Koh Tao murder trial rescheduled

[AleG]

I don't change my tune, I stick to facts and rational thinking. You wouldn't understand that.

"Wasn't it you who claimed B and C's DNA was found on the cigarette and A and B's DNA found on the body ?"

No, it wasn't me claiming it, it was one of the investigators on the case.

"I guess no matter what people discuss on a discussion forum, you will try to prove them wrong."

No, it's not like that, it's that you are wrong pretty consistently, so you feel singled out.

How about you prove yourself right instead (fat chance), you said Hanna's DNA was in a cigarette butt together with the DNA from one of the Burmese suspects.

Of course you can't prove yourself right on that, because you simply made it up... as usual.

"Even admitting your pervious statement about who's DNA was found where was just some rubbish you made up to try to put someone down. Bit of a CT on the quiet arnt you ?"

I admitted what? You don't make sense... as usual.

"Is this true that Hannah's DNA was also on the ciggy butt" ?... Is this what you consider to be a claim ? I would consider that to be a question.

I am not sure you have yet to prove me wrong on anything yet. When you make a claim and someone proves it wrong you then claim it wasn't you who claimed it but an investigator.

When I do the same i.e. Traces of the 23-year-old woman's DNA and that of one other person were found on a cigarette butt around 50 yards from where her body was found.

There are suggestions that Witheridge shared the cigarette with her attackers before she was killed. http://www.ibtimes.c...killers-1466412

I am claimed to have made it up.

Despite someone actually posting a link to the question I posed you still choose to call me a liar.

You need to up your game a bit.

"Is this true that Hannah's DNA was also on the ciggy butt ?

If so that changes the fact the boys got horny watching them D +H making out on the sand, to the boys shared a song and a ciggy with Hannah and all were having a good time. All were a bit tipsy and we know what happens when some girls have has a few. There she was alone with 2 not bad looking Asian men. So she goes off behind a rock with them and has a bit of fun.

There's your reason why 2 sets of Asian DNA were found inside of Hannah. DNA in Hannah and on the ciggy."

There's your claim, that the reason DNA from Hanna was found in the cigarette was because she shared it with the Burmese men. You made all that pathetic scenario up by yourself.

As for proving you wrong, well, off the top of my head I particularly remember when you said Surat Thani was an island; it serves to illustrate how completely clueless you are.

[berybert]

I don't change my tune, I stick to facts and rational thinking. You wouldn't understand that.

"Wasn't it you who claimed B and C's DNA was found on the cigarette and A and B's DNA found on the body ?"

No, it wasn't me claiming it, it was one of the investigators on the case.

"I guess no matter what people discuss on a discussion forum, you will try to prove them wrong."

No, it's not like that, it's that you are wrong pretty consistently, so you feel singled out.

How about you prove yourself right instead (fat chance), you said Hanna's DNA was in a cigarette butt together with the DNA from one of the Burmese suspects.

Of course you can't prove yourself right on that, because you simply made it up... as usual.

"Even admitting your pervious statement about who's DNA was found where was just some rubbish you made up to try to put someone down. Bit of a CT on the quiet arnt you ?"

I admitted what? You don't make sense... as usual.

"Is this true that Hannah's DNA was also on the ciggy butt" ?... Is this what you consider to be a claim ? I would consider that to be a question.

I am not sure you have yet to prove me wrong on anything yet. When you make a claim and someone proves it wrong you then claim it wasn't you who claimed it but an investigator.

When I do the same i.e. Traces of the 23-year-old woman's DNA and that of one other person were found on a cigarette butt around 50 yards from where her body was found.

There are suggestions that Witheridge shared the cigarette with her attackers before she was killed. http://www.ibtimes.c...killers-1466412

I am claimed to have made it up.

Despite someone actually posting a link to the question I posed you still choose to call me a liar.

You need to up your game a bit.

"Is this true that Hannah's DNA was also on the ciggy butt ?

If so that changes the fact the boys got horny watching them D +H making out on the sand, to the boys shared a song and a ciggy with Hannah and all were having a good time. All were a bit tipsy and we know what happens when some girls have has a few. There she was alone with 2 not bad looking Asian men. So she goes off behind a rock with them and has a bit of fun.

