Koh Tao suspects to be indicted by end of month

[boomerangutang]

Thanks Dogmatix for posting that. It's hard to tell what is scientifically viable in the report, and how much of it was influenced by findings which police brass want (to shield Thais, to shield the headman's people, and to frame Burmese). Officials claimed early on in the investigation that none of David's blood was found on hoe. Also, the injuries to David's head didn't appear (to some outsiders) as blunt trauma (as alluded to in the forensic report: line 4.3.1.). Plus, the reenactment had the hoe used on David. There appears to be no mention in the autopsy report of the clean blade-like same-sized wounds to David - wounds that could not be viably administered by a blunt garden hoe. Thus far, nothing we've heard from Thai officials has mentioned the possibility of a blade used to harm David. Could that be because A. a blade was not found on the Burmese, and B. a blade (specifically a shark's tooth ring or a punch blade) is the type of weapon one would associate with mafia-wannabe tough guys like the headman's people.

In earlier posts, I had discounted the unused condom as having bearing on solving the crime. Is there mention of clothing in the report? Is there mention of how much alcohol in the blood? It appears there are omissions and mis-readings of evidence. Why am I not surprised?

[thailandchilli]

Thanks Dogmatix for posting that. It's hard to tell what is scientifically viable in the report, and how much of it was influenced by findings which police brass want (to shield Thais, to shield the headman's people, and to frame Burmese). Officials claimed early on in the investigation that none of David's blood was found on hoe. Also, the injuries to David's head didn't appear (to some outsiders) as blunt trauma (as alluded to in the forensic report: line 4.3.1.). Plus, the reenactment had the hoe used on David. There appears to be no mention in the autopsy report of the clean blade-like same-sized wounds to David - wounds that could not be viably administered by a blunt garden hoe. Thus far, nothing we've heard from Thai officials has mentioned the possibility of a blade used to harm David. Could that be because A. a blade was not found on the Burmese, and B. a blade (specifically a shark's tooth ring or a punch blade) is the type of weapon one would associate with mafia-wannabe tough guys like the headman's people.

In earlier posts, I had discounted the unused condom as having bearing on solving the crime. Is there mention of clothing in the report? Is there mention of how much alcohol in the blood? It appears there are omissions and mis-readings of evidence. Why am I not surprised?

I remember one of the reports by the RTP after the autopsy, he was asked if any drugs were found in Hannahs blood. His reply, 'we can't reveal that because of respect for the families' to me that insinuates that there was. (date rape drug?)

Edited November 12, 2014 by thailandchilli

[mojorison]

Since a number of people have expressed interest in the autopsy report, I have taken the trouble to translate the one page extract from the report that has been posted online. It is unverified and lacks the preamble and signature pages among other things but is consistent with media reports that have appeared and seems likely to be genuine.

" Page 3

4.1.1. Severe injuries to the head and face caused by a hard blunt instrument consistent with the item referred to in the report (hoe found at the crime scene).

4.1.2. The area of the vagina exhibited signs of sexual assault.

4.1.3. Results of toxology.

4.1.3.1. No traces of psychotropics or psychoactive substances in the urine or blood.

4.1.3.2. No toxins from food found in the digestive tract.

4.1.4. Results of biochemical analysis.

4.1.4.1. In the area of the right nipple DNA was found from two individuals, Mr B and Mr C (assigned names).

4.1.4.2. Inside the vagina semen and DNA of Mr B was found.

4.1.4.3. In the vulva semen and DNA of Mr B and Mr C was found.

4.1.4. Cause of death. Severe injuries to the head and face caused by violent blows from a blunt instrument.

4.2. Autopsy report on the body of Mr David William Miller.

4.2.1. Severe injuries to the head and face caused by a hard blunt instrument consistent with the item referred in the report (hoe found at the crime scene).

