Koh Tao murder trial rescheduled

[rockingrobin]

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

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.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

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

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 04 Feb 2015 - 21:51, said:

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

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.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

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

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

Yes, indeed Maw or Mau is Maung Maung. We see in this report that the DNA on the cigarette butt matched Maung Maung and Hannah, yet there are other reports which say the DNA on the cigarette butt matched the semen collected from Hannah. So, have they tested two cigarette butts? Most confusing.

[AleG]

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

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.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

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

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

No, it's not a reasonable conclusion because you don't know if it's the same cigarette.

"Evidences collected from the crime scene that were sent for tests of DNA include three cigarette butts found about 50 metres from where the two British tourists were killed.

One cigarette has lipstick mark. DNA of two people were found in the second cigarette and the DNA of a third person was found in the third cigarette butt.

However, the tests show that the DNA found in one cigarette butt match with the DNA found in the semen, said the sources."

Which one of those is the one with Hanna's DNA?

[boomerangutang]

I think the cig butt is a canard. Whether or not two people sucked on the same cig butt, 50 meters from the crime scene (and when?), is moot. At beach parties, it's not impossible for someone to see a discarded butt, still alight, and take a hit.

Hopefully, the victims' bodies were scrutinized for any clues (other peoples' bodily fluids, hair, DNA, skin remnants, pubic hairs, etc) very soon after the crime. We've heard RTP did some of that (supposedly), but it's already been established that RTP are inept in that regard. Those of us seeking truth and justice were hoping the Brit Coroner's Office would do at least the minimum they're required to do for British Subjects killed abroad. As a rule, when a corpse comes to their lab, they do testing right away. Did they do their jobs with the two victims? We don't know, and may never know, the way things are digressing. If there's extreme diplomatic pressure from Thailand's top military/politicos (to not do a thorough job and/or delay findings indefinitely), then that could explain why the Brit Coroner is dragging her feet. It's already public knowledge that the Thai PM expressly forbade Brit experts from doing ANY investigating in Thailand. Connect the dots.

[rockingrobin]

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

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.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

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

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

No, it's not a reasonable conclusion because you don't know if it's the same cigarette.

"Evidences collected from the crime scene that were sent for tests of DNA include three cigarette butts found about 50 metres from where the two British tourists were killed.

One cigarette has lipstick mark. DNA of two people were found in the second cigarette and the DNA of a third person was found in the third cigarette butt.

However, the tests show that the DNA found in one cigarette butt match with the DNA found in the semen, said the sources."

Which one of those is the one with Hanna's DNA?

AleG the cigarette buts you qouted did not contain Hannahs dna,.

Hannahs dna cigarette but was found on the 19th September

[stephen terry]

Here's another (incomplete) scenario for consideration and comment as to feasibility. It doesn't necessarily rule out jealousy by a gay man who had eyes on David. Just twiddle it a bit:

A 6-7 person beach party by some rocks with Sean playing guitar with Hannah, David, Nomsod and 2-3 of his football friends. But not Mon - he is too old. A couple of cigarettes were shared with Hannah. The effects of alcohol, music, nicotine (possibly other substances), and ambience raised male emotions. One or more of the football friends tried it on with Hannah who, at some point, rejected him, causing an altercation, and David intervened, possibly lashing out. The other Thais then ganged up on David and attacked him with their finger knives, while Hannah ran away. She was chased, caught, and violently attacked with a hoe lying on the beach, then dragged back to the murder site.

David's death (at least) witnessed by Sean and Nomsod, who ran away when threatened. After the crimes, the other Thais fled and caught the first fishing boat out. Nomsod (too scared to tell his father) confessed to his uncle, Mon, who naturally would try and protect his nephew - thus his early presence at the crime scene. Told Nomsod to get out quick, and he would seek to contaminate/destroy any evidence left at the scene that could implicate Nomsod.

Mon also had to deal with Sean, scaring him away or else. Thus the confrontation at the 7-eleven store. I could also believe (initially) that Mon did not tell Nomsod's father - that way the Headman could spout righteous indignation that his son was a suspect.

So the powerful family is protecting a witness who could also be implicated in the murders, possibly even striking David, but I don't believe Nomsod attacked Hannah - it wouldn't be his motivation unless he was the one rejected. More likely the more physical footballers.