There's your reason why 2 sets of Asian DNA were found inside of Hannah. DNA in Hannah and on the ciggy."

There's your claim, that the reason DNA from Hanna was found in the cigarette was because she shared it with the Burmese men. You made all that pathetic scenario up by yourself.

As for proving you wrong, well, off the top of my head I particularly remember when you said Surat Thani was an island; it serves to illustrate how completely clueless you are.

You really are a bit of a dope arnt you. Yes, that's my claim !. As I said you need to up your game.

Well done on the island bit tho.

[Gweiloman]

Once more, the father didn't say he left the island on the morning of the murders.

In any case it's a fun insight into the non-working logic of a conspiracy theorist: the father who has spent millions upon millions, pushed levers at all levels of government and silenced all witnesses to remove any and all suspicions from his son, then just goes out and blurts "yeah, he left the island immediately after the murders".

AleG, you must really be a despicable person in real life and I'm so glad that I've not had the misfortune to have met you.

Any normal father would have said "my son was not here" as opposed to "my son had left BEFORE the murders".

You are most probably in denial of your own personal circumstances.

"AleG, you must really be a despicable person in real life and I'm so glad that I've not had the misfortune to have met you."

I'm curious about how you reached that conclusion. Is it because you feel inadequate to argue things in a rational way and must lash out with insults?

I am perfectly capable of arguing things in a rational way. I just can't be bothered to argue with someone who very obviously has an agenda which goes against any rational thought.

[rockingrobin]

A cigarette butt found near the bodies on Friday (September 19) contained the DNA of Ms Witheridge and another person. It was believed the second person was someone she knew because the cigarette was shared -

http://www.thephuketnews.com/koh-tao-suspects-asian-men-48820.php

If accurate is interesting , am I correct in thinking that from the article the cigarette but was found during the reconstruction some 5 days after the murders. Also I have made the assumption that this is a different butt to one found 30-50m away

The other aspect about the dna is timeline,

Bodies found 15th September

Autopsy carried out dna results evening 17th http://www.thephuketnews.com/autopsy-points-to-sex-struggle-in-koh-tao-murders-48760.php

18th September 12 suspects cleared

Police today continued to hunt for clues on Koh Tao as post-mortem examinations of the victims' bodies in Bangkok found no DNA links to 12 people police have questioned so far. - See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/koh-tao-ban-full-moon-parties-48789.php#sthash.4tf7MXkD.dpuf

This seems a quick analysis

Did anybody see the footage on the tv around 16th September when a pair of bloodied jeans were discoverd at a burmese residence

Edited February 3, 2015 by rockingrobin

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 03 Feb 2015 - 21:17, said:

A cigarette butt found near the bodies on Friday (September 19) contained the DNA of Ms Witheridge and another person. It was believed the second person was someone she knew because the cigarette was shared -

http://www.thephuketnews.com/koh-tao-suspects-asian-men-48820.php

If accurate is interesting , am I correct in thinking that from the article the cigarette but was found during the reconstruction some 5 days after the murders. Also I have made the assumption that this is a different butt to one found 30-50m away

The other aspect about the dna is timeline,

Bodies found 15th September

Autopsy carried out dna results evening 17th http://www.thephuketnews.com/autopsy-points-to-sex-struggle-in-koh-tao-murders-48760.php

18th September 12 suspects cleared

Police today continued to hunt for clues on Koh Tao as post-mortem examinations of the victims' bodies in Bangkok found no DNA links to 12 people police have questioned so far. - See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/koh-tao-ban-full-moon-parties-48789.php#sthash.4tf7MXkD.dpuf

This seems a quick analysis

Did anybody see the footage on the tv around 16th September when a pair of bloodied jeans were discoverd at a burmese residence

Did anybody see the footage on the tv around 16th September when a pair of bloodied jeans were discoverd at a burmese residence

Yes, I think it was shown on Sky News. The video should still be available on YouTube.

[greenchair]

There you go even after all these months and looking at the same reports day after day.

Something new is pointed out by a member that I had missed.

In this instance loony has cleverly pointed out that Sean swore black and blue that his cut was from a motorbike.

But his alibi confirmer (sven) said he chatted with Sean the day before I think and the cut was from a bar fight.

So now we are back to sven.