4.2.2. No signs of sexual assault.

4.2.3. Water found in both sides of the chest cavity. Water induced swelling in both lungs.

4.2.4. Results of toxology.

4.2.4.1. No traces of psychotropics or other psychoactive substances in the urine or blood.

4.2.4.2. No toxins from food found in the digestive tract.

4.2.5. Results of biochemical analysis. No semen found in the anus. "

In the widely vewed interview with Sorayud on Channel 3 that can be found on Youtube, the deputy commander of the Institute of Forensic Science at the Police General Hospital, Police Colonel Dr Bhavat Prateepvisrut presented findings from the autopsy that seem identical to this report (illustrated below).

Bhavat Channel 3.jpg

On 12 October Komchadluek also published an article that reported on the results of the autopsy using the same language as the extract that is translated above.

In addition, Komchadluek also reported that the police had explained the reason why they thought there was no DNA found inside the condom found at the scene with Hanna's blood on the outside. According to Komchadluek, police said that the condom was probably an old one left on the beach and that the blood on the outside of it was dripped from the hoe while the perpetrators were using it to murder her.

I am confused about this theory about the condom as I was under the impression that the condom was found at the spot where David's clothes and a large spatter of David's blood were found, whereas most of Hannah's blood was found by the rock where her body was found but I may be wrong on this point.

No blood alcohol level... that's astonishing.... considering.

[Dogmatix]

Thanks Dogmatix for posting that. It's hard to tell what is scientifically viable in the report, and how much of it was influenced by findings which police brass want (to shield Thais, to shield the headman's people, and to frame Burmese). Officials claimed early on in the investigation that none of David's blood was found on hoe. Also, the injuries to David's head didn't appear (to some outsiders) as blunt trauma (as alluded to in the forensic report: line 4.3.1.). Plus, the reenactment had the hoe used on David. There appears to be no mention in the autopsy report of the clean blade-like same-sized wounds to David - wounds that could not be viably administered by a blunt garden hoe. Thus far, nothing we've heard from Thai officials has mentioned the possibility of a blade used to harm David. Could that be because A. a blade was not found on the Burmese, and B. a blade (specifically a shark's tooth ring or a punch blade) is the type of weapon one would associate with mafia-wannabe tough guys like the headman's people.

In earlier posts, I had discounted the unused condom as having bearing on solving the crime. Is there mention of clothing in the report? Is there mention of how much alcohol in the blood? It appears there are omissions and mis-readings of evidence. Why am I not surprised?

The toxology is reported in 2 categories, illicit drugs and other substances that affect mental state which must include alcohol and medication such as tranquilisers. All negative. Yes, that seems strange since we know that both victims spent several hours visiting different bars where we assume they probably drank alcohol.

Pol Col Dr Bhavat was specifically asked by Sorayud in the Channel 3 interview about the possibility of David's wounds being inflicted by some kind of knife and Sorayud actually showed some of wounds on the screen. But Pol Col. Dr Bhavat just re asserted what was in the autopsy report that they were definitely caused by a blunt instrument. It seems odd, if no details of the wounds were provided, i.e. size and depth of each one. There is also no detail of the extent of the wounds to Hannah's skull and brain or any suggestion that any investigation was made using X-Ray or MRI was done to look for evidence of wounding not detectable to the naked eye. Equally no comment on whether wounds were found on any other parts of the bodies, e.g. hands, indicating a struggle or whether traces of any DNA were found in finger nails, teeth etc, at least not in the extract that has been made available. Thai media reports including the Channel 3 interview with Col. Bhavat seem to suggest that there was nothing more.

I remember Khunying Pornthip saying at the FCCT that it was lamentable that the sole source of forensic evidence was the police's Insitute of Forensic Medicine apart from her own organisation, the CSI, which is tiny and can only investigate cases by invitation. At the time of Thaksin's war on drugs she claimed that police doctors, who were usually untrained in forensic pathology would often certify cause of death the next day based on what the police told them without having had to get out of bed and visit the seen of the violent death. Maybe things have been radically improved since then.

[SteveFong]

and thinking humans are supposed to swallow this report that makes no mention of the multiple puncture wounds?