The difficulty the family had is that in order to protect Nomsod they couldn't grass up the footballers, who would have implicated Nomsod. Thus scapegoats had to be found.

This scenario ties in with the behaviours of Mon, and both Nomsod and Sean - both frightened as to their fates. Accessories to a double murder could mean life imprisonment or worse. No way would Sean implicate himself, and Nomsod wouldn't dare damage his family's reputation/power/influence. That he was later 'forced' into monkhood was his family penance. Mon must be a very troubled man.

The Burmese 2 - probably unlucky at being close to the crime scene and littering the beach with fag-ends.

[greenchair]

Look at these pictures. This is what a drunk girl that might slip round the rocks for some hanky panky, looks like.

Hannah was not drunken in any of her pictures.

Look at Hannah's face.

There are no smokers lines.

Her face is clear and smooth.

She is neither a smoker nor a heavy drinker, I suspect.

She also does not wear lipstick in any of the pictures shown of her that night. I really cannot speculate how her dna got on the ciggy. I don't know if analysis can show if it come from her saliva. Or if someone touched in places they shouldn't then smoked .her dna being transferred from the offender touch.

I only know one word from a friend to say she was a non smoker would put many of these nasty little scenarios blaming her to rest.

Just in case some of you can't read.

The 1st 2 pics are not hannah.

[boomerangutang]

I agree with most aspects of the scenario painted above by ST. Some variations: Scenario would likely have started in the bars, during the several hours before 4 a.m. When I say 'scenario' I mean: What sorts of interactions were going on (threats, anger, shoving?) and who was focusing in on Hannah who, like everyone else, was drinking. She may have been slipped a mickey (we still haven't heard from Thai or Brit experts what was in her or David's blood). Does Nomsod and/or Mon have a history of seducing cute young farang backpackers who filter through their daddy's bar? That's another thing we haven't heard about, and the reason is likely: Yes, they both have scored numerous times, and it's likely some of those scores or near-scores involved heavy coercion and/or violence and/or harm. Again, the sorts of things which Thai cops aren't looking at, and Brit experts aren't allowed to look at.

ST and I agree Nomsod was very likely involved. Though ST thinks he may have just been peripheral, I venture that he was a key player, and likely Hannah's bludgeoneer. I sure wish the handle and the whole hoe had been minutely scrutinized, as befits a proper crime investigation. Same for the bodies of victims, and all the clothing at the beach. ....and many other items / people, which Thai investigators didn't look into, or if they did, squelched their findings, ....and we all know why.

A short list of things Thai cops either didn't do, or did and trashed the findings because they implicated the Headman's people:

>>> scenario in bars that night

>>> history of what ordinarily happens at those bars, particularly late at night

>>> history of drugs at those bars, and who are most likely the dealers/users. I'm sure Sean would be on that list, as well as Mon, and maybe the Headman himself.

>>> The scenario at the campfire. Who was there. What went on after midnight.

>>> clothes at crime scene, scrutinized in minute detail. Same for other items.

>>> full body searches of all 'people of interest.' particularly looking for injuries of any kind.

>>> Anything to do with laundry, mobile phones, boat drivers, taxis

>>> searching Mon's and other 'persons of interest' living quarters

....the list goes on and on....

[AleG]

I think the cig butt is a canard. Whether or not two people sucked on the same cig butt, 50 meters from the crime scene (and when?), is moot. At beach parties, it's not impossible for someone to see a discarded butt, still alight, and take a hit.

Hopefully, the victims' bodies were scrutinized for any clues (other peoples' bodily fluids, hair, DNA, skin remnants, pubic hairs, etc) very soon after the crime. We've heard RTP did some of that (supposedly), but it's already been established that RTP are inept in that regard. Those of us seeking truth and justice were hoping the Brit Coroner's Office would do at least the minimum they're required to do for British Subjects killed abroad. As a rule, when a corpse comes to their lab, they do testing right away. Did they do their jobs with the two victims? We don't know, and may never know, the way things are digressing. If there's extreme diplomatic pressure from Thailand's top military/politicos (to not do a thorough job and/or delay findings indefinitely), then that could explain why the Brit Coroner is dragging her feet. It's already public knowledge that the Thai PM expressly forbade Brit experts from doing ANY investigating in Thailand. Connect the dots.

Why, of course you would dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of your own unsupported conspiracy theories. All in the name of Truth and Justice.

