Koh Tao suspects to be indicted by end of month

[boomerangutang]

The only reason I can think that a woman (or man) might give their personal belongings to someone to look after in that situation is if they were going for a swim and didn't want to leave anything on the sand. I wonder if David had a wallet with him and if he did, what happened to it? Hannah's friend who handed her phone to the police must have given an explanation of why and when it came to be in her possession. I also wonder if when her phone was given back to her parents, all the data/photos were still on it.

All this business of phones seems strange to say the least. David's phone found smashed. Hannah's in the possession of a friend. McAnna allegedly using a phone belonging to a member of staff at the 24/7 store to ask for help. And nothing whatsoever in the public domain regards what evidence there might have been on any of them relating to the murders or lead up to the murders.

Yea, that's another oddity. If Sean was using someone else's phone, then how could he phone relatives (?), unless he had memorized all their phone numbers. Not impossible, but not likely. Also, would someone loaning a phone be ok with a (stranger?) another person making long distance calls? Sean is not the picture of politeness, but still..... and he checked/uploaded on to his FB page - still using someone else's mobile phone?

But, to me, the strangest issue with phones (more than the plant of Hannah's or David's phone at the B's dwelling) is that RTP detectives seemed to have done absolutely zero in checking up on 'persons of interest' phone logs - particularly for Monday morning's calls histories. If they did anything in that regard, we haven't heard peep. If they haven't, then I for one wouldn't be surprised, because assessing phone histories would likely implicate those who the RTP are trying to shield.

[jdinasia]

Again. You have no idea what the evidence is nor the extent of the RTP investigation.

The evidence will be presented in court during the trial.

[jimmybkk]

There's no "war" for me. I am looking forward to the trial. I am interested in seeing the actual evidence.

Telling me to "move on" isn't appropriate. I choose not to post often on the Koh Tao threads because people who think that they have the killers in custody are shouted down or accused of having financial interests on the island.

I feel your pain JD. What kind of a world is this that we live in where you can't even have a good ol' fashioned witch-hunt without a bunch of darned conspiracy theorists showing up and making a fuss. It kills the mood, right? And as for telling you to "move on"... well, don't get me started on the inappropriateness of that comment. Personally I blame the parents...

You're not alone on this one either - In another forum there were a couple of Thai guys complaining how hard it has become to organize a lynching on Koh Tao these days...

So anyway, you mentioned that you are looking forward to the trial and that struck me as a somewhat strange thing to say, but then it occurred to me that perhaps you got so caught up in the spirit of the witch-hunt that you're expecting a trial to match. I think I ought to warn you it may not be quite what you are expecting. I get the feeling that you would like to make quite a day of it when this trial you are looking forward to begins - perhaps gather your kinfolk nice and early, everyone dressed in their Sunday best, then head down to the riverbank with a packed lunch and picnic blanket to secure a good spot from which to watch the events of the day unfold. An excited crowd gathers... The tension in the air almost tangible... What will happen when they throw these 2 unfortunates into the raging river? Will they sink and be proved innocent? Or will they float and their guilt be confirmed? This is what you're referring to when you mention "seeing the actual evidence", right? Well, I have some bad news for you... It probably ain't gonna happen like that. Sorry to be the one to break it to you but they haven't practiced trial by water for quite some time now, even after a witch-hunt such as this. I can't remember the exact reason why they stopped but rumour has it that some armchair detectives (aka conspiracy theorists) put forth a very convincing theory that the natural buoyancy of the human body was resulting in an alarming number of false positives (there they go again, ruining all the fun!). It's not all bad news though - you'll be happy to know that the system they have replaced it with produces almost identical results, although observers have reported it to be far less entertaining.

Keep in mind that with this new format the trial may go on for weeks or even months, and you will need to be there in person each day to "see the actual evidence". There are very strict rules on what can and cannot be publicly reported. You will also need to be fluent in Thai to understand what's happening. I for one am hoping that you will post your experiences at the trial here, given that those of us who are unable to attend will be starved of information and unable to see the actual evidence.

Or perhaps you are looking forward to the trial so that when it's over you can finally put away this persona you have created for the purpose of posting on these Koh Tao threads. It can't be easy having to switch from the intelligent, articulate poster that you appear to be in other threads, into the equivalent of Homer Simpson on these threads: "Geez Marge, if Chief Wiggum says they done it then I guess they musta...". And ironically it is that logic-defying switch, with apparently nothing to back it up, that tells me there is something very wrong with the indictment of these 2 Burmese lads.