[boomerangutang]

I purposefully have not looked at any photos of Hannah's injuries. It would sadden and anger me. It's David's wounds which will more likely provide clues toward possibly solving the crime. If I had top authority in this investigation, there would be some loud and harsh words spewed forth towards those who have been hired to investigate it. 'Heads rolling' would be too nice a characterization.

[Mooner]

So are we all agreeing that another weapon was used on David?

May have been, apparently.

Hey JD. Here is your post. I said you said "It seems so". You said the above.

I will apologise for quoting you wrong but the terminology although not identical it still means the same.

[jdinasia]

So are we all agreeing that another weapon was used on David?

May have been, apparently.

Hey JD. Here is your post. I said you said "It seems so". You said the above.

I will apologise for quoting you wrong but the terminology although not identical it still means the same.

Not quite the same, go back to post 296 and that is clear

[Krenjai]

I purposefully have not looked at any photos of Hannah's injuries. It would sadden and anger me. It's David's wounds which will more likely provide clues toward possibly solving the crime. If I had top authority in this investigation, there would be some loud and harsh words spewed forth towards those who have been hired to investigate it. 'Heads rolling' would be too nice a characterization.

Be glad you have not seen them, simply because you cannot unseen them, it is too grave! The fact that the autopsy report wants us to believe there was one murder weapon (the hoe) is so outrageous, it is simply insane IMO. I mean think about it, no DNA of David on the hoe and David his wounds clearly show multiple stab wounds on his left side (face, head and shoulder) (yes stab wounds). It is just as insane as the bottle of wine the pancake vendor/translator mentioned as a weapon used on David. I guess the RTP preferred the one weapon theory, so that is the way it will be.

[transam]

Lets just wait for the kids country to give their thoughts............. ...........I have a feeling we might indeed be happy when stuff to most of us is shit at the mo..

[Mooner]

So are we all agreeing that another weapon was used on David?

May have been, apparently.

Hey JD. Here is your post. I said you said "It seems so". You said the above.

I will apologise for quoting you wrong but the terminology although not identical it still means the same.

Not quite the same, go back to post 296 and that is clear

I asked a question.

Your answer is in clearly stated as "May of been, apparently".

May= Possibilty

Apparently=As far as one knows or can see.

So by the rules of the English language you have claimed it is possible and that it seems to look like there was another weapon. Or do you have another dictionary that spouts an alternative version of English language meanings?

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I purposefully have not looked at any photos of Hannah's injuries. It would sadden and anger me. It's David's wounds which will more likely provide clues toward possibly solving the crime. If I had top authority in this investigation, there would be some loud and harsh words spewed forth towards those who have been hired to investigate it. 'Heads rolling' would be too nice a characterization.

Be glad you have not seen them, simply because you cannot unseen them, it is too grave! The fact that the autopsy report wants us to believe there was one murder weapon (the hoe) is so outrageous, it is simply insane IMO. I mean think about it, no DNA of David on the hoe and David his wounds clearly show multiple stab wounds on his left side (face, head and shoulder) (yes stab wounds). It is just as insane as the bottle of wine the pancake vendor/translator mentioned as a weapon used on David. I guess the RTP preferred the one weapon theory, so that is the way it will be.

I agree with above post, but I think most of David's wounds were on his right side, not his left - indicating a left-handed attacker, if he was facing the attacker. David probably thought for a second it would be a fist-fight. It was dark, and then he got a very unpleasant surprise when the fists which were falling on him (maybe he was restrained by another man) ....carried a penetrating blade. I wish I could have been there to assist the two Brits. Among many other things, I'd sorely like to hear sworn testimony from Sean. It sounds as though there were 3 to 6 perps that night, so it's very likely around half a dozen (who are walking around free) know exactly what happened. The Burmese may know more than they're telling, but I can't fathom that they were the main aggressors. There are just too many reasons why that doesn't fit the scenario. Mon certainly knows more than he's allowing the general public to know. Cops may know some of what Mon knows, but it wouldn't surprise anyone if cops are sworn (and/or paid handsomely) to keep secrets.