[loonodingle]

I think the cig butt is a canard. Whether or not two people sucked on the same cig butt, 50 meters from the crime scene (and when?), is moot. At beach parties, it's not impossible for someone to see a discarded butt, still alight, and take a hit.

Hopefully, the victims' bodies were scrutinized for any clues (other peoples' bodily fluids, hair, DNA, skin remnants, pubic hairs, etc) very soon after the crime. We've heard RTP did some of that (supposedly), but it's already been established that RTP are inept in that regard. Those of us seeking truth and justice were hoping the Brit Coroner's Office would do at least the minimum they're required to do for British Subjects killed abroad. As a rule, when a corpse comes to their lab, they do testing right away. Did they do their jobs with the two victims? We don't know, and may never know, the way things are digressing. If there's extreme diplomatic pressure from Thailand's top military/politicos (to not do a thorough job and/or delay findings indefinitely), then that could explain why the Brit Coroner is dragging her feet. It's already public knowledge that the Thai PM expressly forbade Brit experts from doing ANY investigating in Thailand. Connect the dots.

Why, of course you would dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of your own unsupported conspiracy theories. All in the name of Truth and Justice.

Most probably because the RTP have a history of fitting people up. ?????

[AleG]

I think the cig butt is a canard. Whether or not two people sucked on the same cig butt, 50 meters from the crime scene (and when?), is moot. At beach parties, it's not impossible for someone to see a discarded butt, still alight, and take a hit.

Hopefully, the victims' bodies were scrutinized for any clues (other peoples' bodily fluids, hair, DNA, skin remnants, pubic hairs, etc) very soon after the crime. We've heard RTP did some of that (supposedly), but it's already been established that RTP are inept in that regard. Those of us seeking truth and justice were hoping the Brit Coroner's Office would do at least the minimum they're required to do for British Subjects killed abroad. As a rule, when a corpse comes to their lab, they do testing right away. Did they do their jobs with the two victims? We don't know, and may never know, the way things are digressing. If there's extreme diplomatic pressure from Thailand's top military/politicos (to not do a thorough job and/or delay findings indefinitely), then that could explain why the Brit Coroner is dragging her feet. It's already public knowledge that the Thai PM expressly forbade Brit experts from doing ANY investigating in Thailand. Connect the dots.

Why, of course you would dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of your own unsupported conspiracy theories. All in the name of Truth and Justice.

Most probably because the RTP have a history of fitting people up. ?????

Yes, precisely; the reason is prejudice.

Never mind evaluating things on their own merits, just go with the prejudice, self satisfaction 100% guaranteed!

[loonodingle]

I think the cig butt is a canard. Whether or not two people sucked on the same cig butt, 50 meters from the crime scene (and when?), is moot. At beach parties, it's not impossible for someone to see a discarded butt, still alight, and take a hit.

Hopefully, the victims' bodies were scrutinized for any clues (other peoples' bodily fluids, hair, DNA, skin remnants, pubic hairs, etc) very soon after the crime. We've heard RTP did some of that (supposedly), but it's already been established that RTP are inept in that regard. Those of us seeking truth and justice were hoping the Brit Coroner's Office would do at least the minimum they're required to do for British Subjects killed abroad. As a rule, when a corpse comes to their lab, they do testing right away. Did they do their jobs with the two victims? We don't know, and may never know, the way things are digressing. If there's extreme diplomatic pressure from Thailand's top military/politicos (to not do a thorough job and/or delay findings indefinitely), then that could explain why the Brit Coroner is dragging her feet. It's already public knowledge that the Thai PM expressly forbade Brit experts from doing ANY investigating in Thailand. Connect the dots.

Why, of course you would dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of your own unsupported conspiracy theories. All in the name of Truth and Justice.

Most probably because the RTP have a history of fitting people up. ?????

Yes, precisely; the reason is prejudice.

Never mind evaluating things on their own merits, just go with the prejudice, self satisfaction 100% guaranteed!

Prejudice??????

Ya full of s!*$ sometimes.

Some of us have had first hand experience, personally I have had 2 extremely expensive shakedowns costing me huge sums of baht so I can speak with experience.

The Thai Press have the same opinions as well.

You just come on here to wind people up. Probably Sat with your cheap whisky on your own.... LOL..

