Police address criticisms over Koh Tao arrest of Myanmar suspects

[AleG]

This whole debacle is why the answer from any professional police force for information is "The investigation is ongoing and we can't release any information".

[kickstarter]

i honestly think there is something deeply wrong with a country where people get hacked like animals at a beach party and the entire police force covers it up and has the nerve to go around threatening people on the Internet.

[Baerboxer]

This afternoon I saw Sorayuth on Channel 3 interviewing a police forensic scientist who was saying there was DNA found on Hannah's nipples from two males, neither of whom were David or the two suspects. I wonder what that is all about.

There is a Youtube clip in Thai of Khunying Pornthip saying the the Koh Tao case is a "cover-up" (kati ampran). Haven't seen any reports of that elsewhere.

You have to wonder at this kind of answer.

It of course suggests multiple people .. ie a gang. exactly what the event points to being more than 2 in the first place.

of course its a cover up, its so obvious, there are even peiople like JTJ running about on every thread for 3 days solid desperate to keep insisting its a wrap whilst ignoring every bs fail and contradiction. Hes a shill no doubt about it.

And of course theres the threat to stop talking about it.... when in doubt and all else fails try threats and fear. .. so sad and obvious its childlike.

Two attackers taking out two victims, without lots of noise and struggling. Managing to keep one subdued whilst dragging the other to the sea, then committing a sexual assault, again without noise and overcoming any struggles.

Hmmm. Must have been very quick and stunned / knocked them out quickly - which wouldn't account for why all the additional wounds were incurred.

Two attackers - possible, but looking at the known circumstance and photos, highly unlikely.

Three, four or more attackers - much more likely.

The Burmese suspects may well have been involved, it may well be their DNA does match the samples removes from the deceased. But somehow, it seems there is some more to this that just isn't being told or likely to be.

[IslandLover]

Anthony5, on 06 Oct 2014 - 16:55, said:

IslandLover, on 06 Oct 2014 - 16:53, said:

StealthEnergiser, on 06 Oct 2014 - 12:22, said:StealthEnergiser, on 06 Oct 2014 - 12:22, said:

Dogmatix, on 06 Oct 2014 - 11:57, said:Dogmatix, on 06 Oct 2014 - 11:57, said:

Police address criticisms over arrest of Myanmar suspects.

The headline is misleading. Although they may have addressed some of the other criticisms elsewhere, this article deals only with the confusion over the mobile phone. It is not clear whether the confusion came from police or journalists but The Nation (and others) reported on 4 Oct that the two told police that they had raped the woman and killed her, before stealing her mobile phone and other belongings, and destroyed the unit at the back of their living quarters. If this really were the case, a revision to the confessions would need to be arranged but that shouldn't be a problem.

Looking at one of the crime scene photographs, there is something that could be a phone next the articles of clothing on the beach in the foreground but the resolution is not high enough to say for sure exactly what it is.

looks like a phone not sure what else it could be.

Looks like the end of the belt around the shorts to me.

No no, you must have an agenda, you must be paid by the rtp, it is a phone Stealthengineert said so.

I have no agenda. I'm just reporting what I see. Besides, the latest story from the RTP is that the perps took the phone from the pocket of the male victim's shorts, so why would it be lying on the beach beside them in the crime scene photos? Personally, I think this case has more holes than a colander. In a British court of law, it is up to the prosecution to prove the case "beyond all reasonable doubt". There seems to be plenty of reasonable doubt in this case so far! JMO

[Dogmatix]

Here is a clip from Thai PBS on 15 Sept when the police announced they had caught some Burmese workers with a bloodstained pair of jeans and David's black iPhone 4.

. Later they were released and perhaps the black iPhone 4 turned out not to be David's but I doubt it is the model of choice of penniless, recently arrived illegal aliens. Now David's black iPhone found smashed near the hut of the two suspects is a key piece of evidence.

David apparently had a Samsung Hero phone in addition to the iPhone. The iPhone was locked by the UK provider and couldn't be used with a Thai SIM which is consistent with the police and confession version that one of the suspects gave it to a Burmese friend who found it couldn't be used with a Thai SIM (and then smashed it up and threw it in the bushes near the suspects' hut). The object in the crime scene picture near David's shorts could be the Samsung Hero. There hasn't been any mention of the Samsung phone in the press but it is possible that perps, if they were really interested in theft as well as rape, murder, (illegal entry etc), would have assessed a Samsung Hero as something they couldn't sell for much and left it.