[CharlieH]

Post removed

[Krenjai]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I purposefully have not looked at any photos of Hannah's injuries. It would sadden and anger me. It's David's wounds which will more likely provide clues toward possibly solving the crime. If I had top authority in this investigation, there would be some loud and harsh words spewed forth towards those who have been hired to investigate it. 'Heads rolling' would be too nice a characterization.

Be glad you have not seen them, simply because you cannot unseen them, it is too grave! The fact that the autopsy report wants us to believe there was one murder weapon (the hoe) is so outrageous, it is simply insane IMO. I mean think about it, no DNA of David on the hoe and David his wounds clearly show multiple stab wounds on his left side (face, head and shoulder) (yes stab wounds). It is just as insane as the bottle of wine the pancake vendor/translator mentioned as a weapon used on David. I guess the RTP preferred the one weapon theory, so that is the way it will be.

I agree with above post, but I think most of David's wounds were on his right side, not his left - indicating a left-handed attacker, if he was facing the attacker. David probably thought for a second it would be a fist-fight. It was dark, and then he got a very unpleasant surprise when the fists which were falling on him (maybe he was restrained by another man) ....carried a penetrating blade. I wish I could have been there to assist the two Brits. Among many other things, I'd sorely like to hear sworn testimony from Sean. It sounds as though there were 3 to 6 perps that night, so it's very likely around half a dozen (who are walking around free) know exactly what happened. The Burmese may know more than they're telling, but I can't fathom that they were the main aggressors. There are just too many reasons why that doesn't fit the scenario. Mon certainly knows more than he's allowing the general public to know. Cops may know some of what Mon knows, but it wouldn't surprise anyone if cops are sworn (and/or paid handsomely) to keep secrets.

Fully agree with ALL your comments and yes, it was the right side as you point out, my mistake.

[Bleacher Bum East]

So are we all agreeing that another weapon was used on David?

May have been, apparently.

Hey JD. Here is your post. I said you said "It seems so". You said the above.

I will apologise for quoting you wrong but the terminology although not identical it still means the same.

Not quite the same, go back to post 296 and that is clear

My recollection is that the two of you made these posts immediately after I had posted that in some reports around Sept. 18, immediately after the forensic autopsy was performed at the forensics hospital in Bangkok, the police and the chief of forensics had stated that a weapon other than the hoe was used on David.

My post was then removed because someone reported that it had direct quotes from a source we are not allowed to quote on this forum (even though I don't believe there were any direct quotes).

In these reports, the police said the hoe was used and only Hannah's blood was found on it. They also said that another weapon might have been wielded by the killers on David, and that second weapon used to bludgeon him was likely a metal object.

The chief of the Institute of Forensic Medicine also spoke with reporters after the autopsy (i.e. not just the specific media org). He said that by examining the wounds they couldn't tell exactly what types of weapons [plural] the killers used, only that the objects were "blunt". [i'd like to see the Thai word this was translated from, and know whether it is a term of art in forensics and what that term refers to].

In any event, I think you can infer (but not know for sure) that right after the initial forensics exam the Thai authorities did not believe that the hoe was the weapon used to kill both David and Hannah. I think there are other similar reports on this but don't have time to find them right now.

BTW, the chief of the Institute for Forensic Medicine also said that David had wounds on his hands and bruises on his back, and these wounds were an indication that he likely had a fight with whoever attacked him and was pulled down to the sand in that fight.

Edit: There were also reports that day that it was British embassy staff who arranged for Hannah and David's bodies to be released from the Institute of Forensic Medicine just after the autopsy for transport back to England---suggesting the British government arranged for the transportation of the bodies and not the families, who did not arrive until the next day.

Also reports on the detention and DNA testing of 3 Burmese who were drinking near the crime scene that night. I wonder who those guys were?