Who is Sven and where was he on the night.

This is why we all need to keep looking. Things come up everyday.

[greenchair]

And another strange thing.

The butts were found 2 days after the murder (I am assuming it is the first enactment "the nighttime one")

1. Hannah didn't wear lipstick.

2. How come they are found 2 days after the crime.

3. Wouldn't the sea have washed up over them.

Does anyone have a news clipping of the night reenactment.

[greenchair]

I would also love to see the footage of the bloody jeans found at the burmese place.

[loonodingle]

There you go even after all these months and looking at the same reports day after day.

Something new is pointed out by a member that I had missed.

In this instance loony has cleverly pointed out that Sean swore black and blue that his cut was from a motorbike.

But his alibi confirmer (sven) said he chatted with Sean the day before I think and the cut was from a bar fight.

So now we are back to sven.

Who is Sven and where was he on the night.

This is why we all need to keep looking. Things come up everyday.

May I also point out Sean initially told a reporter he was playing a guitar on the beach with others. He then said he was in his room. This was published in the Chang Rai Times as attached

Wednesday, September 24th, 2014

Sean told The Telegraph News he had to run for his life from the island after he was threatened by local mafias, and posted the picture of two men which he took by his mobile phone.

Sean also said he was among a group of people playing guitar on the beach near the scene.

Mr. Montriwat discredited the Briton’s claim saying in fact on the night of the murder an employee of a spa has told him she helped to wash and clean blood from the face and body of Mr Sean who is a friend of the murdered David Miller.

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/police-release-suspects-in-murder-of-two-brits-in-koh-tao.html

The Investigation's from Outside authority's as agreed with the Prime minister and ambassadors was also stopped by the Police chief

Foreign investigators barred from Thailand: police chief

Koh Tao case with prosecutors now; UK asked to launch independent probe

Foreign countries are not permitted to have investigators look into crimes that occur in Thailand, as that would be considered a violation of the country's sovereignty, Police chief Pol General Somyot Pumpunmuang said yesterday.

He was referring to the murder of Britons David Miller and Hannah Witheridge on Koh Tao last month. Doubts have been raised about the police investigation that led to the arrest of two migrant workers from Myanmar, with many people claiming that the pair are scapegoats.

In a meeting initiated by the Thai side with Somyot earlier this week, the United Kingdom and Myanmar ambassadors said they wanted their representatives involved in the investigation.

http://www.asianewsnet.net/Foreign-investigators-barred-from-Thailand-police--66057.html

[thailandchilli]

We've also got reports that Hannah was dragged some distance from where she was first attacked and also manged to run away before being captured again.

Could this blend in with the scenario that she was with other people sharing a cigarette before something then happened and while running away she headed to the spot where she was found or was dragged there?

Miller and Witheridge were seen partying on the beach with a group of about six people the night they were murdered, the source said.

Witheridge, meanwhile, was dragged away from the first attack spot, said the same police officer.

The officer said Witheridge did manage to run for some distance but was hit repeatedly in the face with a hoe which suggested whoever attacked her could have held a personal grudge against her.

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-muder-burmese-migrants-cleared-after-dna-tests-burma-myanmar/44236

[loonodingle]

Hannah had been restrained quite violently in my opinion on look at the pictures. Nail marks and bruising. Quite horrific attack. However looking at the news today becoming all to commonplace around the world. Unfortunately in this case the scene has been set and unless a video or the like was found no one will know the truth. Except the people who done it.

[boomerangutang]

Message to young attractive farang women visiting Thailand's beach regions:

Don't act too friendly with local guys. Most of the local guys are probably ok, but some will interpret friendliness as an invitation for easy sex. Beware. Better to be a bit stand-offish than to be raped or harmed.

There is also the case (one of many) of the pretty young Dutch gal who was raped by a Thai. It happened at Krabi, which is a short distance from Ko Tao. They had been part of a group of 3 having dinner at a restaurant. Her farang male friend had gone back to the g.h. on his own, and the Thai man had offered to take the lady back to her g.h. She was roughly raped (with bruises). Thai man was caught by Thai police, and admitted doing the rape. However, he later retracted his admission, and was let go (with no repercussions) by his fellow Thai men. So it goes, in 'Land of Fake Smiles'.