Anyway I am confused by the news clip as it creates the impression that the police stumbled on the perps quite early on but let them go and let them keep David's phone which they or one of their friends later smashed up and threw into the bushes. Strange.

[intune53]

Here is today's interview of a policeman and a police pathologist by Sorayud on Channel 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_1WfVs7RY . There are a couple of interesting points.

1. The pathologist assured the public that David's wounds were definitely made by the hoe, as per the confessions, and not by any form of knife. He didn't explain why the hoe wounds were so different to hoe wounds found on Hannah or why David's DNA was not found on the hoe.

2. The pathologist confirmed that DNA of two men A and B (i.e the suspects) was found in semen found inside Hannah, as we have already been told.

3. He also said that DNA of B and a third person C was found on Hannah's nipples. The third person was not David. The policeman didn't explain who the police thought C was or how he came to deposit his DNA on Hannah's nipples.

4. The pathologist said they found Hannah's DNA on the outside of the used condom found at the scene but they didn't find David's DNA inside. The policeman tried to explain why David's DNA might not have been detectable inside the condom but seemed to be struggling and the pathologist didn't help him out. Neither mentioned whether anyone else's DNA was found inside the condom and it is not clear to me whether any semen was found inside it. Nevertheless, even a man who has sex wearing a condom without ejaculating would leave some traces of bodily fluid and skin cells inside the condom. Whether this would be enough to trace DNA I can't say but in cases in other countries DNA seems traceable even in tiny skin cells.

So to sum up the police interview confirms that their is no forensic evidence that David and Hannah had sex before they were murdered. If this were the case, there should be DNA traces of pubic hair and skin cells from Hannah's body apart from the condom, admittedly mixed with those of A and B and whoever else was there.

Apart from suspects A and B, another man C's DNA was found on Hannah's nipples but not in her vagina.

Some one who cannot be positively identified as David (or C) used the condom to have sex with Hannah, although it sounded like the police didn't want to rule out David (or C), even though though can't proove it.

The interview seems to raise the questions of 1) who was C that left his DNA on Hannah's nipple? and 2) was there a fourth man D who raped Hannah wearing a condom and 3) or did C use the condom too but without leaving any DNA in it that they have thus far been able to find.

Perhaps I misunderstood some of the interview but that was my take.

Evidence of the DNA of a THIRD person on Hannah!?! found by an official pathologist.

This a is a breakthrough!!! Who is he?

Why are the police not stating they are seeking a third man for involvement?

Why have I been reading some reports saying the case is closed when this evidence remains?

Is it at all possible that the police are well aware of the presence of a third man already?

Please can anyone reliably translate into english if you aren't 100% sure dogmatix(no disrespect to you-excellent information-thank you!)

This information must be shared.

[Cambodger]

This photo tells me everything! The guilt is written all over his face.

[Anthony5]

Anthony5, on 06 Oct 2014 - 16:55, said:

Looks like the end of the belt around the shorts to me.

No no, you must have an agenda, you must be paid by the rtp, it is a phone Stealthengineert said so.

I have no agenda. I'm just reporting what I see. Besides, the latest story from the RTP is that the perps took the phone from the pocket of the male victim's shorts, so why would it be lying on the beach beside them in the crime scene photos? Personally, I think this case has more holes than a colander. In a British court of law, it is up to the prosecution to prove the case "beyond all reasonable doubt". There seems to be plenty of reasonable doubt in this case so far! JMO

Didn't you notice the sarcasm in my post, I thought it was easy to notice.

[Dogmatix]

Anthony5, on 06 Oct 2014 - 16:55, said:

IslandLover, on 06 Oct 2014 - 16:53, said:

StealthEnergiser, on 06 Oct 2014 - 12:22, said:StealthEnergiser, on 06 Oct 2014 - 12:22, said:

looks like a phone not sure what else it could be.

Looks like the end of the belt around the shorts to me.

No no, you must have an agenda, you must be paid by the rtp, it is a phone Stealthengineert said so.