[rockingrobin]

The only reason I can think that a woman (or man) might give their personal belongings to someone to look after in that situation is if they were going for a swim and didn't want to leave anything on the sand. I wonder if David had a wallet with him and if he did, what happened to it? Hannah's friend who handed her phone to the police must have given an explanation of why and when it came to be in her possession. I also wonder if when her phone was given back to her parents, all the data/photos were still on it.

All this business of phones seems strange to say the least. David's phone found smashed. Hannah's in the possession of a friend. McAnna allegedly using a phone belonging to a member of staff at the 24/7 store to ask for help. And nothing whatsoever in the public domain regards what evidence there might have been on any of them relating to the murders or lead up to the murders.

Yea, that's another oddity. If Sean was using someone else's phone, then how could he phone relatives (?), unless he had memorized all their phone numbers. Not impossible, but not likely. Also, would someone loaning a phone be ok with a (stranger?) another person making long distance calls? Sean is not the picture of politeness, but still..... and he checked/uploaded on to his FB page - still using someone else's mobile phone?

But, to me, the strangest issue with phones (more than the plant of Hannah's or David's phone at the B's dwelling) is that RTP detectives seemed to have done absolutely zero in checking up on 'persons of interest' phone logs - particularly for Monday morning's calls histories. If they did anything in that regard, we haven't heard peep. If they haven't, then I for one wouldn't be surprised, because assessing phone histories would likely implicate those who the RTP are trying to shield.

Talking about phone in the following are the burmese pointing to an unbroken phone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvYo7TGxwc4#t=136

I have also read that it is claimed the running man is one of the B2, can anyone confirm, unable to post link

[balo]

There's no "war" for me. I am looking forward to the trial. I am interested in seeing the actual evidence.

Telling me to "move on" isn't appropriate. I choose not to post often on the Koh Tao threads because people who think that they have the killers in custody are shouted down or accused of having financial interests on the island.

Or perhaps you are looking forward to the trial so that when it's over you can finally put away this persona you have created for the purpose of posting on these Koh Tao threads. It can't be easy having to switch from the intelligent, articulate poster that you appear to be in other threads, into the equivalent of Homer Simpson on these threads: "Geez Marge, if Chief Wiggum says they done it then I guess they musta...". And ironically it is that logic-defying switch, with apparently nothing to back it up, that tells me there is something very wrong with the indictment of these 2 Burmese lads.

jdnasia is a genuine poster with over 20k messages on this forum .he lives and work here , and so do I , and you come here on thaivisa and think you know it all, don't you?

There is only one side you can understand , if the burmese are guilty you will never believe any evidence , not even in a court.

Right now I look at this case as 50/50 if the B2 did it or not. And I do not believe in speculations posted on facebook or anywhere else. I support the victims family and hope for a fair trial.

[fayou]

The only reason I can think that a woman (or man) might give their personal belongings to someone to look after in that situation is if they were going for a swim and didn't want to leave anything on the sand. I wonder if David had a wallet with him and if he did, what happened to it? Hannah's friend who handed her phone to the police must have given an explanation of why and when it came to be in her possession. I also wonder if when her phone was given back to her parents, all the data/photos were still on it.

All this business of phones seems strange to say the least. David's phone found smashed. Hannah's in the possession of a friend. McAnna allegedly using a phone belonging to a member of staff at the 24/7 store to ask for help. And nothing whatsoever in the public domain regards what evidence there might have been on any of them relating to the murders or lead up to the murders.

Yea, that's another oddity. If Sean was using someone else's phone, then how could he phone relatives (?), unless he had memorized all their phone numbers. Not impossible, but not likely. Also, would someone loaning a phone be ok with a (stranger?) another person making long distance calls? Sean is not the picture of politeness, but still..... and he checked/uploaded on to his FB page - still using someone else's mobile phone?

But, to me, the strangest issue with phones (more than the plant of Hannah's or David's phone at the B's dwelling) is that RTP detectives seemed to have done absolutely zero in checking up on 'persons of interest' phone logs - particularly for Monday morning's calls histories. If they did anything in that regard, we haven't heard peep. If they haven't, then I for one wouldn't be surprised, because assessing phone histories would likely implicate those who the RTP are trying to shield.

Talking about phone in the following are the burmese pointing to an unbroken phone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvYo7TGxwc4#t=136

I have also read that it is claimed the running man is one of the B2, can anyone confirm, unable to post link

Do you mean this unbroken iphone ?

Police said a black iPhone4 was taken from the shorts pocket of David Miller. It was all over the news.