As happens with rape investigations ww, but no less in Thailand, the woman had to tell her story to leering male cops - probably repeatedly. Those familiar with Thai bureaucracy know the drill. You have an issue/problem, you find an authority, you tell that person the whole story. At the end, the bureaucrat says, "Oh, you need to tell it to so 'n so." So you go to the next person, tell the whole story, and again you're told, 'oh, you need to make a report to so 'n so' .......

Edited February 4, 2015 by boomerangutang

[stephen terry]

It happened at Krabi, which is a short distance from Ko Tao.

It isn't a short distance as Krabi is on the Andeman sea side and Koh Tao is in the Gulf of Thailand. That's a 4 hour drive to the East from Krabi and then a long boat trip via Koh Samui.

[stephen terry]

We've also got reports that Hannah was dragged some distance from where she was first attacked and also manged to run away before being captured again.

Could this blend in with the scenario that she was with other people sharing a cigarette before something then happened and while running away she headed to the spot where she was found or was dragged there?

Miller and Witheridge were seen partying on the beach with a group of about six people the night they were murdered, the source said.

Witheridge, meanwhile, was dragged away from the first attack spot, said the same police officer.

The officer said Witheridge did manage to run for some distance but was hit repeatedly in the face with a hoe which suggested whoever attacked her could have held a personal grudge against her.

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-muder-burmese-migrants-cleared-after-dna-tests-burma-myanmar/44236

Yes, it gets quite confusing assessing the scenario possibilities. What is key (to me) is how David was killed. Assuming Hannah was running away and hit with a hoe and dragged to the murder site by whoever, and if David went to the rescue - who then attacked him and with what weapon?

While I could just about picture the B2 or others assaulting Hannah - it doesn't make sense that the B2 killed David, then went home to sleep and that none of the other members of the group grassed them up the next day.

Logic tells me it was a gang attack, and then a cover-up.

[seahorse]

It's also alleged that Sean McAnna was in fact on the beach playing his guitar that night/morning. It's been confirmed a day then retracted by a British expat who works at a dive school on Koh Tao. It was also reported in the press and then Sean changed his story. He changed his story about his injury being from a bike accident to being stabbed by a Thai over a room for rent.

Sean McAnna holds the key in my honest opinion. Despite his protestations not one bit of evidence has surfaced of his injury being seen prior to that night. Unlike Chris Ware who has photographic evidence. However Sean has melted away. Saving his own skin. To scared to come forward. Perhaps he could be implicated someway. Who knows.

Yes. Sean did say that he was on the beach.

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/police-release-suspects-in-murder-of-two-brits-in-koh-tao.html

Sean also said he was among a group of people playing guitar on the beach near the scene.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Mr. Montriwat said he is entirely "innocent." He also disputed reports that Mr. Miller and Ms. Witheridge were involved in a row at the bar he owned prior to their deaths.

Mr. Montriwat said it was actually the Scotsman who should be treated as a suspect. "On the night of the murder, a spa worker told me [he/she] helped clean splatters of blood from Sean's body."

He also claimed that he and his friend cornered Mr. McAnna because they wanted to question him about his whereabouts on the night the two Britons were killed.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1411548167&section=12

Mon also confirms that he knows Sean was there on the beach at the time.

He also confirms that he is taking a keen interest in the case, first entering the crime scene to consult with police officers and now questioning suspects (after cornering them).

Also Sean and Mon both agree about what the subject of conversation was in the convenience store incident.

Why did Sean not use his own phone there? Where was his phone? What happened to it? What photos are on it? What happened just before they were in the convenience store?

Whose blood is on Sean's guitar? Why did he not want to clean it off?

And which one of these two is telling the truth when Mon says Sean did it and Sean said "He did it?" I think they both know. And one of them was telling the truth.

I believe the Scots mon this time with what he thought might be his last words..

[stephen terry]

And this extract from the same source above, Sept 24th.

Meanwhile, a police source said it was impossible that people on the island couldn’t have any knowledge of what might have happened on the night of the murder. Police believe that people don’t want to come forward as they do not want to have problems with an influential group.

I didn't realise the Burmese 2 were part of an influential group. Except of course, they were later set-up by this same group. And which ties in exactly with my opinion that had the B2 been involved they would have been fingered by the island's people.