I have no agenda. I'm just reporting what I see. Besides, the latest story from the RTP is that the perps took the phone from the pocket of the male victim's shorts, so why would it be lying on the beach beside them in the crime scene photos? Personally, I think this case has more holes than a colander. In a British court of law, it is up to the prosecution to prove the case "beyond all reasonable doubt". There seems to be plenty of reasonable doubt in this case so far! JMO

Apparently David had two phones. A black iPhone 4 and a Samsung Hero. As mentioned originally the resolution of the picture is too low to be sure what the object is but it could be a Samsung Hero which is a long, thin phone. It doesn't look like the end of the belt. Take another look.

This doesn't contradict the police version that the black iPhone 4 was stolen by the perps. If they stole his iPhone, they must have gone through his pockets and would probably have picked his other phone and then dumped it on the sand leaving prints on it.

[littlebw]

DNA Mon and the son - EASY

Could be C and D

Mon and son knew about DNA, Burmese didnt, frame the Burmese

Here is today's interview of a policeman and a police pathologist by Sorayud on Channel 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_1WfVs7RY . There are a couple of interesting points.

1. The pathologist assured the public that David's wounds were definitely made by the hoe, as per the confessions, and not by any form of knife. He didn't explain why the hoe wounds were so different to hoe wounds found on Hannah or why David's DNA was not found on the hoe.

2. The pathologist confirmed that DNA of two men A and B (i.e the suspects) was found in semen found inside Hannah, as we have already been told.

3. He also said that DNA of B and a third person C was found on Hannah's nipples. The third person was not David. The policeman didn't explain who the police thought C was or how he came to deposit his DNA on Hannah's nipples.

4. The pathologist said they found Hannah's DNA on the outside of the used condom found at the scene but they didn't find David's DNA inside. The policeman tried to explain why David's DNA might not have been detectable inside the condom but seemed to be struggling and the pathologist didn't help him out. Neither mentioned whether anyone else's DNA was found inside the condom and it is not clear to me whether any semen was found inside it. Nevertheless, even a man who has sex wearing a condom without ejaculating would leave some traces of bodily fluid and skin cells inside the condom. Whether this would be enough to trace DNA I can't say but in cases in other countries DNA seems traceable even in tiny skin cells.

So to sum up the police interview confirms that their is no forensic evidence that David and Hannah had sex before they were murdered. If this were the case, there should be DNA traces of pubic hair and skin cells from Hannah's body apart from the condom, admittedly mixed with those of A and B and whoever else was there.

Apart from suspects A and B, another man C's DNA was found on Hannah's nipples but not in her vagina.

Some one who cannot be positively identified as David (or C) used the condom to have sex with Hannah, although it sounded like the police didn't want to rule out David (or C), even though though can't proove it.

The interview seems to raise the questions of 1) who was C that left his DNA on Hannah's nipple? and 2) was there a fourth man D who raped Hannah wearing a condom and 3) or did C use the condom too but without leaving any DNA in it that they have thus far been able to find.

Perhaps I misunderstood some of the interview but that was my take.

Evidence of the DNA of a THIRD person on Hannah!?! found by an official pathologist.

This a is a breakthrough!!! Who is he?

Why are the police not stating they are seeking a third man for involvement?

Why have I been reading some reports saying the case is closed when this evidence remains?

Is it at all possible that the police are well aware of the presence of a third man already?

Please can anyone reliably translate into english if you aren't 100% sure dogmatix(no disrespect to you-excellent information-thank you!)

This information must be shared.

[Brian Corrigan]

He didn't explain why the hoe wounds were so different to hoe wounds found on Hannah or why David's DNA was not found on the hoe.

And this is a Pathologist. Why no DNA on the hoe? Davids wounds are stab wounds even I can see that.

Have the other suspects volunteered their DNA yet?

[bunglebag]

Indeed. They keep digging their holes

[englishoak]

Here is today's interview of a policeman and a police pathologist by Sorayud on Channel 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_1WfVs7RY . There are a couple of interesting points.

1. The pathologist assured the public that David's wounds were definitely made by the hoe, as per the confessions, and not by any form of knife. He didn't explain why the hoe wounds were so different to hoe wounds found on Hannah or why David's DNA was not found on the hoe.

2. The pathologist confirmed that DNA of two men A and B (i.e the suspects) was found in semen found inside Hannah, as we have already been told.

3. He also said that DNA of B and a third person C was found on Hannah's nipples. The third person was not David. The policeman didn't explain who the police thought C was or how he came to deposit his DNA on Hannah's nipples.