All interesting reading from reports right after the murders. Worth a Google.

PS There are no direct quotes from any source in this comment.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Bleacher Bum East

[greenchair]

Why do people make such loooooong posts . 2 or 3 posts short and to the point works best.

[Mooner]

Why do people make such loooooong posts . 2 or 3 posts short and to the point works best.

Pay attention. It wasn't that bad.

[Bleacher Bum East]

Why do people make such loooooong posts . 2 or 3 posts short and to the point works best.

If you don't have the attention span to read the infrequent longer posts that provide some useful information and insight that might help you follow and analyze the case more accurately, then no worries just scroll through them.

The same way I scroll through the hundreds of 2-3 line posts that provide absolutely no useful information or insight into the case.

I realize that's a broad generalization that may appear unfair to some posters, but since this is my third sentence and you want me to stop here, I won't take any more of our time to provide any support or explanation for my claim

[smokie36]

Well looks like they are going to be indicted on the 20th.

Will there be a Xmas crucifixion?

I say this with no mirth whatsoever.

[Dogmatix]

So are we all agreeing that another weapon was used on David?

Hey JD. Here is your post. I said you said "It seems so". You said the above.

I will apologise for quoting you wrong but the terminology although not identical it still means the same.

Not quite the same, go back to post 296 and that is clear

My recollection is that the two of you made these posts immediately after I had posted that in some reports around Sept. 18, immediately after the forensic autopsy was performed at the forensics hospital in Bangkok, the police and the chief of forensics had stated that a weapon other than the hoe was used on David.

My post was then removed because someone reported that it had direct quotes from a source we are not allowed to quote on this forum (even though I don't believe there were any direct quotes).

In these reports, the police said the hoe was used and only Hannah's blood was found on it. They also said that another weapon might have been wielded by the killers on David, and that second weapon used to bludgeon him was likely a metal object.

The chief of the Institute of Forensic Medicine also spoke with reporters after the autopsy (i.e. not just the specific media org). He said that by examining the wounds they couldn't tell exactly what types of weapons [plural] the killers used, only that the objects were "blunt". [i'd like to see the Thai word this was translated from, and know whether it is a term of art in forensics and what that term refers to].

In any event, I think you can infer (but not know for sure) that right after the initial forensics exam the Thai authorities did not believe that the hoe was the weapon used to kill both David and Hannah. I think there are other similar reports on this but don't have time to find them right now.

BTW, the chief of the Institute for Forensic Medicine also said that David had wounds on his hands and bruises on his back, and these wounds were an indication that he likely had a fight with whoever attacked him and was pulled down to the sand in that fight.

Edit: There were also reports that day that it was British embassy staff who arranged for Hannah and David's bodies to be released from the Institute of Forensic Medicine just after the autopsy for transport back to England---suggesting the British government arranged for the transportation of the bodies and not the families, who did not arrive until the next day.

Also reports on the detention and DNA testing of 3 Burmese who were drinking near the crime scene that night. I wonder who those guys were?

All interesting reading from reports right after the murders. Worth a Google.

PS There are no direct quotes from any source in this comment.

I recollect the police saying that David had wounds and his hands etc indicating he had fought vigorously to defend himself from his attackers. Also that that were searching for another blunt instrument (though at the time to be a stick or piece of wood) that was used on David, as it coudn't have been the hoe due to the lack of his blood found on it. However, it was not the deputy commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, who said that. It was another policeman or a journalist who said that. I am sure the clips and articles are still available online, if you want to research it. Any suggestion that David fought back or was stabbed, or that there was a second murder weapon was eliminated from police accounts soon after that. However, there has been no convincing explanation of how he sustained the stab wounds, nor any further report of wounds to his hands or back, nor any explanation of why there were no traces of his blood on the hoe, since it has been assumed to be the sole murder weapon.

