Koh Tao murder trial rescheduled

[Eirene]

Thanks for the reply IslandLover. I find it odd that there was no follow up on this. If what this James Isaacs is stating is true then I believe that this would have been reported. I see no reason why someone would just make up a story like this. The girls had their bags taken, would they not have their passport, ID, bank/credit cards in their bags? The phones were stolen as well. I wonder if these girls could possibly ID the bike gang from photo's. A coincidence that this happened the night before and in the same location? Personally, I don't believe so. This local bike gang should be found. MOO

Eirene, on 10 Feb 2015 - 21:05, said:

Was there ever any follow up on this bike gang?

http://tinyurl.com/ndy2djj

No, not to my knowledge. It was only reported in the British press and hasn't been mentioned since.

[loonodingle]

Why would they follow it up?.... They say they have the 2 people who committed the murders. They don't want to disprove there prosecution before it even goes to trial.

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:32, said:

loonodingle, on 11 Feb 2015 - 16:37, said:

One thing they had Burmese witnesses who said the 2 young men gave them David's phone. Well who is to say they hadn't been paid to say that. It's already known they offered money to the taxi driver. Also the 3rd person was released as long as he gave evidence?

I dont recall the burmese witnesses claiming it was Davids Phone, however I do have an account where they say a phone was given to them by the 2 accused but where suspicious of its origin.

Does anybody still have the links to the confessions statements including contents

Here's the link to an article which talks about the room mates of Win and Zaw and the fact that they were allegedly given a phone believed to belong to one of the victims by the suspects, Win and Zaw.

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murders-third-man-released-returning-to-burma-myanmar/45040

Maung Maung, Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin were called as prosecution witnesses on Tuesday and gave testimonies in a preliminary hearing at a courthouse in Koh Samui, southern Thailand.

Moe Wai, a member of the Burmese embassy delegation that attended the hearing, said Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin were mostly quizzed about a mobile phone belonging to one of the victims. The pair testified that they were given the phone by the suspects and decided to smash it with a hammer after being unable to use it, he said.

and then we have this:

Moe Wai said that nothing that the three witnesses said in their individual testimonies amounted to evidence that supports the allegations against Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin.

“None of the witness testimonies included anything that could implicate [Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin] as the murderers. It’s starting to appear that it wasn’t them,” said Moe Wai.

Confusing, or what?

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:35, said:

Is it possible to clarify who lived in the same accommodation/room as the B2

See my post #1905

[IslandLover]

IslandLover, on 11 Feb 2015 - 03:41, said:

A person of interest's fb just got reactivated

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005621986285&fref=ts

Just to add, his stint as a monk didn't last very long. It's also worth noting that one of his 'friends' has been posting on this very forum.

[rockingrobin]

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:35, said:

Is it possible to clarify who lived in the same accommodation/room as the B2

See my post #1905

Islandlover

Are we saying Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin, are the B2 roommates, if so then could they not clarify what times they the B2 arrived back

I have

Oct 3rd National Post

Police searched the residence of the suspects and found a mobile phone suspected to belong to one of the British Tourists

So I conclude that on the 3rd Oct the police had not verified who the phone actually belonged to

[jimmybkk]

IslandLover, on 11 Feb 2015 - 03:41, said:

A person of interest's fb just got reactivated

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005621986285&fref=ts

Just to add, his stint as a monk didn't last very long. It's also worth noting that one of his 'friends' has been posting on this very forum.

That's interesting. Would you care to reveal who is the friend you mentioned? Or if you prefer not to say publicly would you mind PM'ing me?

[greenchair]

IslandLover, on 11 Feb 2015 - 03:41, said:

A person of interest's fb just got reactivated

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005621986285&fref=ts

Just to add, his stint as a monk didn't last very long. It's also worth noting that one of his 'friends' has been posting on this very forum.

That's interesting. Would you care to reveal who is the friend you mentioned? Or if you prefer not to say publicly would you mind PM'ing me?

I would be interested too.