4. The pathologist said they found Hannah's DNA on the outside of the used condom found at the scene but they didn't find David's DNA inside. The policeman tried to explain why David's DNA might not have been detectable inside the condom but seemed to be struggling and the pathologist didn't help him out. Neither mentioned whether anyone else's DNA was found inside the condom and it is not clear to me whether any semen was found inside it. Nevertheless, even a man who has sex wearing a condom without ejaculating would leave some traces of bodily fluid and skin cells inside the condom. Whether this would be enough to trace DNA I can't say but in cases in other countries DNA seems traceable even in tiny skin cells.

So to sum up the police interview confirms that their is no forensic evidence that David and Hannah had sex before they were murdered. If this were the case, there should be DNA traces of pubic hair and skin cells from Hannah's body apart from the condom, admittedly mixed with those of A and B and whoever else was there.

Apart from suspects A and B, another man C's DNA was found on Hannah's nipples but not in her vagina.

Some one who cannot be positively identified as David (or C) used the condom to have sex with Hannah, although it sounded like the police didn't want to rule out David (or C), even though though can't proove it.

The interview seems to raise the questions of 1) who was C that left his DNA on Hannah's nipple? and 2) was there a fourth man D who raped Hannah wearing a condom and 3) or did C use the condom too but without leaving any DNA in it that they have thus far been able to find.

Perhaps I misunderstood some of the interview but that was my take.

Evidence of the DNA of a THIRD person on Hannah!?! found by an official pathologist.

This a is a breakthrough!!! Who is he?

Why are the police not stating they are seeking a third man for involvement?

Why have I been reading some reports saying the case is closed when this evidence remains?

Is it at all possible that the police are well aware of the presence of a third man already?

Please can anyone reliably translate into english if you aren't 100% sure dogmatix(no disrespect to you-excellent information-thank you!)

This information must be shared.

Confirmed there is DNA C ie a third person found on parts of Hannahs body......... it was NOT davids DNA.

Also the discarded condom was contaminated and whilst Hannahs DNA was found on one side they found it very hard to find any DNA on the other side as the item was badly contaminated .. It does not mean there wasnt DNA just that they could not isloate it.

So there is 100% at least a third persons DNA confirmed found.....

This is exactly what many have thought, it had to be more than just these 2.

So we have at least 1 murderer/rapist on the loose still maybe more. This case is not done, far from it.

[englishoak]

He didn't explain why the hoe wounds were so different to hoe wounds found on Hannah or why David's DNA was not found on the hoe.

And this is a Pathologist. Why no DNA on the hoe? Davids wounds are stab wounds even I can see that.

Have the other suspects volunteered their DNA yet?

Well seeing as the Hoe was covered in blood it would be caked in DNA

The pathologist only said that the wounds were ragged not clean which is conducive with a blunt heavy object wounds and not a knifes, he did not mention the Hoe as the weapon used on David

[bigjules007]

I had JTJ down as a kosher sceptic to begin with but his and one or two obvious others increasing volume of repetitive posts trying to run interference and getting increasingly assertive that the burmese guys must be guilty, acted alone etc. makes me feel that maybe they have some ulterior motive. JTJ had a genuine point with the phone initially but now just blindly seems to be going with everything the RTP say despite knowing about all these 'errors' even they (JTJ, A5 and others) admit there have been in their 'investigation', along with intimidation / attempts to falsify witnesses etc.

I can't see why they are so happy / keen to believe that these 2 (if guilty) were the only 2 involved. What is wrong with making sure all leads are covered. Do you want some possibly other culprits to get away with such an awful crime? If you are so adamant that RTP have the correct and only culprits why not just sit back and let 'justice' run its course?

Hes a Thai bashing troll, who thinks that the 90 percent of Thais on social media are wrong criticising the RTP I just ignore him its easier.

For anyone in Thailand the BIB sre gunning for you if you criticise them, so that's all of you bar around 5 complete tools, anyway download an app called Hideme VPN its an ip blocker and it will change your ip address to look like its coming from another country. So you can not be traced.

Good luck people snd keep posting

[littlebw]

so whoever used the condom was the first to rape Hannah?

Due to only Hannahs DNA on the outside

I know what i think and probably many others think the same

[Dogmatix]

Here is today's interview of a policeman and a police pathologist by Sorayud on Channel 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_1WfVs7RY . There are a couple of interesting points.