Edited February 4, 2015 by stephen terry

[boomerangutang]

It happened at Krabi, which is a short distance from Ko Tao.

It isn't a short distance as Krabi is on the Andeman sea side and Koh Tao is in the Gulf of Thailand. That's a 4 hour drive to the East from Krabi and then a long boat trip via Koh Samui.

'close' is a subjective term. You could have breakfast on Ko Tao, and get to Krabi by tea time.

[thailandchilli]

Its not just the International press and UK authorities wanting independent verification of the DNA, this from the Thai press editorial

Due to Thai police's unprofessionalism and history of forced confessions, an impartial review of the Koh Tao murder case is needed to ensure justice.
So far, the police investigation has been disturbingly unprofessional
we believe it is necessary for an independent body to investigate the forensic evidence that has allegedly implicated the two men. The investigation should be carried out by a foreign authority that has accredited technological facilities to verify the DNA results.
The independent inquiry should (1) confirm that none of the DNA samples have been tampered with, and (2) evaluate the alleged match between the two suspects and the DNA traces acquired from Witheridge's body.
If these conditions are not met, we fear that Thai police will add to their legacy of falsely accusing innocent people.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1412595379&section=02

Edited February 4, 2015 by thailandchilli

[greenchair]

Sean said he was at the beach playing guitar.

Then he said he was sleeping all through the night.

Sean said the cut was from a motorbike accident.

Then from a fight in a bar.

Mon said it was him in the early morning video as he was running to the beach to see what happened.

Mon has never denied that it was himself in the video.

Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it.

The guitar turned up at court.

Nomsod said he was in a test at 9.30, but his fake video footage shows him leaving at 10.30.

Nothing matches from these guys.

[boomerangutang]

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

Its not just the International press and UK authorities wanting independent verification of the DNA, this from the Thai press editorial

Due to Thai police's unprofessionalism and history of forced confessions, an impartial review of the Koh Tao murder case is needed to ensure justice.
So far, the police investigation has been disturbingly unprofessional
we believe it is necessary for an independent body to investigate the forensic evidence that has allegedly implicated the two men. The investigation should be carried out by a foreign authority that has accredited technological facilities to verify the DNA results.
The independent inquiry should (1) confirm that none of the DNA samples have been tampered with, and (2) evaluate the alleged match between the two suspects and the DNA traces acquired from Witheridge's body.
If these conditions are not met, we fear that Thai police will add to their legacy of falsely accusing innocent people.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1412595379&section=02

....as true months later, as it was when written.

[AleG]

Sean said he was at the beach playing guitar.

Then he said he was sleeping all through the night.

Sean said the cut was from a motorbike accident.

Then from a fight in a bar.

Mon said it was him in the early morning video as he was running to the beach to see what happened.

Mon has never denied that it was himself in the video.

Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it.

The guitar turned up at court.

Nomsod said he was in a test at 9.30, but his fake video footage shows him leaving at 10.30.

Nothing matches from these guys.

Why stop at those contrived inconsistencies?

"Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it."

That's funny, because the boys grown up men standing for trial at the hearing said they were too drunk to remember anything that happened that night, which also doesn't match with what the parents of Zaw said about him "He doesn't drink alcohol and has never done anything violent before."

Then the grown up adults under trial said "we are victims of influential people" and that "We think the killer went to another country already" but when asked if they knew if anyone else had done the crime or was implicated with it they said "We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing"

Then they said "A police officer hit the side of his face and the interpreter also hit him four times. Then the police threatened to electrocute them" then they said they were "scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Last, but not least, first they said they murdered the two Britons and then they said they didn't; of course they said that confession was under duress during interrogation, but they also "told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe".

In view of this inconsistencies and the physical evidence against them, perhaps you should contemplate the possibility that they may be guilty of brutally murdering two young people.

[loonodingle]

Sean said he was at the beach playing guitar.

Then he said he was sleeping all through the night.

Sean said the cut was from a motorbike accident.

Then from a fight in a bar.

Mon said it was him in the early morning video as he was running to the beach to see what happened.

Mon has never denied that it was himself in the video.

Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it.

The guitar turned up at court.

Nomsod said he was in a test at 9.30, but his fake video footage shows him leaving at 10.30.