[boomerangutang]

I think the cig butt is a canard. Whether or not two people sucked on the same cig butt, 50 meters from the crime scene (and when?), is moot. At beach parties, it's not impossible for someone to see a discarded butt, still alight, and take a hit.

Hopefully, the victims' bodies were scrutinized for any clues (other peoples' bodily fluids, hair, DNA, skin remnants, pubic hairs, etc) very soon after the crime. We've heard RTP did some of that (supposedly), but it's already been established that RTP are inept in that regard. Those of us seeking truth and justice were hoping the Brit Coroner's Office would do at least the minimum they're required to do for British Subjects killed abroad. As a rule, when a corpse comes to their lab, they do testing right away. Did they do their jobs with the two victims? We don't know, and may never know, the way things are digressing. If there's extreme diplomatic pressure from Thailand's top military/politicos (to not do a thorough job and/or delay findings indefinitely), then that could explain why the Brit Coroner is dragging her feet. It's already public knowledge that the Thai PM expressly forbade Brit experts from doing ANY investigating in Thailand. Connect the dots.

Why, of course you would dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of your own unsupported conspiracy theories. All in the name of Truth and Justice.

Can't counter any of my suppositions with anything viable, so just grab a handful of dirt and throw it. Repeating the phrase 'conspiracy theory' incessantly won't make it true. Remember Chatty Kathy doll from the 1950's? You pull a string on her back and she says prerecorded things. You and jdinasia are like those dolls which mindlessly say the same pre-recorded things, while adding little to the discussion.

If you knew the definition of conspiracy theory and then stacked it against the pap smear which the the RTP is dishing out to weak-minded gullibleoids, you'll get a good fit.

[loonodingle]

I think the cig butt is a canard. Whether or not two people sucked on the same cig butt, 50 meters from the crime scene (and when?), is moot. At beach parties, it's not impossible for someone to see a discarded butt, still alight, and take a hit.

Hopefully, the victims' bodies were scrutinized for any clues (other peoples' bodily fluids, hair, DNA, skin remnants, pubic hairs, etc) very soon after the crime. We've heard RTP did some of that (supposedly), but it's already been established that RTP are inept in that regard. Those of us seeking truth and justice were hoping the Brit Coroner's Office would do at least the minimum they're required to do for British Subjects killed abroad. As a rule, when a corpse comes to their lab, they do testing right away. Did they do their jobs with the two victims? We don't know, and may never know, the way things are digressing. If there's extreme diplomatic pressure from Thailand's top military/politicos (to not do a thorough job and/or delay findings indefinitely), then that could explain why the Brit Coroner is dragging her feet. It's already public knowledge that the Thai PM expressly forbade Brit experts from doing ANY investigating in Thailand. Connect the dots.

Why, of course you would dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of your own unsupported conspiracy theories. All in the name of Truth and Justice.

Can't counter any of my suppositions with anything viable, so just grab a handful of dirt and throw it. Repeating the phrase 'conspiracy theory' incessantly won't make it true. Remember Chatty Kathy doll from the 1950's? You pull a string on her back and she says prerecorded things. You and jdinasia are like those dolls which mindlessly say the same pre-recorded things, while adding little to the discussion.

If you knew the definition of conspiracy theory and then stacked it against the pap smear which the the RTP is dishing out to weak-minded gullibleoids, you'll get a good fit.

Some of us have the mental capacity to think critically and not believe all the BS we are fed. Perhaps some others have had their grey matter washed away in a cloud of alcohol fumes.. .............................

Edited February 5, 2015 by loonodingle

[AleG]

Yes, precisely; the reason is prejudice.

Never mind evaluating things on their own merits, just go with the prejudice, self satisfaction 100% guaranteed!

Prejudice??????

Ya full of s!*$ sometimes.

Some of us have had first hand experience, personally I have had 2 extremely expensive shakedowns costing me huge sums of baht so I can speak with experience.

The Thai Press have the same opinions as well.

You just come on here to wind people up. Probably Sat with your cheap whisky on your own.... LOL..

Yes, prejudice, crying I've been done wrong so this other people are also being done wrong is prejudice.

As for winding people up, remember this?

Childish, petty trolling, and by picking some person's photo and passing it as being me, dishonest to boot. I guess that's what you call "critical thinking"?