But David's friend confirm that he got iPhone4s not iPhone 4.

The Police claimed later to find Davids phone close to the House where the Myanmar workers lived.

David had a iphone 4s and a Samsung hero cellphone.

The big question : To who belongs the phone the police found in the shorts pocket of David?

[rockingrobin]

Fayou

The video I have linked to is after the arrest of the burmese, and at the 2 min mark a fax depicting a photo purporting to be the B2 handcuffed and pointing to an iphone,

[loonodingle]

The only reason I can think that a woman (or man) might give their personal belongings to someone to look after in that situation is if they were going for a swim and didn't want to leave anything on the sand. I wonder if David had a wallet with him and if he did, what happened to it? Hannah's friend who handed her phone to the police must have given an explanation of why and when it came to be in her possession. I also wonder if when her phone was given back to her parents, all the data/photos were still on it.

All this business of phones seems strange to say the least. David's phone found smashed. Hannah's in the possession of a friend. McAnna allegedly using a phone belonging to a member of staff at the 24/7 store to ask for help. And nothing whatsoever in the public domain regards what evidence there might have been on any of them relating to the murders or lead up to the murders.

Yea, that's another oddity. If Sean was using someone else's phone, then how could he phone relatives (?), unless he had memorized all their phone numbers. Not impossible, but not likely. Also, would someone loaning a phone be ok with a (stranger?) another person making long distance calls? Sean is not the picture of politeness, but still..... and he checked/uploaded on to his FB page - still using someone else's mobile phone?

But, to me, the strangest issue with phones (more than the plant of Hannah's or David's phone at the B's dwelling) is that RTP detectives seemed to have done absolutely zero in checking up on 'persons of interest' phone logs - particularly for Monday morning's calls histories. If they did anything in that regard, we haven't heard peep. If they haven't, then I for one wouldn't be surprised, because assessing phone histories would likely implicate those who the RTP are trying to shield.

Talking about phone in the following are the burmese pointing to an unbroken phone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvYo7TGxwc4#t=136

I have also read that it is claimed the running man is one of the B2, can anyone confirm, unable to post link

Do you mean this unbroken iphone ?

Police said a black iPhone4 was taken from the shorts pocket of David Miller. It was all over the news.

But David's friend confirm that he got iPhone4s not iPhone 4.

The Police claimed later to find Davids phone close to the House where the Myanmar workers lived.

David had a iphone 4s and a Samsung hero cellphone.

The big question : To who belongs the phone the police found in the shorts pocket of David?

Who says it wasn't an S model phone?

[loonodingle]

There's no "war" for me. I am looking forward to the trial. I am interested in seeing the actual evidence.

Telling me to "move on" isn't appropriate. I choose not to post often on the Koh Tao threads because people who think that they have the killers in custody are shouted down or accused of having financial interests on the island.

Or perhaps you are looking forward to the trial so that when it's over you can finally put away this persona you have created for the purpose of posting on these Koh Tao threads. It can't be easy having to switch from the intelligent, articulate poster that you appear to be in other threads, into the equivalent of Homer Simpson on these threads: "Geez Marge, if Chief Wiggum says they done it then I guess they musta...". And ironically it is that logic-defying switch, with apparently nothing to back it up, that tells me there is something very wrong with the indictment of these 2 Burmese lads.

jdnasia is a genuine poster with over 20k messages on this forum .he lives and work here , and so do I , and you come here on thaivisa and think you know it all, don't you?

There is only one side you can understand , if the burmese are guilty you will never believe any evidence , not even in a court.

Right now I look at this case as 50/50 if the B2 did it or not. And I do not believe in speculations posted on facebook or anywhere else. I support the victims family and hope for a fair trial.

I also think its 50/50 maybe 60/40 against their involvement however I defiantly think there was more people who committed this crime.

It disturbs me deeply that their was a definite attempt to stop the verification of evidence, If that had been done I doubt if I would be posting on the KT threads.

It has a bad smell about this case.

[IslandLover]

fayou, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:23, said:fayou, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:23, said:

greenchair, on 02 Mar 2015 - 04:24, said:greenchair, on 02 Mar 2015 - 04:24, said:

The news has many conflicting times and stories. If it cannot be backed up with evidence then it is only useful as guide at best. For example 1 report says hannah and david were at a beach party and left together at 1 am.

We know know certainly through cctv that this cannot be true.

Another report says they left the ac bar together between 3am and 4am. First it would be interesting to know the closing times of the bars. Since I thought by law they must close at 2.30 am. And it has been reported that often the party went to the beach at pub closing time.