1. The pathologist assured the public that David's wounds were definitely made by the hoe, as per the confessions, and not by any form of knife. He didn't explain why the hoe wounds were so different to hoe wounds found on Hannah or why David's DNA was not found on the hoe.

2. The pathologist confirmed that DNA of two men A and B (i.e the suspects) was found in semen found inside Hannah, as we have already been told.

3. He also said that DNA of B and a third person C was found on Hannah's nipples. The third person was not David. The policeman didn't explain who the police thought C was or how he came to deposit his DNA on Hannah's nipples.

4. The pathologist said they found Hannah's DNA on the outside of the used condom found at the scene but they didn't find David's DNA inside. The policeman tried to explain why David's DNA might not have been detectable inside the condom but seemed to be struggling and the pathologist didn't help him out. Neither mentioned whether anyone else's DNA was found inside the condom and it is not clear to me whether any semen was found inside it. Nevertheless, even a man who has sex wearing a condom without ejaculating would leave some traces of bodily fluid and skin cells inside the condom. Whether this would be enough to trace DNA I can't say but in cases in other countries DNA seems traceable even in tiny skin cells.

So to sum up the police interview confirms that their is no forensic evidence that David and Hannah had sex before they were murdered. If this were the case, there should be DNA traces of pubic hair and skin cells from Hannah's body apart from the condom, admittedly mixed with those of A and B and whoever else was there.

Apart from suspects A and B, another man C's DNA was found on Hannah's nipples but not in her vagina.

Some one who cannot be positively identified as David (or C) used the condom to have sex with Hannah, although it sounded like the police didn't want to rule out David (or C), even though though can't proove it.

The interview seems to raise the questions of 1) who was C that left his DNA on Hannah's nipple? and 2) was there a fourth man D who raped Hannah wearing a condom and 3) or did C use the condom too but without leaving any DNA in it that they have thus far been able to find.

Perhaps I misunderstood some of the interview but that was my take.

Evidence of the DNA of a THIRD person on Hannah!?! found by an official pathologist.

This a is a breakthrough!!! Who is he?

Why are the police not stating they are seeking a third man for involvement?

Why have I been reading some reports saying the case is closed when this evidence remains?

Is it at all possible that the police are well aware of the presence of a third man already?

Please can anyone reliably translate into english if you aren't 100% sure dogmatix(no disrespect to you-excellent information-thank you!)

This information must be shared.

Confirmed there is DNA C ie a third person found on parts of Hannahs body......... it was NOT davids DNA.

Also the discarded condom was contaminated and whilst Hannahs DNA was found on one side they found it very hard to find any DNA on the other side as the item was badly contaminated .. It does not mean there wasnt DNA just that they could not isloate it.

So there is 100% at least a third persons DNA confirmed found.....

This is exactly what many have thought, it had to be more than just these 2.

So we have at least 1 murderer/rapist on the loose still maybe more. This case is not done, far from it.

As mentioned, the policeman seemed to have trouble explaining why no DNA was found inside the condom, even though they positively IDed Hannah's DNA on the outside. He was saying maybe they didn't check it thoroughly enough and looking puzzled.

[Cambodger]

At the start of this investigation it was reported that a phone was found with a hair stuck to it that was sent to Bangkok for forensics...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11103274/DNA-found-on-body-of-murdered-British-backpacker-in-Thailand-no-match-to-suspects.html

[littlebw]

Here is today's interview of a policeman and a police pathologist by Sorayud on Channel 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_1WfVs7RY . There are a couple of interesting points.

1. The pathologist assured the public that David's wounds were definitely made by the hoe, as per the confessions, and not by any form of knife. He didn't explain why the hoe wounds were so different to hoe wounds found on Hannah or why David's DNA was not found on the hoe.

2. The pathologist confirmed that DNA of two men A and B (i.e the suspects) was found in semen found inside Hannah, as we have already been told.

3. He also said that DNA of B and a third person C was found on Hannah's nipples. The third person was not David. The policeman didn't explain who the police thought C was or how he came to deposit his DNA on Hannah's nipples.