[AleG]

I think the cig butt is a canard. Whether or not two people sucked on the same cig butt, 50 meters from the crime scene (and when?), is moot. At beach parties, it's not impossible for someone to see a discarded butt, still alight, and take a hit.

Hopefully, the victims' bodies were scrutinized for any clues (other peoples' bodily fluids, hair, DNA, skin remnants, pubic hairs, etc) very soon after the crime. We've heard RTP did some of that (supposedly), but it's already been established that RTP are inept in that regard. Those of us seeking truth and justice were hoping the Brit Coroner's Office would do at least the minimum they're required to do for British Subjects killed abroad. As a rule, when a corpse comes to their lab, they do testing right away. Did they do their jobs with the two victims? We don't know, and may never know, the way things are digressing. If there's extreme diplomatic pressure from Thailand's top military/politicos (to not do a thorough job and/or delay findings indefinitely), then that could explain why the Brit Coroner is dragging her feet. It's already public knowledge that the Thai PM expressly forbade Brit experts from doing ANY investigating in Thailand. Connect the dots.

Why, of course you would dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of your own unsupported conspiracy theories. All in the name of Truth and Justice.

Can't counter any of my suppositions with anything viable, so just grab a handful of dirt and throw it. Repeating the phrase 'conspiracy theory' incessantly won't make it true. Remember Chatty Kathy doll from the 1950's? You pull a string on her back and she says prerecorded things. You and jdinasia are like those dolls which mindlessly say the same pre-recorded things, while adding little to the discussion.

If you knew the definition of conspiracy theory and then stacked it against the pap smear which the the RTP is dishing out to weak-minded gullibleoids, you'll get a good fit.

"You pull a string on her back and she says prerecorded things. You and jdinasia are like those dolls which mindlessly say the same pre-recorded things, while adding little to the discussion."

"Those of us seeking truth and justice", "fake CCTV", "Fab 4", "stingray man", "shielding the headman's people", "scapegoats", "cover-up", etc, etc...

Sounds familiar?

"Can't counter any of my suppositions with anything viable, so just grab a handful of dirt and throw it."

...

"If you knew the definition of conspiracy theory and then stacked it against the pap smear which the the RTP is dishing out to weak-minded gullibleoids, you'll get a good fit."

I guess today's themes is unintentional irony.

[loonodingle]

Yes, precisely; the reason is prejudice.

Never mind evaluating things on their own merits, just go with the prejudice, self satisfaction 100% guaranteed!

Prejudice??????

Ya full of s!*$ sometimes.

Some of us have had first hand experience, personally I have had 2 extremely expensive shakedowns costing me huge sums of baht so I can speak with experience.

The Thai Press have the same opinions as well.

You just come on here to wind people up. Probably Sat with your cheap whisky on your own.... LOL..

Yes, prejudice, crying I've been done wrong so this other people are also being done wrong is prejudice.

As for winding people up, remember this?

post-69687-0-24055400-1421591021.jpg

Childish, petty trolling, and by picking some person's photo and passing it as being me, dishonest to boot. I guess that's what you call "critical thinking"?

Well what's the saying hey!!! the truth hurts...........

I must say I was having a bad day until you posted your picture again................. oh dear the tears are running down my face again.............

[rockingrobin]

rockingrobin, on 04 Feb 2015 - 21:51, said:

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

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.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

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

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

Yes, indeed Maw or Mau is Maung Maung. We see in this report that the DNA on the cigarette butt matched Maung Maung and Hannah, yet there are other reports which say the DNA on the cigarette butt matched the semen collected from Hannah. So, have they tested two cigarette butts? Most confusing.

Islandlover

Just to clarify from the reports there are 4 cigarette buts, one found on the 19th September and three before this date

[loonodingle]

rockingrobin, on 04 Feb 2015 - 21:51, said:

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

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.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

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

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

Yes, indeed Maw or Mau is Maung Maung. We see in this report that the DNA on the cigarette butt matched Maung Maung and Hannah, yet there are other reports which say the DNA on the cigarette butt matched the semen collected from Hannah. So, have they tested two cigarette butts? Most confusing.

Islandlover

Just to clarify from the reports there are 4 cigarette buts, one found on the 19th September and three before this date

If we are to believe the DNA is a fix then we cannot give credence to any DNA reports at all. We cant believe one announcement and not the other.

[loonodingle]

Yes, precisely; the reason is prejudice.