The initial crime scene report which is available online posited that the victims were surprised with blows from the hoe while engaging in sexual intercourse and the confession signed by the 2B was almost identical, as if the 2B were unable to add anything much to what the police had already surmised, (the pancake man added the large wine bottle as an alternative murder weapon but this seems to have been his own original contribution). This version has the advantage of being able to explain how two tiny little men were able to overpower a large man and a woman and avoids the problem of a second, missing murder weapon of a type more usually carried by local thugs and bouncers than newly arrived Burmese workers, even though it fails to explain the absence of David's blood on the hoe. The original version involving David fighting back would automatically lead to an assumption that 3 or more attackers were involved. If he fought one pint sized Burmese boy (a hoe is only an effective weapon if the victim is taken by surprise or being held down, since you can see it coming and can disarm your attacker if you are much bigger than him), he would have won and Hannah probably could have escaped from the other pint sized boy while the fight was still going on by biting and scratching him. The explanation in the crime scene report and the confession is virtually the only one possible, if the 2B are the perps. Anything at variance with that seems to have been glossed over or ignored.

BTW the phrase used in the autopsy report and by the deputy commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine for a blunt instrument is "song kheng mi khom", literally "a hard, blunt instrument."

[jdinasia]

The official autopsy report was released?

[boomerangutang]

The official autopsy report was released?

Have you ever heard the expression, 'floated the idea' ?

The autopsy we've been hearing about is probably being 'floated' by officials. If it's accepted by enough people, then officials will maintain that it's the official report - because it fits with their soggy, inept and incomplete crime scenario.

However, if it doesn't 'float', which it certainly doesn't here on Thaivisa (which may be indicative of 99% of those who are following this case), then cops can distance themselves from it and say it's 'unofficial'

Similar to the scenario where cops claimed Hannah's phone was found in back of the scapegoats' cabin, ...until a day later when social media released some photos which proved Hannah's phone was given to police (by her gf) the morning after the crime. Right away, the cops said, "Oh, we meant to say it was David's phone found behind the Burmeses' room." Whoops, another mental mistake. Cops shoot another own goal. It so happens the cops found David's phone at the crime scene the morning after the crime. If they were merely conniving to frame the Burmese and shield the Headman's people, it would be bad enough. But because Thai officials are such world-class bumblers, it makes it more like a sick comedy. Like Laurel and Hardy on a mixture of quaaludes and meth.

[tingtongtourist]

I would think that evidence would come out in a trial.

In that case amusing and exciting times are ahead of us. The realist in me says this will never make it into the courtroom.

I think it will but cannot claim to be sure

If they do indeed have a DNA match, the 3rd Burmese to place them at the scene, and the phone ; it would likely be enough to overcome the other issues.

other issues..yes it is other issues that make this case like swiss cheese.

Just this 1 for example...

If they did conclude the hoe did not kill david (evidence knife wounds to neck) how did the boys re-enact the death of david?

In the so called enactment, if the boys ( or if police did prompt them to) act out the killing of David with the hoe, then i must ask how can any of the confession or evidence stand up?

If the Burmese boy did the action of killing david with hoe, then surely the whole case and theory of the police and prosecution could not stand up?

[boomerangutang]

The reenactment was farce personified. The Burmese didn't have a clue. Police brass handlers were literally handling the boys by grabbing their arms and showing them what they needed to do. They could have had two crash test dummies out there, and it would have been as convincing.

[Bleacher Bum East]

My recollection is that the two of you made these posts immediately after I had posted that in some reports around Sept. 18, immediately after the forensic autopsy was performed at the forensics hospital in Bangkok, the police and the chief of forensics had stated that a weapon other than the hoe was used on David.

My post was then removed because someone reported that it had direct quotes from a source we are not allowed to quote on this forum (even though I don't believe there were any direct quotes).

In these reports, the police said the hoe was used and only Hannah's blood was found on it. They also said that another weapon might have been wielded by the killers on David, and that second weapon used to bludgeon him was likely a metal object.