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 20:09, said:

IslandLover, on 11 Feb 2015 - 19:39, said:

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:35, said:rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:35, said:

Is it possible to clarify who lived in the same accommodation/room as the B2

See my post #1905

Islandlover

Are we saying Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin, are the B2 roommates, if so then could they not clarify what times they the B2 arrived back

I have

Oct 3rd National Post

Police searched the residence of the suspects and found a mobile phone suspected to belong to one of the British Tourists

So I conclude that on the 3rd Oct the police had not verified who the phone actually belonged to

Nyi Nyi Aung, and Aung Zaw Lin (along with Maung Maung) are the only room mates of the B2 that we have been told about. It does seem odd that only Maung Maung has provided the B2 with some sort of alibi. The other two have only been mentioned in connection with the phone.

The matter of the phone is open to interpretation. First of all the RTP said it was Hannah's, then it was proved that it wasn't, so the RTP said it was David's. Some reports say it was found inside the B2's residence and some reports say it was found at the back of the residence in the undergrowth. There is also a photo of Chris Ware identifying a phone with the RTP, presumably David's. Now we are led to believe that David had two phones. Then there is the matter of the sunglasses. These were only mentioned when the B2 were officially charged in court. There was no prior mention that the B2 or anybody connected with them were in possession of David's sunglasses.

I would have thought the fact that a phone believed to belong to one of the victims had been given to the B2's room mates by Win and Zaw would have been pretty damning evidence, but according to the reports of the pre-trial witness testimonies, it was not. The bottom line is that whatever these three 'witnesses' said in that courtroom in Koh Samui was not enough to prove Win and Zaw were the murderers.

The reporting in this case has been so confusing that it's hard to know what to believe.

[greenchair]

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:32, said:

loonodingle, on 11 Feb 2015 - 16:37, said:

One thing they had Burmese witnesses who said the 2 young men gave them David's phone. Well who is to say they hadn't been paid to say that. It's already known they offered money to the taxi driver. Also the 3rd person was released as long as he gave evidence?

I dont recall the burmese witnesses claiming it was Davids Phone, however I do have an account where they say a phone was given to them by the 2 accused but where suspicious of its origin.

Does anybody still have the links to the confessions statements including contents

Here's the link to an article which talks about the room mates of Win and Zaw and the fact that they were allegedly given a phone believed to belong to one of the victims by the suspects, Win and Zaw.

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murders-third-man-released-returning-to-burma-myanmar/45040

Maung Maung, Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin were called as prosecution witnesses on Tuesday and gave testimonies in a preliminary hearing at a courthouse in Koh Samui, southern Thailand.

Moe Wai, a member of the Burmese embassy delegation that attended the hearing, said Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin were mostly quizzed about a mobile phone belonging to one of the victims. The pair testified that they were given the phone by the suspects and decided to smash it with a hammer after being unable to use it, he said.

and then we have this:

Moe Wai said that nothing that the three witnesses said in their individual testimonies amounted to evidence that supports the allegations against Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin.

None of the witness testimonies included anything that could implicate [Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin] as the murderers. Its starting to appear that it wasnt them, said Moe Wai.

Confusing, or what?

Even after all these months, interesting information keeps popping up.

Muang Muang is still on my suspect list. He was out and about at the time of murders.

He was the first to confess, then instead of being put in prison, he was put in a special bungalow for safe keeping. Then he was let go. A girlfriend alibi would not mean that much in the west. These other 2 boys were sharing the room. Why have they not said anything about what time the b2 came back? Were they sleeping too , when Muang Muang came back.

[greenchair]

Did the hammer come from the same place as the hoe.

[IslandLover]

greenchair, on 12 Feb 2015 - 00:53, said:

IslandLover, on 11 Feb 2015 - 19:35, said:

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:32, said:

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:32, said:

loonodingle, on 11 Feb 2015 - 16:37, said:

loonodingle, on 11 Feb 2015 - 16:37, said:

One thing they had Burmese witnesses who said the 2 young men gave them David's phone. Well who is to say they hadn't been paid to say that. It's already known they offered money to the taxi driver. Also the 3rd person was released as long as he gave evidence?

I dont recall the burmese witnesses claiming it was Davids Phone, however I do have an account where they say a phone was given to them by the 2 accused but where suspicious of its origin.

Does anybody still have the links to the confessions statements including contents

Here's the link to an article which talks about the room mates of Win and Zaw and the fact that they were allegedly given a phone believed to belong to one of the victims by the suspects, Win and Zaw.

