from one of the victims?

They knew, that's why they did what they did.

The judge's question at the start of the trial might well have been to establish that the defendants fully understood the ground rules before the trial got underway of not implicating other people. It's an odd question per se for a judge to ask straight off. You'd normally expect that sort of question to be asked once cross-examination of the defendants was underway.

And just to drive the point home of what depths of delusion are needed to hold on to the belief that those two Myanmar men are innocent, the judge asking them directly if anyone else was involved in the crime is translated, through the magic of self delusion into: "The judge's question at the start of the trial might well have been to establish that the defendants fully understood the ground rules before the trial got underway of not implicating other people"

Black is white, up is down and it's clear that reality is not welcomed.

So we have established that Mon and his police buddy/henchman were rearranging the crime scene (tidying up clothing etc) for nearly an hour before one of them called the island's senior officer. So now we have two prime suspects.

What you have establish is that you, as in the Koh Tao Truthers, are living in a lie, and need more lies to keep up the appearances.

Is it for the sport, is it because of problems handling reality, is it to feel part of a group? Maybe all of those reasons; what is clear is that you not only not care for the truth, you hold it in contempt, and if you don't care about the truth you have no grounds on which to speak of justice.

Any news or should I skip reading the last 4 pages ?

There's nothing new, besides new lies.

What worries me is that there appear to have been some basic ground rules set in this trial: you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people.

That's the make-believe story, the reality is that from the outset the judge was prepared to hear about any other people supposedly involved in the crime:

"Koh Samui court head judge just asked both Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo: ‘If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Don’t be scared.’ Zaw Lin/Wei Phyo both replied strongly to the judge’s question: ‘We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing.’"

Absolutely rubbish , the judge asked a leading question ,

‘If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Don’t be scared.’

If they are not involved how would they know who is

"you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people."

The judge's question proves Kun Han's statement to be a fantasy, he specifically asked them if they could provide evidence or testimony about other people's involvement.

Of course you have no problem whatsoever with what he said being demonstrably false, you just have to defend your side, regardless of anything else, like I said, a complete immunity to see reality as it is.

Though it is funny how in your rush to post a response you and iReason tripped on each other, you saying that how could they know if anyone else was involved, and him pointing pointing out that they claimed to be the victims of influential people... It's one or the other, they know more than they were telling or they don't know anything at all.

1.00 am MM was seen on CCTV on the motorbike at 1am

1.26am David is recorded walking from the club AC

1.56am Returns to Club AC

3am-4am Friends say David & Hannah left club according to police.

3.44am running man

4.00 am WP testified that he was out looking for his clothes

4.30 am MM is seen on CCTV

4.49 am Running Man

4.51 .25 big beard man with woman

5.40am "O testified he found bodies must have called Mon

5.30am Doctor Testified this was the estimated time of the deaths.

6.10 am O was approached by the resorts boss and a policeman who told him to put on a pair of gloves and return it to the scene, which he did.

6.30am Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao, said he received a call by a fellow officer.

6.35am Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao arrived at the beach and swiftly cordoned off the area.

8.00 am Dr Chasit Yoohat comes to the scene.

9.00 am Dr Chasit Yoohat left the scene

10am Dr Chasit Yoohat returned when he examined the bodies.

Mon was at the crime scene for almost 1 hour before the police were contacted.

What was he doing for all this time as we all know the first thing innocent people do is call the police when they see something so horrifi

Pol Lt Jakkrapan Kaewkhao Testified the clothes were piled neatly. photos show different.

Pol Lt Jakkrapan Kaewkhao, 26, head of the Koh Tao public service centre, was the first prosecution witness to testify in the murder case of British backpackers David Miller, 24, and Hannah Witheridge, 23, on the resort island in the early hours of Sept 15 last year.

The officer identified Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun to the court as the accused. Later, in cross-examination, he admitted he had not been involved in such a case before.

Lt Jakkrapan said he saw a body later identified as Mr Miller's at the water's edge at Sai Ree beach in front of the King Chulalongkorn statue, so he decided to move him to higher ground.

About five metres away, behind some rocks, lay a female body, later identified as Miss Witheridge.

The woman's skirt was pulled up to her waist, Pol Lt Jakkrapan told the three-member panel of judges. Bloodstains and human flesh was spotted on the rocks.

He believed the areas where he saw flecks of blood on the sand were likely to be where Miller was assaulted.

He found a metal part of a shovel, a wooden stick, and three cigarette butts about 60m north of Miss Witheridge.

A used condom, grey pants with a belt, a pair of canvas shoes, and a pair of pink sandals were piled neatly nearby.

- See more at: http://www.theguardi...packer-killings

So Mon has admitted to being at the crime scene for nearly an hour before the police were called. And the crime scene was tampered with during this time. That would make Mon a prime suspect in any police textbook. No wonder Pol Gen Panya named him as being involved before his boss changed the direction of the investigation. Mon was involved.

No, that's StealthEnergizer making things up and you just gobble it up; where does it say anywhere that he was there one hour before the police were called?, what I see in those citations is:

"5.40am "O testified he found bodies must have called Mon"

The assumption that Mon was called at 5:40, not even that he was there at that time.

And Mon being there, 30 minutes later when a police officer was already at the scene.:

" 6.10 am O was approached by the resorts boss and a policeman who told him to put on a pair of gloves and return it to the scene, which he did."

So whichever way you want to spin it this is completely false "Mon has admitted to being at the crime scene for nearly an hour before the police were called" and that it is said on the same post that proves it to be false speaks volumes of your complete immunity to see things that contradict your preferred narrative.

Mon was very much involved, so why did the defence not call him?

Under Thai law are they entitled to call him?

What worries me is that there appear to have been some basic ground rules set in this trial: you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people.

That's the make-believe story, the reality is that from the outset the judge was prepared to hear about any other people supposedly involved in the crime:

"Koh Samui court head judge just asked both Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo: ‘If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Don’t be scared.’ Zaw Lin/Wei Phyo both replied strongly to the judge’s question: ‘We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing.’"