Never mind evaluating things on their own merits, just go with the prejudice, self satisfaction 100% guaranteed!

Prejudice??????

Ya full of s!*$ sometimes.

Some of us have had first hand experience, personally I have had 2 extremely expensive shakedowns costing me huge sums of baht so I can speak with experience.

The Thai Press have the same opinions as well.

You just come on here to wind people up. Probably Sat with your cheap whisky on your own.... LOL..

Yes, prejudice, crying I've been done wrong so this other people are also being done wrong is prejudice.

As for winding people up, remember this?

post-69687-0-24055400-1421591021.jpg

Childish, petty trolling, and by picking some person's photo and passing it as being me, dishonest to boot. I guess that's what you call "critical thinking"?

You may wish to use some other sources rather than mine to set the scene for this case.

"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."

Link Below:

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

Editorial: Independent Test of Koh Tao Suspects' DNA Needed

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.

Last week, Thai police arrested two Burmese men and accused them of murdering two British tourists on Koh Tao island on 15 September. According to police, not only did the two men confess, but their DNA samples matched DNA traces found on one of the victim’s bodies. The two men, named Saw and Win, are facing charges that could be punished with the death penalty.

Thai police have been under an immense amount of pressure to arrest a suspect behind the murder, with authorities and local residents concerned that the incident could damage Thailand’s already-ailing tourist industry. There has also been societal pressure for Thailand to avoid “losing face” over the barbaric murder, which has perhaps prompted police to point the finger at non-Thais from the start.

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

[rockingrobin]

rockingrobin, on 04 Feb 2015 - 21:51, said:

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

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.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

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

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

Yes, indeed Maw or Mau is Maung Maung. We see in this report that the DNA on the cigarette butt matched Maung Maung and Hannah, yet there are other reports which say the DNA on the cigarette butt matched the semen collected from Hannah. So, have they tested two cigarette butts? Most confusing.

Islandlover

Just to clarify from the reports there are 4 cigarette buts, one found on the 19th September and three before this date

If we are to believe the DNA is a fix then we cannot give credence to any DNA reports at all. We cant believe one announcement and not the other.

Whilst I agree with you that the dna could be erroneous , it cannot be dismissed based solely on the reason that it is not liked.

The dna has to be accepted until it is proved to be inconsistent with the facts supporting it

.

The cigarette but found on the 19th is interesting for a number of reasons,

It was found 4 days after the Murders, why was it not found on the first day, how did it elude being located earlier, how did Hannah's dna get on the but, who is the other person's dna , why was the but not washed away during High tides, how did the dna survive the high tides.

The first group of 3 buts found, one contained a lipstick mark, a bit of speculation , David was seen with a woman and man around 2am have these identified

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 05 Feb 2015 - 17:56, said:

IslandLover, on 05 Feb 2015 - 02:05, said:

rockingrobin, on 04 Feb 2015 - 21:51, said:rockingrobin, on 04 Feb 2015 - 21:51, said:

I posted these 2 articles earlier and have just now had time to review them

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.thephuket...n-men-48820.php

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

Is it reasonable to come to the following

Maw is Muang Muang and the cigarette with his dna is the same cigarette with Hannah's dna,

Yes, indeed Maw or Mau is Maung Maung. We see in this report that the DNA on the cigarette butt matched Maung Maung and Hannah, yet there are other reports which say the DNA on the cigarette butt matched the semen collected from Hannah. So, have they tested two cigarette butts? Most confusing.

Islandlover

Just to clarify from the reports there are 4 cigarette buts, one found on the 19th September and three before this date

Ok thanks, I didn't realise there were so many cig butts tested. But were they all found 50m away from the crime scene? That is actually a fair distance, far enough away from the crime scene to be irrelevant IMHO, except the one the RTP is claiming matches the DNA found in the semen.

[rockingrobin]

Islandlover

According to the report, found near the bodies, whatever that means in terms of distance

[loonodingle]

Islandlover

Just to clarify from the reports there are 4 cigarette buts, one found on the 19th September and three before this date

If we are to believe the DNA is a fix then we cannot give credence to any DNA reports at all. We cant believe one announcement and not the other.

Whilst I agree with you that the dna could be erroneous , it cannot be dismissed based solely on the reason that it is not liked.

The dna has to be accepted until it is proved to be inconsistent with the facts supporting it

.