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murders-third-man-released-returning-to-burma-myanmar/45040

Maung Maung, Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin were called as prosecution witnesses on Tuesday and gave testimonies in a preliminary hearing at a courthouse in Koh Samui, southern Thailand.

Moe Wai, a member of the Burmese embassy delegation that attended the hearing, said Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin were mostly quizzed about a mobile phone belonging to one of the victims. The pair testified that they were given the phone by the suspects and decided to smash it with a hammer after being unable to use it, he said.

and then we have this:

Moe Wai said that nothing that the three witnesses said in their individual testimonies amounted to evidence that supports the allegations against Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin.

None of the witness testimonies included anything that could implicate [Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin] as the murderers. Its starting to appear that it wasnt them, said Moe Wai.

Confusing, or what?

Even after all these months, interesting information keeps popping up.

Muang Muang is still on my suspect list. He was out and about at the time of murders.

He was the first to confess, then instead of being put in prison, he was put in a special bungalow for safe keeping. Then he was let go. A girlfriend alibi would not mean that much in the west. These other 2 boys were sharing the room. Why have they not said anything about what time the b2 came back? Were they sleeping too , when Muang Muang came back.

I don't think Maung Maung confessed to anything, apart from being on the beach with Win and Zaw and being on CCTV footage (the motorbike and buying a packet of cigs in the convenience store). He did say that he was beaten up by the RTP and the pancake man, as were Win and Zaw. As far as I know, Win was the first to 'confess' when he was arrested in Surat Thani.

[thailandchilli]

IslandLover, on 11 Feb 2015 - 03:41, said:

A person of interest's fb just got reactivated

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005621986285&fref=ts

Just to add, his stint as a monk didn't last very long. It's also worth noting that one of his 'friends' has been posting on this very forum.

Yes one of his friends and posts on this very forum in his broken English

[thailandchilli]

One thing they had Burmese witnesses who said the 2 young men gave them David's phone. Well who is to say they hadn't been paid to say that. It's already known they offered money to the taxi driver. Also the 3rd person was released as long as he gave evidence?

I dont recall the burmese witnesses claiming it was Davids Phone, however I do have an account where they say a phone was given to them by the 2 accused but where suspicious of its origin.

Does anybody still have the links to the confessions statements including contents

Here's one of the alleged confessions for what its worth, how long did the RTP have them in the safe house to extract this piece of sh!t from him with no lawyer present and apparently under threat of torture?

Image source: http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=th&u=http://news.thaipbs.or.th/content/%25E0%25B8%25AD%25E0%25B8%2587%25E0%25B8%2584%25E0%25B9%258C%25E0%25B8%2581%25E0%25B8%25A3%25E0%25B8%25AA%25E0%25B8%25B4%25E0%25B8%2597%25E0%25B8%2598%25E0%25B8%25B4%25E0%25B8%25AF%25E0%25B9%2580%25E0%25B8%2595%25E0%25B8%25A3%25E0%25B8%25B5%25E0%25B8%25A2%25E0%25B8%25A1%25E0%25B8%25A5%25E0%25B8%2587%25E0%25B8%259E%25E0%25B8%25B7%25E0%25B9%2589%25E0%25B8%2599%25E0%25B8%2597%25E0%25B8%25B5%25E0%25B9%2588%25E0%25B8%258A%25E0%25B9%2588%25E0%25B8%25A7%25E0%25B8%25A2%25E0%25B9%2580%25E0%25B8%25AB%25E0%25B8%25A5%25E0%25B8%25B7%25E0%25B8%25AD%25E0%25B8%2597%25E0%25B8%25B2%25E0%25B8%2587%25E0%25B8%2584%25E0%25B8%2594%25E0%25B8%25B5%25E0%25B8%259C%25E0%25B8%25B9%25E0%25B9%2589%25E0%25B8%2595%25E0%25B9%2589%25E0%25B8%25AD%25E0%25B8%2587%25E0%25B8%25AB%25E0%25B8%25B2%25E0%25B8%2586%25E0%25B9%2588%25E0%25B8%25B2%25E0%25B8%2599%25E0%25B8%25B1%25E0%25B8%2581%25E0%25B8%2597%25E0%25B9%2588%25E0%25B8%25AD%25E0%25B8%2587%25E0%25B9%2580%25E0%25B8%2597%25E0%25B8%25B5%25E0%25B9%2588%25E0%25B8%25A2%25E0%25B8%25A7%25E0%25B8%258A%25E0%25B8%25B2%25E0%25B8%25A7%25E0%25B8%25AD%25E0%25B8%25B1%25E0%25B8%2587%25E0%25B8%2581%25E0%25B8%25A4%25E0%25B8%25A9&prev=search