3rd. Why is there only a picture of David by himself at the bar. Surely if they met together at the bar there would be a picture of them sitting together or walking along the way to the beach.

But no. There is not a single pic of them anywhere near each other. He may have thought she was lovely. We don't know.

But we know leading up to the crime, they had no romantic indications by friends or cctv at all. Only a fool would believe they did.

'Why is there only a picture of David by himself at the bar?'

I saw the picture. Unfortunately without Date and time stamps. But i think David wear the T- Shirt from the night of his murder. Obviously Hannah and her friends where not there during the time David was looking for them. Shortly before 1.26 am or after 1.57am when he returns?

the closing time.

AC - BAR - Sairee Beach open daily, party every Tue, Thu, Sun from 20.00h - 3.00h

The Sunday closing time makes sense if witnesses said they saw David and Hannah leave the bar between 3am and 4 am - if presumably the Sunday closing time means early Monday morning? It has been reported that there was a party on the beach on Sunday night/Monday morning.

Edited March 2, 2015 by IslandLover

[fayou]

@loonodingle

Comparison of the iPhone 4 (Top) with that of the iPhone 4S (bottom)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_4S
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IPhone4SiPhone4.png

The phone in the video is iPhone 4

Edited March 2, 2015 by fayou

[IslandLover]

thailandchilli, on 02 Mar 2015 - 04:24, said:thailandchilli, on 02 Mar 2015 - 04:24, said:

Seems the UK police have been sharing information they should not have been with their Thai counterparts in this interesting article published yesterday http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/01/capital-punishment-concerns-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-murder-thailand

Taken from this this tread http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/781951-family-of-brits-murdered-in-thailand-say-evidence-convincing/page-111

So, it appears the British police HAVE interviewed the witnesses. The fact that they have only shared the witness statements with the prosecution, does not in itself mean a lot. They have had to work with the RTP and they are the prosecutors. However, the Thai officials can now twist those statements any way they want to suit their own purposes. Well, apart from the victims' families, it would be better to have official observers from the U.K. at this forthcoming trial to make sure the evidence they supplied is not perverted in some way.

[fayou]

Fayou

The video I have linked to is after the arrest of the burmese, and at the 2 min mark a fax depicting a photo purporting to be the B2 handcuffed and pointing to an iphone,

Should be the the restored iphone.

[IslandLover]

jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 13:37, said:jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 13:37, said:jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 13:37, said:

The trial should sort out much of the confusion people seem to be having.

I think they are guilty but we know that they have a defense team and advocates. Let them do their jobs.

We know you think they are guilty JD, but just what do you think the motive was (serious question)?

According to the RTP it was because they were allegedly drunk and feeling horny. A rather tame motive when you consider the eventual violence of this crime, if you ask me. So, by your reconing, two puny little midgets - one of them extremely child-like and effeminate - committed this vile crime on their own? I have a hard job accepting that.

Another serious question:

Just how much of the evidence in this forthcoming trial will be made public? If it's anything like Indonesia, then my guess is not much. Am I right, or am I wrong?

You don't have to answer question 1 but I would like an answer to question 2 since you seem to know all about trial procedures in Thailand.

Edited March 2, 2015 by IslandLover

[berybert]

jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 13:37, said:

The trial should sort out much of the confusion people seem to be having.

I think they are guilty but we know that they have a defense team and advocates. Let them do their jobs.

We know you think they are guilty JD, but just what do you think the motive was (serious question)? That they were allegedly drunk and feeling horny? Rather tame motive when you consider the eventual violence of this crime. Two puny little midgets and one of them extremely child like and effeminate.

Another serious question:

Just how much of the evidence in this forthcoming trial will be made public? If it's anything like Indonesia, then my guess is not much. Am I right, or am I wrong?

You don't have to answer question 1 but I would like an answer to question 2 since you seem to know all about trial procedures in Thailand.

Best post on the subject.

Why are some people so convinced of the Burmese guilt ?

They have seen the same evidence as the rest of us, seen the same CCTV pictures as the rest of us.

As per the question asked, why are some people so sure of their guilt.

[IslandLover]

jimmybkk, on 02 Mar 2015 - 14:53, said:

jdinasia, on 27 Feb 2015 - 06:47, said:

There's no "war" for me. I am looking forward to the trial. I am interested in seeing the actual evidence.

Telling me to "move on" isn't appropriate. I choose not to post often on the Koh Tao threads because people who think that they have the killers in custody are shouted down or accused of having financial interests on the island.