The chief of the Institute of Forensic Medicine also spoke with reporters after the autopsy (i.e. not just the specific media org). He said that by examining the wounds they couldn't tell exactly what types of weapons [plural] the killers used, only that the objects were "blunt". [i'd like to see the Thai word this was translated from, and know whether it is a term of art in forensics and what that term refers to].

In any event, I think you can infer (but not know for sure) that right after the initial forensics exam the Thai authorities did not believe that the hoe was the weapon used to kill both David and Hannah. I think there are other similar reports on this but don't have time to find them right now.

BTW, the chief of the Institute for Forensic Medicine also said that David had wounds on his hands and bruises on his back, and these wounds were an indication that he likely had a fight with whoever attacked him and was pulled down to the sand in that fight.

Edit: There were also reports that day that it was British embassy staff who arranged for Hannah and David's bodies to be released from the Institute of Forensic Medicine just after the autopsy for transport back to England---suggesting the British government arranged for the transportation of the bodies and not the families, who did not arrive until the next day.

Also reports on the detention and DNA testing of 3 Burmese who were drinking near the crime scene that night. I wonder who those guys were?

All interesting reading from reports right after the murders. Worth a Google.

PS There are no direct quotes from any source in this comment.

I recollect the police saying that David had wounds and his hands etc indicating he had fought vigorously to defend himself from his attackers. Also that that were searching for another blunt instrument (though at the time to be a stick or piece of wood) that was used on David, as it coudn't have been the hoe due to the lack of his blood found on it. However, it was not the deputy commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, who said that. It was another policeman or a journalist who said that. I am sure the clips and articles are still available online, if you want to research it. Any suggestion that David fought back or was stabbed, or that there was a second murder weapon was eliminated from police accounts soon after that. However, there has been no convincing explanation of how he sustained the stab wounds, nor any further report of wounds to his hands or back, nor any explanation of why there were no traces of his blood on the hoe, since it has been assumed to be the sole murder weapon.

The initial crime scene report which is available online posited that the victims were surprised with blows from the hoe while engaging in sexual intercourse and the confession signed by the 2B was almost identical, as if the 2B were unable to add anything much to what the police had already surmised, (the pancake man added the large wine bottle as an alternative murder weapon but this seems to have been his own original contribution). This version has the advantage of being able to explain how two tiny little men were able to overpower a large man and a woman and avoids the problem of a second, missing murder weapon of a type more usually carried by local thugs and bouncers than newly arrived Burmese workers, even though it fails to explain the absence of David's blood on the hoe. The original version involving David fighting back would automatically lead to an assumption that 3 or more attackers were involved. If he fought one pint sized Burmese boy (a hoe is only an effective weapon if the victim is taken by surprise or being held down, since you can see it coming and can disarm your attacker if you are much bigger than him), he would have won and Hannah probably could have escaped from the other pint sized boy while the fight was still going on by biting and scratching him. The explanation in the crime scene report and the confession is virtually the only one possible, if the 2B are the perps. Anything at variance with that seems to have been glossed over or ignored.

BTW the phrase used in the autopsy report and by the deputy commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine for a blunt instrument is "song kheng mi khom", literally "a hard, blunt instrument."

"BTW, the chief of the Institute for Forensic Medicine also said that David had wounds on his hands and bruises on his back, and these wounds were an indication that he likely had a fight with whoever attacked him and was pulled down to the sand in that fight."

The source I was referring to did not get the information from the police, it was in fact the chief of the Institute for Forensic Medicine who said this right after the forensic autopsy was performed.

Google: Koh Tao murders AND still no arrests AND September 18.

Read all of the reports from this day and you get a lot of contemporaneous information that is very interesting.

[meand]

WHat they need to do is throw a boatload of these corrupt Thais into jail.

Living here five years I don't think I've ever seen a powerful thai hailed of to jail on the news.