4. The pathologist said they found Hannah's DNA on the outside of the used condom found at the scene but they didn't find David's DNA inside. The policeman tried to explain why David's DNA might not have been detectable inside the condom but seemed to be struggling and the pathologist didn't help him out. Neither mentioned whether anyone else's DNA was found inside the condom and it is not clear to me whether any semen was found inside it. Nevertheless, even a man who has sex wearing a condom without ejaculating would leave some traces of bodily fluid and skin cells inside the condom. Whether this would be enough to trace DNA I can't say but in cases in other countries DNA seems traceable even in tiny skin cells.

So to sum up the police interview confirms that their is no forensic evidence that David and Hannah had sex before they were murdered. If this were the case, there should be DNA traces of pubic hair and skin cells from Hannah's body apart from the condom, admittedly mixed with those of A and B and whoever else was there.

Apart from suspects A and B, another man C's DNA was found on Hannah's nipples but not in her vagina.

Some one who cannot be positively identified as David (or C) used the condom to have sex with Hannah, although it sounded like the police didn't want to rule out David (or C), even though though can't proove it.

The interview seems to raise the questions of 1) who was C that left his DNA on Hannah's nipple? and 2) was there a fourth man D who raped Hannah wearing a condom and 3) or did C use the condom too but without leaving any DNA in it that they have thus far been able to find.

Perhaps I misunderstood some of the interview but that was my take.

Evidence of the DNA of a THIRD person on Hannah!?! found by an official pathologist.

This a is a breakthrough!!! Who is he?

Why are the police not stating they are seeking a third man for involvement?

Why have I been reading some reports saying the case is closed when this evidence remains?

Is it at all possible that the police are well aware of the presence of a third man already?

Please can anyone reliably translate into english if you aren't 100% sure dogmatix(no disrespect to you-excellent information-thank you!)

This information must be shared.

Confirmed there is DNA C ie a third person found on parts of Hannahs body......... it was NOT davids DNA.

Also the discarded condom was contaminated and whilst Hannahs DNA was found on one side they found it very hard to find any DNA on the other side as the item was badly contaminated .. It does not mean there wasnt DNA just that they could not isloate it.

So there is 100% at least a third persons DNA confirmed found.....

This is exactly what many have thought, it had to be more than just these 2.

So we have at least 1 murderer/rapist on the loose still maybe more. This case is not done, far from it.

As mentioned, the policeman seemed to have trouble explaining why no DNA was found inside the condom, even though they positively IDed Hannah's DNA on the outside. He was saying maybe they didn't check it thoroughly enough and looking puzzled.

didnt check it properly ? or didnt want to?

mmm whats the betting we know whos DNA is inside this

[Dogmatix]

This photo tells me everything! The guilt is written all over his face.

Not implying anything but apparently he is sporting a very new hair cut in this picture and previously had hair covering his ears before that.

[Dogmatix]

An interesting clip here showing the police searches of Burmese residences which reportedly turned up the blood stained jeans and David's black iPhone 4. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c11_1410854401. At 00.17 the police unearth a rather nice looking 1911 model semi-automatic .45 caliber pistol kept in its box and what looks like a hand grenade. Earlier I spotted a still of this in the Bkk Post online but assumed it was from another case posted there by mistake. From this clip it is very clear that it was discovered in a hut of Burmese workers on Koh Tao but interestingly the police didn't seem to make anything of these discoveries after letting journalists film them. Perhaps the gun was rightfully registered to the owner of the resort, restaurant or bar and was returned (along with the grenade?). Perhaps the Burmese workers in that hut are employed by the owners as armed 'security' and need the weapons to protect the owner from murderous farang tourists.

In other pictures taken around the same time you can see one of the two perps who have just been arrested lining up for his DNA sample with a bunch of other Burmese. So it is not clear why he wasn't arrested at the time or why they had to test his DNA again.

The clip also mentions that police were hoping to interview a 'friend' of the dead couple who was said to have left the island by boat in the early hours of the morning they were murdered. I wonder what sort of friendship they had and why the police lost interest in that interview. Possibly the witnesses were mistake and their friend had already left the island several days earlier.

[ParadiseLost]

This photo tells me everything! The guilt is written all over his face.

Not implying anything but apparently he is sporting a very new hair cut in this picture and previously had hair covering his ears before that.

Well it is a photo opportunity, after all...

[gwenvo]

Who are the guys in the top half of the photo?

[HughJass]

where the tv coverage of this?