I feel your pain JD. What kind of a world is this that we live in where you can't even have a good ol' fashioned witch-hunt without a bunch of darned conspiracy theorists showing up and making a fuss. It kills the mood, right? And as for telling you to "move on"... well, don't get me started on the inappropriateness of that comment. Personally I blame the parents...

You're not alone on this one either - In another forum there were a couple of Thai guys complaining how hard it has become to organize a lynching on Koh Tao these days...

So anyway, you mentioned that you are looking forward to the trial and that struck me as a somewhat strange thing to say, but then it occurred to me that perhaps you got so caught up in the spirit of the witch-hunt that you're expecting a trial to match. I think I ought to warn you it may not be quite what you are expecting. I get the feeling that you would like to make quite a day of it when this trial you are looking forward to begins - perhaps gather your kinfolk nice and early, everyone dressed in their Sunday best, then head down to the riverbank with a packed lunch and picnic blanket to secure a good spot from which to watch the events of the day unfold. An excited crowd gathers... The tension in the air almost tangible... What will happen when they throw these 2 unfortunates into the raging river? Will they sink and be proved innocent? Or will they float and their guilt be confirmed? This is what you're referring to when you mention "seeing the actual evidence", right? Well, I have some bad news for you... It probably ain't gonna happen like that. Sorry to be the one to break it to you but they haven't practiced trial by water for quite some time now, even after a witch-hunt such as this. I can't remember the exact reason why they stopped but rumour has it that some armchair detectives (aka conspiracy theorists) put forth a very convincing theory that the natural buoyancy of the human body was resulting in an alarming number of false positives (there they go again, ruining all the fun!). It's not all bad news though - you'll be happy to know that the system they have replaced it with produces almost identical results, although observers have reported it to be far less entertaining.

Keep in mind that with this new format the trial may go on for weeks or even months, and you will need to be there in person each day to "see the actual evidence". There are very strict rules on what can and cannot be publicly reported. You will also need to be fluent in Thai to understand what's happening. I for one am hoping that you will post your experiences at the trial here, given that those of us who are unable to attend will be starved of information and unable to see the actual evidence.

Or perhaps you are looking forward to the trial so that when it's over you can finally put away this persona you have created for the purpose of posting on these Koh Tao threads. It can't be easy having to switch from the intelligent, articulate poster that you appear to be in other threads, into the equivalent of Homer Simpson on these threads: "Geez Marge, if Chief Wiggum says they done it then I guess they musta...". And ironically it is that logic-defying switch, with apparently nothing to back it up, that tells me there is something very wrong with the indictment of these 2 Burmese lads.

Excellent! I like your sense of humour . Oh wait, humour isn't allowed on this forum

[jdinasia]

IslandLover

I don't think "2 puny little midgets" did it.

I think 2 adults did it. Your characterization of them is simplistic. They are both adults.

The trial will be where guilt and innocence is determined. There'll be foreign nationals from at least 2 countries and very likely more in the courtroom daily during the trial as observers. So, yes, you are wrong.

[IslandLover]

berybert, on 02 Mar 2015 - 18:42, said:

IslandLover, on 02 Mar 2015 - 18:34, said:

jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 13:37, said:jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 13:37, said:

The trial should sort out much of the confusion people seem to be having.

I think they are guilty but we know that they have a defense team and advocates. Let them do their jobs.

We know you think they are guilty JD, but just what do you think the motive was (serious question)? That they were allegedly drunk and feeling horny? Rather tame motive when you consider the eventual violence of this crime. Two puny little midgets and one of them extremely child like and effeminate.

Another serious question:

Just how much of the evidence in this forthcoming trial will be made public? If it's anything like Indonesia, then my guess is not much. Am I right, or am I wrong?

You don't have to answer question 1 but I would like an answer to question 2 since you seem to know all about trial procedures in Thailand.

Best post on the subject.

Why are some people so convinced of the Burmese guilt ?

They have seen the same evidence as the rest of us, seen the same CCTV pictures as the rest of us.

As per the question asked, why are some people so sure of their guilt.

Thanks, although I edited it a bit after you replied . I don't think we will ever get a clear answer from any of "the B2 are guilty" brigade on this forum though. I've given up wondering why.