The cigarette but found on the 19th is interesting for a number of reasons,

It was found 4 days after the Murders, why was it not found on the first day, how did it elude being located earlier, how did Hannah's dna get on the but, who is the other person's dna , why was the but not washed away during High tides, how did the dna survive the high tides.

The first group of 3 buts found, one contained a lipstick mark, a bit of speculation , David was seen with a woman and man around 2am have these identified

The problem you have with that theory is if you believe the DNA then they are guilty as per the re-enactment surely?

[rockingrobin]

Loonodingle

If we accept the dna, that in itself does not mean guilt,

The next stage is to ask how and why the dna is present, there are many reasons why the dna could be erroneous , from contamination to human error, does the supporting evidence fit with the facts and scenario

Its a bit like a confession, there is a need to question details of a confession in order to corroborate against the known facts.

[loonodingle]

Loonodingle

If we accept the dna, that in itself does not mean guilt,

The next stage is to ask how and why the dna is present, there are many reasons why the dna could be erroneous , from contamination to human error, does the supporting evidence fit with the facts and scenario

Its a bit like a confession, there is a need to question details of a confession in order to corroborate against the known facts.

Personally I find the whole thing a headache but that's because none of us know what the defence and prosecution has.

The RTP cleansed or failed to obtain evidence in favour of a certain family.

The refused to allow for verification of the DNA. Which potentially means it could all be false. Or do you think they lie about some of it and not others.

Further have you seen what they done to Hannah?

[IslandLover]

greenchair, on 05 Feb 2015 - 07:08, said:

Look at these pictures. This is what a drunk girl that might slip round the rocks for some hanky panky, looks like.

Hannah was not drunken in any of her pictures.

Look at Hannah's face.

There are no smokers lines.

Her face is clear and smooth.

She is neither a smoker nor a heavy drinker, I suspect.

She also does not wear lipstick in any of the pictures shown of her that night. I really cannot speculate how her dna got on the ciggy. I don't know if analysis can show if it come from her saliva. Or if someone touched in places they shouldn't then smoked .her dna being transferred from the offender touch.

I only know one word from a friend to say she was a non smoker would put many of these nasty little scenarios blaming her to rest.

Just in case some of you can't read.

The 1st 2 pics are not hannah.

images (5).jpgimages (3).jpg

post-69687-0-58667000-1422136805_thumb.jpg

I can find no evidence that Hannah was a smoker. David, yes, but Hannah not.

[AleG]

Yes, prejudice, crying I've been done wrong so this other people are also being done wrong is prejudice.

As for winding people up, remember this?

post-69687-0-24055400-1421591021.jpg

Childish, petty trolling, and by picking some person's photo and passing it as being me, dishonest to boot. I guess that's what you call "critical thinking"?

Well what's the saying hey!!! the truth hurts...........

I must say I was having a bad day until you posted your picture again................. oh dear the tears are running down my face again.............

I didn't post my picture, so what "truth" are you talking about?

[greenchair]

greenchair, on 05 Feb 2015 - 07:08, said:

Look at these pictures. This is what a drunk girl that might slip round the rocks for some hanky panky, looks like.

Hannah was not drunken in any of her pictures.

Look at Hannah's face.

There are no smokers lines.

Her face is clear and smooth.

She is neither a smoker nor a heavy drinker, I suspect.

She also does not wear lipstick in any of the pictures shown of her that night. I really cannot speculate how her dna got on the ciggy. I don't know if analysis can show if it come from her saliva. Or if someone touched in places they shouldn't then smoked .her dna being transferred from the offender touch.

I only know one word from a friend to say she was a non smoker would put many of these nasty little scenarios blaming her to rest.

Just in case some of you can't read.

The 1st 2 pics are not hannah.

images (5).jpgimages (3).jpg

post-69687-0-58667000-1422136805_thumb.jpg

I can find no evidence that Hannah was a smoker. David, yes, but Hannah not.

I am 90% sure she was not a smoker. I don't believe she shared a ciggy with anyone.

And in the pics of her that night (even late in the evening ) she did not appear to be drunken at all. She looked bright and aware of her surroundings.

[loonodingle]

Don't forget guys it was widely reported that Hannah had some problems in the AC bar before she left. This is where this stems from I don't doubt. She was followed a few 100 meters along the beach on her way back to her room.