Nothing matches from these guys.

Why stop at those contrived inconsistencies?

"Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it."

That's funny, because the boys grown up men standing for trial at the hearing said they were too drunk to remember anything that happened that night, which also doesn't match with what the parents of Zaw said about him "He doesn't drink alcohol and has never done anything violent before."

Then the grown up adults under trial said "we are victims of influential people" and that "We think the killer went to another country already" but when asked if they knew if anyone else had done the crime or was implicated with it they said "We really dont know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing"

Then they said "A police officer hit the side of his face and the interpreter also hit him four times. Then the police threatened to electrocute them" then they said they were "scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Last, but not least, first they said they murdered the two Britons and then they said they didn't; of course they said that confession was under duress during interrogation, but they also "told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe".

In view of this inconsistencies and the physical evidence against them, perhaps you should contemplate the possibility that they may be guilty of brutally murdering two young people.

I definitely think we would all be fools not to contemplate that they could if played a part. None of of us know the truth.

I have been banging on about verification a day what seems like a cover up on behalf of the RTP.

We should all sit on the fence as much as possible. Keep an open mind and examine anything we turn up. But it is not us in the court. We don't know 10 % of the evidence. I fail to see though why verification wasn't allowed.

[berybert]

Sean said he was at the beach playing guitar.

Then he said he was sleeping all through the night.

Sean said the cut was from a motorbike accident.

Then from a fight in a bar.

Mon said it was him in the early morning video as he was running to the beach to see what happened.

Mon has never denied that it was himself in the video.

Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it.

The guitar turned up at court.

Nomsod said he was in a test at 9.30, but his fake video footage shows him leaving at 10.30.

Nothing matches from these guys.

Why stop at those contrived inconsistencies?

"Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it."

That's funny, because the boys grown up men standing for trial at the hearing said they were too drunk to remember anything that happened that night, which also doesn't match with what the parents of Zaw said about him "He doesn't drink alcohol and has never done anything violent before."

Then the grown up adults under trial said "we are victims of influential people" and that "We think the killer went to another country already" but when asked if they knew if anyone else had done the crime or was implicated with it they said "We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing"

Then they said "A police officer hit the side of his face and the interpreter also hit him four times. Then the police threatened to electrocute them" then they said they were "scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Last, but not least, first they said they murdered the two Britons and then they said they didn't; of course they said that confession was under duress during interrogation, but they also "told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe".

In view of this inconsistencies and the physical evidence against them, perhaps you should contemplate the possibility that they may be guilty of brutally murdering two young people.

How funny. These two grown men who are 21 killed two young people who were 24.

Isnt it wonderful how it is Ok for you to manipulate language while at the same time accuse other people of doing the same thing.

And also stop telling us not to cherry pick what the RTP say, then cherry pick what you are accusing the boys/young men of saying.

But I do agree with you. David was definitely killed with a hoe. That's why it had his DNA all over it.

Edited February 4, 2015 by berybert

[thailandchilli]

Sean said he was at the beach playing guitar.

Then he said he was sleeping all through the night.

Sean said the cut was from a motorbike accident.

Then from a fight in a bar.

Mon said it was him in the early morning video as he was running to the beach to see what happened.

Mon has never denied that it was himself in the video.

Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it.

The guitar turned up at court.

Nomsod said he was in a test at 9.30, but his fake video footage shows him leaving at 10.30.

Nothing matches from these guys.

Why stop at those contrived inconsistencies?

"Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it."

That's funny, because the boys grown up men standing for trial at the hearing said they were too drunk to remember anything that happened that night, which also doesn't match with what the parents of Zaw said about him "He doesn't drink alcohol and has never done anything violent before."

Then the grown up adults under trial said "we are victims of influential people" and that "We think the killer went to another country already" but when asked if they knew if anyone else had done the crime or was implicated with it they said "We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing"

Then they said "A police officer hit the side of his face and the interpreter also hit him four times. Then the police threatened to electrocute them" then they said they were "scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Last, but not least, first they said they murdered the two Britons and then they said they didn't; of course they said that confession was under duress during interrogation, but they also "told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe".

In view of this inconsistencies and the physical evidence against them, perhaps you should contemplate the possibility that they may be guilty of brutally murdering two young people.

"scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Amazingly it wasn't them that said they were scalded with boiling water but 3 other migrant workers

Thai police allegedly torturing other suspects and includes testimony from Burmese migrant workers on Koh Tao who say they were beaten, and scalded with boiling water http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/concern-trial-burmese-men-charged-murder-uk-tourists

Police have also interviewed three Burmese migrant workers who claimed that had boiling water poured over them.

Edited February 4, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

Sean said he was at the beach playing guitar.

Then he said he was sleeping all through the night.

Sean said the cut was from a motorbike accident.

Then from a fight in a bar.

Mon said it was him in the early morning video as he was running to the beach to see what happened.

Mon has never denied that it was himself in the video.

Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it.

The guitar turned up at court.

Nomsod said he was in a test at 9.30, but his fake video footage shows him leaving at 10.30.

Nothing matches from these guys.

Why stop at those contrived inconsistencies?

"Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it."

That's funny, because the boys grown up men standing for trial at the hearing said they were too drunk to remember anything that happened that night, which also doesn't match with what the parents of Zaw said about him "He doesn't drink alcohol and has never done anything violent before."

Then the grown up adults under trial said "we are victims of influential people" and that "We think the killer went to another country already" but when asked if they knew if anyone else had done the crime or was implicated with it they said "We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing"

Then they said "A police officer hit the side of his face and the interpreter also hit him four times. Then the police threatened to electrocute them" then they said they were "scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Last, but not least, first they said they murdered the two Britons and then they said they didn't; of course they said that confession was under duress during interrogation, but they also "told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe".

In view of this inconsistencies and the physical evidence against them, perhaps you should contemplate the possibility that they may be guilty of brutally murdering two young people.

"scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Amazingly it wasn't them that said they were scalded with boiling water but 3 other migrant workers

Thai police allegedly torturing other suspects and includes testimony from Burmese migrant workers on Koh Tao who say they were beaten, and scalded with boiling water http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/concern-trial-burmese-men-charged-murder-uk-tourists

Police have also interviewed three Burmese migrant workers who claimed that had boiling water poured over them.

Well then, I was wrong about that; now they only claim they were actually tortured, not just threatened with torture as they first claimed.

[berybert]

Sean said he was at the beach playing guitar.

Then he said he was sleeping all through the night.

Sean said the cut was from a motorbike accident.

Then from a fight in a bar.

Mon said it was him in the early morning video as he was running to the beach to see what happened.

Mon has never denied that it was himself in the video.

Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it.

The guitar turned up at court.

Nomsod said he was in a test at 9.30, but his fake video footage shows him leaving at 10.30.

Nothing matches from these guys.

Why stop at those contrived inconsistencies?

"Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it."

That's funny, because the boys grown up men standing for trial at the hearing said they were too drunk to remember anything that happened that night, which also doesn't match with what the parents of Zaw said about him "He doesn't drink alcohol and has never done anything violent before."

Then the grown up adults under trial said "we are victims of influential people" and that "We think the killer went to another country already" but when asked if they knew if anyone else had done the crime or was implicated with it they said "We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing"

Then they said "A police officer hit the side of his face and the interpreter also hit him four times. Then the police threatened to electrocute them" then they said they were "scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Last, but not least, first they said they murdered the two Britons and then they said they didn't; of course they said that confession was under duress during interrogation, but they also "told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe".

In view of this inconsistencies and the physical evidence against them, perhaps you should contemplate the possibility that they may be guilty of brutally murdering two young people.

"scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Amazingly it wasn't them that said they were scalded with boiling water but 3 other migrant workers

Thai police allegedly torturing other suspects and includes testimony from Burmese migrant workers on Koh Tao who say they were beaten, and scalded with boiling water http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/concern-trial-burmese-men-charged-murder-uk-tourists

Police have also interviewed three Burmese migrant workers who claimed that had boiling water poured over them.

Well then, I was wrong about that; now they only claim they were actually tortured, not just threatened with torture as they first claimed.

Actually they didn't even claim the were tortured. They both went to the police station on the day after the murder and told the police there it was them that did it.

Give AleG another couple of weeks and this is what he will be claiming.