[IslandLover]

thailandchilli, on 12 Feb 2015 - 02:15, said:

IslandLover, on 11 Feb 2015 - 19:52, said:

IslandLover, on 11 Feb 2015 - 03:41, said:IslandLover, on 11 Feb 2015 - 03:41, said:

A person of interest's fb just got reactivated

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005621986285&fref=ts

Just to add, his stint as a monk didn't last very long. It's also worth noting that one of his 'friends' has been posting on this very forum.

Yes one of his friends and posts on this very forum in his broken English

Ooops

[AleG]

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:32, said:

loonodingle, on 11 Feb 2015 - 16:37, said:

One thing they had Burmese witnesses who said the 2 young men gave them David's phone. Well who is to say they hadn't been paid to say that. It's already known they offered money to the taxi driver. Also the 3rd person was released as long as he gave evidence?

I dont recall the burmese witnesses claiming it was Davids Phone, however I do have an account where they say a phone was given to them by the 2 accused but where suspicious of its origin.

Does anybody still have the links to the confessions statements including contents

Here's the link to an article which talks about the room mates of Win and Zaw and the fact that they were allegedly given a phone believed to belong to one of the victims by the suspects, Win and Zaw.

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murders-third-man-released-returning-to-burma-myanmar/45040

Maung Maung, Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin were called as prosecution witnesses on Tuesday and gave testimonies in a preliminary hearing at a courthouse in Koh Samui, southern Thailand.

Moe Wai, a member of the Burmese embassy delegation that attended the hearing, said Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin were mostly quizzed about a mobile phone belonging to one of the victims. The pair testified that they were given the phone by the suspects and decided to smash it with a hammer after being unable to use it, he said.

and then we have this:

Moe Wai said that nothing that the three witnesses said in their individual testimonies amounted to evidence that supports the allegations against Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin.

“None of the witness testimonies included anything that could implicate [Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin] as the murderers. It’s starting to appear that it wasn’t them,” said Moe Wai.

Confusing, or what?

Not confussing, it's standard CYA lawyer talk, it goes like this: yes it has been established that they had possession of one of the victim's belongings, but that doesn't mean they were the murderers, they could have stolen it before, or after the murder, or being given it by the real murderers, etc, etc...

In short, it's circumstantial evidence, what it does prove though is that the two Burmese suspects claims that they have no connection to the murders are false.

[IslandLover]

AleG, on 12 Feb 2015 - 03:26, said:

IslandLover, on 11 Feb 2015 - 19:35, said:

rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:32, said:rockingrobin, on 11 Feb 2015 - 17:32, said:

loonodingle, on 11 Feb 2015 - 16:37, said:loonodingle, on 11 Feb 2015 - 16:37, said:

One thing they had Burmese witnesses who said the 2 young men gave them David's phone. Well who is to say they hadn't been paid to say that. It's already known they offered money to the taxi driver. Also the 3rd person was released as long as he gave evidence?

I dont recall the burmese witnesses claiming it was Davids Phone, however I do have an account where they say a phone was given to them by the 2 accused but where suspicious of its origin.

Does anybody still have the links to the confessions statements including contents

Here's the link to an article which talks about the room mates of Win and Zaw and the fact that they were allegedly given a phone believed to belong to one of the victims by the suspects, Win and Zaw.

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murders-third-man-released-returning-to-burma-myanmar/45040

Maung Maung, Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin were called as prosecution witnesses on Tuesday and gave testimonies in a preliminary hearing at a courthouse in Koh Samui, southern Thailand.