Edited November 14, 2014 by meand

[Bleacher Bum East]

I recollect the police saying that David had wounds and his hands etc indicating he had fought vigorously to defend himself from his attackers. Also that that were searching for another blunt instrument (though at the time to be a stick or piece of wood) that was used on David, as it coudn't have been the hoe due to the lack of his blood found on it. However, it was not the deputy commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, who said that. It was another policeman or a journalist who said that. I am sure the clips and articles are still available online, if you want to research it. Any suggestion that David fought back or was stabbed, or that there was a second murder weapon was eliminated from police accounts soon after that. However, there has been no convincing explanation of how he sustained the stab wounds, nor any further report of wounds to his hands or back, nor any explanation of why there were no traces of his blood on the hoe, since it has been assumed to be the sole murder weapon.

The initial crime scene report which is available online posited that the victims were surprised with blows from the hoe while engaging in sexual intercourse and the confession signed by the 2B was almost identical, as if the 2B were unable to add anything much to what the police had already surmised, (the pancake man added the large wine bottle as an alternative murder weapon but this seems to have been his own original contribution). This version has the advantage of being able to explain how two tiny little men were able to overpower a large man and a woman and avoids the problem of a second, missing murder weapon of a type more usually carried by local thugs and bouncers than newly arrived Burmese workers, even though it fails to explain the absence of David's blood on the hoe. The original version involving David fighting back would automatically lead to an assumption that 3 or more attackers were involved. If he fought one pint sized Burmese boy (a hoe is only an effective weapon if the victim is taken by surprise or being held down, since you can see it coming and can disarm your attacker if you are much bigger than him), he would have won and Hannah probably could have escaped from the other pint sized boy while the fight was still going on by biting and scratching him. The explanation in the crime scene report and the confession is virtually the only one possible, if the 2B are the perps. Anything at variance with that seems to have been glossed over or ignored.

BTW the phrase used in the autopsy report and by the deputy commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine for a blunt instrument is "song kheng mi khom", literally "a hard, blunt instrument."

"The original version involving David fighting back would automatically lead to an assumption that 3 or more attackers were involved."

Here's some pure speculation to chew on:

When the two accused Burmese men were arrested, their friend who was on the beach with them was also arrested (and this friend's DNA was on the cigarette butt---i.e. the third set of DNA).

So at the time of the arrests, the police likely did think they had captured three "perpetrators",

and this would match up with the "theory of the case" they had constructed as to how the rape and murder went down---and three killers would have a much higher degree of public credibility than two.

But the the third Burmese man inconveniently had an airtight alibi, which pretty much blew the "theory of the case" right out of the water.

So the arrests didn't quite pan out as expected . . . and therefore it was necessary to improvise and run with a two killer theory rather than three.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Bleacher Bum East

[tingtongtourist]

The reenactment was farce personified. The Burmese didn't have a clue. Police brass handlers were literally handling the boys by grabbing their arms and showing them what they needed to do. They could have had two crash test dummies out there, and it would have been as convincing.

And then you have to ask, if these burmese confessor didnt know how to re-enact the chrime and the police dont know (and just help them do it) then how does the case against them even exist?

can the video of re-enactment be produced into court as efidence?

If so the for sure some serious questions could be asked by him defending the burmese?

Like..who made knife wounds on David? Where is weapon?

Sounds like another explanation could be that whoever sickos did this perhaps had the power over them?...murders after extreme revenge get a thrills over forcing boys to do something to the victims and watch?

Yes just more speculation unprooved but cannot see how these 2 midgets could possibly over-power david by themslfs?

Even if standing up they probably not have hieght and reach to stab male victim in the neck?

a lot of unanswered questions AND there is also the farangs that were hanging with/around victims. Cannot rule them out either, but then again semen DNA not suppose to lie

[AGareth2]

it is a fairy tale

like many things in this country

[Artisi]

The reenactment was farce personified. The Burmese didn't have a clue. Police brass handlers were literally handling the boys by grabbing their arms and showing them what they needed to do. They could have had two crash test dummies out there, and it would have been as convincing.

Think crash dummies were running the show.