Pictures of people who have been tortured prove that people haven't been tortured in the eyes of an RTP lover.

You just cant make some of this stuff up.

[thailandchilli]

Well then, I was wrong about that; now they only claim they were actually tortured, not just threatened with torture as they first claimed.

Thats ok, we all make mistakes and sometimes don't even bother to make a sarcastic remark such as 'don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory' with a little smiley to finish off when those mistakes are pointed out.

Edited February 4, 2015 by thailandchilli

[Gweiloman]

Sean said he was at the beach playing guitar.

Then he said he was sleeping all through the night.

Sean said the cut was from a motorbike accident.

Then from a fight in a bar.

Mon said it was him in the early morning video as he was running to the beach to see what happened.

Mon has never denied that it was himself in the video.

Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it.

The guitar turned up at court.

Nomsod said he was in a test at 9.30, but his fake video footage shows him leaving at 10.30.

Nothing matches from these guys.

Why stop at those contrived inconsistencies?

"Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it."

That's funny, because the boys grown up men standing for trial at the hearing said they were too drunk to remember anything that happened that night, which also doesn't match with what the parents of Zaw said about him "He doesn't drink alcohol and has never done anything violent before."

Then the grown up adults under trial said "we are victims of influential people" and that "We think the killer went to another country already" but when asked if they knew if anyone else had done the crime or was implicated with it they said "We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing"

Then they said "A police officer hit the side of his face and the interpreter also hit him four times. Then the police threatened to electrocute them" then they said they were "scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Last, but not least, first they said they murdered the two Britons and then they said they didn't; of course they said that confession was under duress during interrogation, but they also "told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe".

In view of this inconsistencies and the physical evidence against them, perhaps you should contemplate the possibility that they may be guilty of brutally murdering two young people.

How funny. These two grown men who are 21 killed two young people who were 24.

Isnt it wonderful how it is Ok for you to manipulate language while at the same time accuse other people of doing the same thing.

And also stop telling us not to cherry pick what the RTP say, then cherry pick what you are accusing the boys/young men of saying.

But I do agree with you. David was definitely killed with a hoe. That's why it had his DNA all over it.

Absolutely. And even a blind fool can see clearly that the cuts on David's face were made with the sharp end of the hoe

[rockingrobin]

Maw, 23, whose DNA matched that found on a cigarette butt had not been charged as of yesterday.

Acting commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, Pol Lt-General Manoo Mekmok, said two semen samples found on the female murder victim matched that from Win and Saw, and the one found on the cigarette at the scene of the crime matched that of Maw

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Rape-suspects-charged-30244751.html

[loonodingle]

Why stop at those contrived inconsistencies?

"Muang Muang said, he woke the boys up and asked for the guitar. The boys said it was at ac bar. Muang said he went to get it."

That's funny, because the boys grown up men standing for trial at the hearing said they were too drunk to remember anything that happened that night, which also doesn't match with what the parents of Zaw said about him "He doesn't drink alcohol and has never done anything violent before."

Then the grown up adults under trial said "we are victims of influential people" and that "We think the killer went to another country already" but when asked if they knew if anyone else had done the crime or was implicated with it they said "We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing"

Then they said "A police officer hit the side of his face and the interpreter also hit him four times. Then the police threatened to electrocute them" then they said they were "scalded with boiling water" (which amazingly didn't led to the second or third degree burns as boiling water would cause in normal human beings)

Last, but not least, first they said they murdered the two Britons and then they said they didn't; of course they said that confession was under duress during interrogation, but they also "told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe".

In view of this inconsistencies and the physical evidence against them, perhaps you should contemplate the possibility that they may be guilty of brutally murdering two young people.

How funny. These two grown men who are 21 killed two young people who were 24.

Isnt it wonderful how it is Ok for you to manipulate language while at the same time accuse other people of doing the same thing.

And also stop telling us not to cherry pick what the RTP say, then cherry pick what you are accusing the boys/young men of saying.

But I do agree with you. David was definitely killed with a hoe. That's why it had his DNA all over it.

Absolutely. And even a blind fool can see clearly that the cuts on David's face were made with the sharp end of the hoe

Personally I think it could have been the small short sharp hoe lookalike that Aon is seen with. He is doing to flip a finger at the world.