[rockingrobin]

Please can we refrain from dissing other members, everybody is entitled to their thoughts and opinions and these will undoubtedly differ , however they are equally valid and deserve respect

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 15:11, said:

boomerangutang, on 02 Mar 2015 - 14:46, said:

catsanddogs, on 02 Mar 2015 - 13:32, said:

The only reason I can think that a woman (or man) might give their personal belongings to someone to look after in that situation is if they were going for a swim and didn't want to leave anything on the sand. I wonder if David had a wallet with him and if he did, what happened to it? Hannah's friend who handed her phone to the police must have given an explanation of why and when it came to be in her possession. I also wonder if when her phone was given back to her parents, all the data/photos were still on it.

All this business of phones seems strange to say the least. David's phone found smashed. Hannah's in the possession of a friend. McAnna allegedly using a phone belonging to a member of staff at the 24/7 store to ask for help. And nothing whatsoever in the public domain regards what evidence there might have been on any of them relating to the murders or lead up to the murders.

Yea, that's another oddity. If Sean was using someone else's phone, then how could he phone relatives (?), unless he had memorized all their phone numbers. Not impossible, but not likely. Also, would someone loaning a phone be ok with a (stranger?) another person making long distance calls? Sean is not the picture of politeness, but still..... and he checked/uploaded on to his FB page - still using someone else's mobile phone?

But, to me, the strangest issue with phones (more than the plant of Hannah's or David's phone at the B's dwelling) is that RTP detectives seemed to have done absolutely zero in checking up on 'persons of interest' phone logs - particularly for Monday morning's calls histories. If they did anything in that regard, we haven't heard peep. If they haven't, then I for one wouldn't be surprised, because assessing phone histories would likely implicate those who the RTP are trying to shield.

Talking about phone in the following are the burmese pointing to an unbroken phone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvYo7TGxwc4#t=136

I have also read that it is claimed the running man is one of the B2, can anyone confirm, unable to post link

I have also read that it is claimed the running man is one of the B2, can anyone confirm, unable to post link

I can't confirm it but I get the feeling it could be Win. But if it is Win, he could be running around in a panic after either finding the bodies, or witnessing what went down at the beach that night. It doesn't mean he's guilty of the murders.

[rockingrobin]

Fayou

The video I have linked to is after the arrest of the burmese, and at the 2 min mark a fax depicting a photo purporting to be the B2 handcuffed and pointing to an iphone,

Should be the the restored iphone.

Edited March 2, 2015 by rockingrobin

[berybert]

berybert, on 02 Mar 2015 - 18:42, said:

IslandLover, on 02 Mar 2015 - 18:34, said:

jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 13:37, said:jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 13:37, said:

The trial should sort out much of the confusion people seem to be having.

I think they are guilty but we know that they have a defense team and advocates. Let them do their jobs.

We know you think they are guilty JD, but just what do you think the motive was (serious question)? That they were allegedly drunk and feeling horny? Rather tame motive when you consider the eventual violence of this crime. Two puny little midgets and one of them extremely child like and effeminate.

Another serious question:

Just how much of the evidence in this forthcoming trial will be made public? If it's anything like Indonesia, then my guess is not much. Am I right, or am I wrong?

You don't have to answer question 1 but I would like an answer to question 2 since you seem to know all about trial procedures in Thailand.

Best post on the subject.

Why are some people so convinced of the Burmese guilt ?

They have seen the same evidence as the rest of us, seen the same CCTV pictures as the rest of us.

As per the question asked, why are some people so sure of their guilt.

Thanks, although I edited it a bit after you replied . I don't think we will ever get a clear answer from any of "the B2 are guilty" brigade on this forum though. I've given up wondering why.

This is where we differ. I really want to know why certain people blame the Burmese. The people who accuse them of murdering two Brits don't seem to be Brits themselves. Why do they even care ?

I want to know the truth because I believe in justice. I want to see the killers behind bars for the rest of their lives.

If Muang Muang is involved in it the let him rot in jail.

We don't care if the killers are Thai, Burmese or alien. Just make sure you get the right people.

[IslandLover]

jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 18:56, said:

IslandLover

I don't think "2 puny little midgets" did it.

I think 2 adults did it. Your characterization of them is simplistic. They are both adults.

The trial will be where guilt and innocence is determined. There'll be foreign nationals from at least 2 countries and very likely more in the courtroom daily during the trial as observers. So, yes, you are wrong.

The trial will be where guilt and innocence is determined. There'll be foreign nationals from at least 2 countries and very likely more in the courtroom daily during the trial as observers. So, yes, you are wrong.

My question was actually about whether the evidence in this trial will be allowed to be reported upon and put in the public domain, or will all, or most of it, be hidden from the general public? You did not answer that.