This photo tells me everything! The guilt is written all over his face.

Not implying anything but apparently he is sporting a very new hair cut in this picture and previously had hair covering his ears before that.

[Upsidedown1986]

Who are the guys in the top half of the photo?

Exactly what I have been thinking. They are not the same people at all. The top men who work at AC bar had been arrested and they were the ones seen in the store buying cigarettes.. but they are not the same as the burmese lads. Have they tried to find lookalikes to frame, and think we are all stupid?

[jaiyen17]

Maw may be their #3

http://www.mizzima.com/mizzima-news/regional/item/13471-rights-group-to-support-myanmar-workers-accused-in-thai-island-tourist-killings

The Migrant Worker Rights Network, based in Thailand, will seek, in cooperation with Thai officials, to gain access to the accused migrant workers, known as Win and Saw, to interview them on their past and present treatment, as well as ensure these persons understand fully their rights as accused persons under Thai law, according to the British rights activist. Another suspect known as Maw, has also been arrested.
"The team has already arrived on the ground and started work. Our mission shall seek to cooperate where necessary also with the Myanmar and British embassies, but it's important to stress that the mission itself is completely independent of any government or Thai officials," Mr Hall added.

[bigjules007]

Maw may be their #3

http://www.mizzima.com/mizzima-news/regional/item/13471-rights-group-to-support-myanmar-workers-accused-in-thai-island-tourist-killings

The Migrant Worker Rights Network, based in Thailand, will seek, in cooperation with Thai officials, to gain access to the accused migrant workers, known as Win and Saw, to interview them on their past and present treatment, as well as ensure these persons understand fully their rights as accused persons under Thai law, according to the British rights activist. Another suspect known as Maw, has also been arrested.

"The team has already arrived on the ground and started work. Our mission shall seek to cooperate where necessary also with the Myanmar and British embassies, but it's important to stress that the mission itself is completely independent of any government or Thai officials," Mr Hall added.

And so it begins

[heyexile]

Maw may be their #3

http://www.mizzima.com/mizzima-news/regional/item/13471-rights-group-to-support-myanmar-workers-accused-in-thai-island-tourist-killings

The Migrant Worker Rights Network, based in Thailand, will seek, in cooperation with Thai officials, to gain access to the accused migrant workers, known as Win and Saw, to interview them on their past and present treatment, as well as ensure these persons understand fully their rights as accused persons under Thai law, according to the British rights activist. Another suspect known as Maw, has also been arrested.

"The team has already arrived on the ground and started work. Our mission shall seek to cooperate where necessary also with the Myanmar and British embassies, but it's important to stress that the mission itself is completely independent of any government or Thai officials," Mr Hall added.

Good info.

Maw, he was the police`s star witness who left scene before murders according to police statements. Right?

And cleared by police dna test?

[bertty]

Would it be weird of me to attend the funeral on friday even though I didnt know her?.. and yes the public are allowed are invited according to the paper

Sorry excuse my ignorance, but attend the funeral! You mean some sort of service on the island ?

Really I've been ou,t and a few pages behind.

Does that mean 100's of people will come to the island to pay there respects ?

And then the BIB will say 'tourists and back on the island'

As said before the more the BIB talk the bigger the hole becomes.

[Mikey1]

Did you see the post on facebook page justice for Hannah & David ? The post on the left hand side by Anung Htut? It's a rather Nasty video of an incident .... I'm getting things translated by my wife

I've followed the threads on thai visa. I believe I'm a moderate. But it's necessary to have independent varification from the UK . David lived near me in Leeds. We both loved thailand. I'm happily married to a thai lady. My heart sinks when I see what's going on. I have spent many tears defending thailand and talked about it rise in popularity from sex tourism to family orientated and youthful adventure holidays that had something more than bar girls and booze.

If this isn't cleared up soon, and sorted with absolute integrity thailand will lose WHATS it's been trying to build for the last ten years. The dollar and the pound will simply be spent elsewhere.

I simply do not understand why the UK government are dragging their feet about this. Two beautiful British people in their prime of life died for goodness sake in the most brutal way. Get in there and get working on the truth UK

The whole thing is shameful. And Sean should grow a pair as well! If he is in Hyde Park area of Leeds now he should get to the authorities in Leeds at West Yorkshire Police and make a full and fearless statement. Think of the victims.