Moe Wai, a member of the Burmese embassy delegation that attended the hearing, said Nyi Nyi Aung and Aung Zaw Lin were mostly quizzed about a mobile phone belonging to one of the victims. The pair testified that they were given the phone by the suspects and decided to smash it with a hammer after being unable to use it, he said.

and then we have this:

Moe Wai said that nothing that the three witnesses said in their individual testimonies amounted to evidence that supports the allegations against Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin.

“None of the witness testimonies included anything that could implicate [Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin] as the murderers. It’s starting to appear that it wasn’t them,” said Moe Wai.

Confusing, or what?

Not confussing, it's standard CYA lawyer talk, it goes like this: yes it has been established that they had possession of one of the victim's belongings, but that doesn't mean they were the murderers, they could have stolen it before, or after the murder, or being given it by the real murderers, etc, etc...

In short, it's circumstantial evidence, what it does prove though is that the two Burmese suspects claims that they have no connection to the murders are false.

Only if Nyi and Aung were telling the truth about the phone.

[AleG]

AleG, on 12 Feb 2015 - 03:26, said:

Not confussing, it's standard CYA lawyer talk, it goes like this: yes it has been established that they had possession of one of the victim's belongings, but that doesn't mean they were the murderers, they could have stolen it before, or after the murder, or being given it by the real murderers, etc, etc...

In short, it's circumstantial evidence, what it does prove though is that the two Burmese suspects claims that they have no connection to the murders are false.

Only if Nyi and Aung were telling the truth about the phone.

The phone was found where they left it, so there's actual physical evidence to support their testimony.

[IslandLover]

AleG, on 12 Feb 2015 - 03:38, said:

IslandLover, on 12 Feb 2015 - 03:35, said:

AleG, on 12 Feb 2015 - 03:26, said:AleG, on 12 Feb 2015 - 03:26, said:

Not confussing, it's standard CYA lawyer talk, it goes like this: yes it has been established that they had possession of one of the victim's belongings, but that doesn't mean they were the murderers, they could have stolen it before, or after the murder, or being given it by the real murderers, etc, etc...

In short, it's circumstantial evidence, what it does prove though is that the two Burmese suspects claims that they have no connection to the murders are false.

Only if Nyi and Aung were telling the truth about the phone.

The phone was found where they left it, so there's actual physical evidence to support their testimony.

The phone that was recovered could just as easily have been planted by (insert whoever you like here) and the two Burmese 'witnesses' could just as easily have been lying that they were given the phone by Win and Zaw.

[AleG]

AleG, on 12 Feb 2015 - 03:38, said:

The phone was found where they left it, so there's actual physical evidence to support their testimony.

The phone that was recovered could just as easily have been planted by (insert whoever you like here) and the two Burmese 'witnesses' could just as easily have been lying that they were given the phone by Win and Zaw.

On the other hand, this:

"The phone that was recovered could just as easily have been planted by (insert whoever you like here) and the two Burmese 'witnesses' could just as easily have been lying that they were given the phone by Win and Zaw."

Is not supported by any evidence.

[boomerangutang]

All this talk about the found phone. I think the phone is a gnat's ass from moot. At most, it might show that one of the B stole it from the scene of the crime. What's the penalty for stealing a mobile phone? Let's not forget, Thai officials originally claimed the phone was Hannah's. Then, when social media showed Hannah's phone was in police custody the day of the murders, Thai officials changed and claimed it was David's phone. Yet, David's phone was found at the crime scene, was it not? What the 'found phone' most likely shows is police planted it. They may have also planted the sunglasses purportedly stolen from David or the crime scene. Again, what's the penalty for stealing a pair of sunglasses? And how do cops assert the sunglasses were David's? DNA, dandruff, bits of hair, or a friend of David's assertion?

In sum, the phone and sunglasses supposedly found or planted behind the B's dwelling are ...red herrings. They detract from what investigators should be scrutinizing: the people and clues connecting the Headman's people to the crime.