In some S.E. Asian countries daily reporting and publication of the trial proceedings is not allowed (I cited Indonesia as an example where the taking of notes inside a courtroom is not allowed by persons other than the prosecution and the defence, nor is the presence of the press, generally speaking). I'm genuinely interested in the trial procedure in Thailand.

[AleG]

jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 18:56, said:

IslandLover

I don't think "2 puny little midgets" did it.

I think 2 adults did it. Your characterization of them is simplistic. They are both adults.

The trial will be where guilt and innocence is determined. There'll be foreign nationals from at least 2 countries and very likely more in the courtroom daily during the trial as observers. So, yes, you are wrong.

The trial will be where guilt and innocence is determined. There'll be foreign nationals from at least 2 countries and very likely more in the courtroom daily during the trial as observers. So, yes, you are wrong.

My question was actually about whether the evidence in this trial will be allowed to be reported upon and put in the public domain, or will all, or most of it, be hidden from the general public? You did not answer that.

In some S.E. Asian countries daily reporting and publication of the trial proceedings is not allowed (I cited Indonesia as an example where the taking of notes inside a courtroom is not allowed by persons other than the prosecution and the defence, nor is the presence of the press, generally speaking). I'm genuinely interested in the trial procedure in Thailand.

The hearings at the court were open to the public, and there has been no indication whatsoever that will change for further hearings.

[rockingrobin]

jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 18:56, said:

IslandLover

I don't think "2 puny little midgets" did it.

I think 2 adults did it. Your characterization of them is simplistic. They are both adults.

The trial will be where guilt and innocence is determined. There'll be foreign nationals from at least 2 countries and very likely more in the courtroom daily during the trial as observers. So, yes, you are wrong.

The trial will be where guilt and innocence is determined. There'll be foreign nationals from at least 2 countries and very likely more in the courtroom daily during the trial as observers. So, yes, you are wrong.

My question was actually about whether the evidence in this trial will be allowed to be reported upon and put in the public domain, or will all, or most of it, be hidden from the general public? You did not answer that.

In some S.E. Asian countries daily reporting and publication of the trial proceedings is not allowed (I cited Indonesia as an example where the taking of notes inside a courtroom is not allowed by persons other than the prosecution and the defence, nor is the presence of the press, generally speaking). I'm genuinely interested in the trial procedure in Thailand.

This was raised sometime ago and if I recall correctly

The court is open to the public, No notes are allowed to be taken in the court, The judge/judges give a summary at the end of the session (not sure if this is after any witness statements/cross examination) by speaking into a recording machine.

No details are allowed to be published until the following day

Now I cannot confirm if this is accurate as I am going on what was posted in an earlier thread

[catsanddogs]

The only reason I can think that a woman (or man) might give their personal belongings to someone to look after in that situation is if they were going for a swim and didn't want to leave anything on the sand. I wonder if David had a wallet with him and if he did, what happened to it? Hannah's friend who handed her phone to the police must have given an explanation of why and when it came to be in her possession. I also wonder if when her phone was given back to her parents, all the data/photos were still on it.

All this business of phones seems strange to say the least. David's phone found smashed. Hannah's in the possession of a friend. McAnna allegedly using a phone belonging to a member of staff at the 24/7 store to ask for help. And nothing whatsoever in the public domain regards what evidence there might have been on any of them relating to the murders or lead up to the murders.

Yea, that's another oddity. If Sean was using someone else's phone, then how could he phone relatives (?), unless he had memorized all their phone numbers. Not impossible, but not likely. Also, would someone loaning a phone be ok with a (stranger?) another person making long distance calls? Sean is not the picture of politeness, but still..... and he checked/uploaded on to his FB page - still using someone else's mobile phone?

But, to me, the strangest issue with phones (more than the plant of Hannah's or David's phone at the B's dwelling) is that RTP detectives seemed to have done absolutely zero in checking up on 'persons of interest' phone logs - particularly for Monday morning's calls histories. If they did anything in that regard, we haven't heard peep. If they haven't, then I for one wouldn't be surprised, because assessing phone histories would likely implicate those who the RTP are trying to shield.

And I forgot to add - wasn't there news of someone having a photo of an altercation at the bar?

[catsanddogs]

rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 15:11, said:

boomerangutang, on 02 Mar 2015 - 14:46, said:

catsanddogs, on 02 Mar 2015 - 13:32, said:

The only reason I can think that a woman (or man) might give their personal belongings to someone to look after in that situation is if they were going for a swim and didn't want to leave anything on the sand. I wonder if David had a wallet with him and if he did, what happened to it? Hannah's friend who handed her phone to the police must have given an explanation of why and when it came to be in her possession. I also wonder if when her phone was given back to her parents, all the data/photos were still on it.

All this business of phones seems strange to say the least. David's phone found smashed. Hannah's in the possession of a friend. McAnna allegedly using a phone belonging to a member of staff at the 24/7 store to ask for help. And nothing whatsoever in the public domain regards what evidence there might have been on any of them relating to the murders or lead up to the murders.

Yea, that's another oddity. If Sean was using someone else's phone, then how could he phone relatives (?), unless he had memorized all their phone numbers. Not impossible, but not likely. Also, would someone loaning a phone be ok with a (stranger?) another person making long distance calls? Sean is not the picture of politeness, but still..... and he checked/uploaded on to his FB page - still using someone else's mobile phone?

But, to me, the strangest issue with phones (more than the plant of Hannah's or David's phone at the B's dwelling) is that RTP detectives seemed to have done absolutely zero in checking up on 'persons of interest' phone logs - particularly for Monday morning's calls histories. If they did anything in that regard, we haven't heard peep. If they haven't, then I for one wouldn't be surprised, because assessing phone histories would likely implicate those who the RTP are trying to shield.

Talking about phone in the following are the burmese pointing to an unbroken phone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvYo7TGxwc4#t=136

I have also read that it is claimed the running man is one of the B2, can anyone confirm, unable to post link

I have also read that it is claimed the running man is one of the B2, can anyone confirm, unable to post link

I can't confirm it but I get the feeling it could be Win. But if it is Win, he could be running around in a panic after either finding the bodies, or witnessing what went down at the beach that night. It doesn't mean he's guilty of the murders.

If it is Win, I guess he would be in his underwear if it is true that his clothes were stolen. And why would anyone want to steal the B2's clothes?

[Maestro]

Removed an abusive post.

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 20:18, said:

IslandLover, on 02 Mar 2015 - 19:32, said:

jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 18:56, said:jdinasia, on 02 Mar 2015 - 18:56, said:

IslandLover

I don't think "2 puny little midgets" did it.

I think 2 adults did it. Your characterization of them is simplistic. They are both adults.

The trial will be where guilt and innocence is determined. There'll be foreign nationals from at least 2 countries and very likely more in the courtroom daily during the trial as observers. So, yes, you are wrong.

The trial will be where guilt and innocence is determined. There'll be foreign nationals from at least 2 countries and very likely more in the courtroom daily during the trial as observers. So, yes, you are wrong.

My question was actually about whether the evidence in this trial will be allowed to be reported upon and put in the public domain, or will all, or most of it, be hidden from the general public? You did not answer that.

In some S.E. Asian countries daily reporting and publication of the trial proceedings is not allowed (I cited Indonesia as an example where the taking of notes inside a courtroom is not allowed by persons other than the prosecution and the defence, nor is the presence of the press, generally speaking). I'm genuinely interested in the trial procedure in Thailand.

This was raised sometime ago and if I recall correctly

The court is open to the public, No notes are allowed to be taken in the court, The judge/judges give a summary at the end of the session (not sure if this is after any witness statements/cross examination) by speaking into a recording machine.

No details are allowed to be published until the following day

Now I cannot confirm if this is accurate as I am going on what was posted in an earlier thread

Thank you

[boomerangutang]

Again. You have no idea what the evidence is nor the extent of the RTP investigation.

The evidence will be presented in court during the trial.

I don't know if you're addressing me, or just all the concerned observers in general. I can say I DO have an idea of some of the evidence which will be presented in court. Jdinasia, you can speak for yourself and your possible cluelessness, but you don't speak for me. As for prosecution, unless they do a 180 degree change in tactics, they will put forth much of the same garbage they've put forth since the crime, including;

>>> David was stabbed by the sharp end of the hoe,

>>> David and Hannah were lovers getting ready to (or already) engaging in sex on the beach.

....and more mistakes

The opening sentence in JD's quote above; ("You have no idea what the evidence is nor the extent of the RTP investigation.") says two different things: The first part presumes I and others have no idea of evidence - and that's completely wrong. The 2nd part is true, as no one except RTP insiders knows the extent of the RTP investigation. However, I can venture to list the many things which the RTP DIDN'T LOOK AT. Some items are just omissions due to ignorance. Yet other omissions were likely purposeful - because RTP is working hand in hand with the H and his people - to shield the H's people. Shall I make another list of the oft-mentioned screw-ups? I've made many already, and it's tiresome.