Also: I don't know much about mobile phones, but shouldn't there be some sort of record of what numbers are calling which other numbers and the locations? If some of the headman's people were involved with the crime, it would be likely that a flurry of phone calls transpired from 4:30 am onward, on Monday. pre- and just after dawn are not common times for people to be making phone calls. Finding records of such phone calls, would be a big step towards implicating guilt. For example: We know it's likely the crime took place between 4:30 and 5 am on Monday. If there were a flurry of mobile phone calls between 4:30 and 8 am, let's say connecting Nomsod, Mon, the Headman, Nomsod's mother, speedboat operator(s), car drivers/taxis, girlfriends, other friends, people who do laundry/clean-up, etc ......that would be indicative of serious concerns (among the callers). Thus far, we've heard absolutely zero about phone calls from authorities. It's as if mobile phones and support technology doesn't exist on KT.

[AleG]

All this talk about the found phone. I think the phone is a gnat's ass from moot. At most, it might show that one of the B stole it from the scene of the crime. What's the penalty for stealing a mobile phone? Let's not forget, Thai officials originally claimed the phone was Hannah's. Then, when social media showed Hannah's phone was in police custody the day of the murders, Thai officials changed and claimed it was David's phone. Yet, David's phone was found at the crime scene, was it not? What the 'found phone' most likely shows is police planted it. They may have also planted the sunglasses purportedly stolen from David or the crime scene. Again, what's the penalty for stealing a pair of sunglasses? And how do cops assert the sunglasses were David's? DNA, dandruff, bits of hair, or a friend of David's assertion?

In sum, the phone and sunglasses supposedly found or planted behind the B's dwelling are ...red herrings. They detract from what investigators should be scrutinizing: the people and clues connecting the Headman's people to the crime.

Also: I don't know much about mobile phones, but shouldn't there be some sort of record of what numbers are calling which other numbers and the locations? If some of the headman's people were involved with the crime, it would be likely that a flurry of phone calls transpired from 4:30 am onward, on Monday. pre- and just after dawn are not common times for people to be making phone calls. Finding records of such phone calls, would be a big step towards implicating guilt. For example: We know it's likely the crime took place between 4:30 and 5 am on Monday. If there were a flurry of mobile phone calls between 4:30 and 8 am, let's say connecting Nomsod, Mon, the Headman, Nomsod's mother, speedboat operator(s), car drivers/taxis, girlfriends, other friends, people who do laundry/clean-up, etc ......that would be indicative of serious concerns (among the callers). Thus far, we've heard absolutely zero about phone calls from authorities. It's as if mobile phones and support technology doesn't exist on KT.

As usual, you rather dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of your own fantasies; not only that, you blatantly insist on peddling things that have been debunked, repeatedly, for example Miller had two phones, I'm certain you know this, yet you still say "Yet, David's phone was found at the crime scene, was it not? What the 'found phone' most likely shows is police planted it."

You also know that "Thai officials originally claimed the phone was Hannah's." is not true, it was one official during one press conference that mistook the ownership of the phone while addressing the press, you don't care about that, you just want to peddle innuendo and misleading information.

The funny thing is you accused me of wanting to destroy evidence against your boogiemen, and here what do you do? desperately trying to sweep under the rug actual evidence that doesn't match what you would really, really want to believe. You have serious projection issues.

Edited February 12, 2015 by AleG

[thailandchilli]

All this talk about the found phone. I think the phone is a gnat's ass from moot. At most, it might show that one of the B stole it from the scene of the crime. What's the penalty for stealing a mobile phone? Let's not forget, Thai officials originally claimed the phone was Hannah's. Then, when social media showed Hannah's phone was in police custody the day of the murders, Thai officials changed and claimed it was David's phone. Yet, David's phone was found at the crime scene, was it not? What the 'found phone' most likely shows is police planted it. They may have also planted the sunglasses purportedly stolen from David or the crime scene. Again, what's the penalty for stealing a pair of sunglasses? And how do cops assert the sunglasses were David's? DNA, dandruff, bits of hair, or a friend of David's assertion?

In sum, the phone and sunglasses supposedly found or planted behind the B's dwelling are ...red herrings. They detract from what investigators should be scrutinizing: the people and clues connecting the Headman's people to the crime.

Also: I don't know much about mobile phones, but shouldn't there be some sort of record of what numbers are calling which other numbers and the locations? If some of the headman's people were involved with the crime, it would be likely that a flurry of phone calls transpired from 4:30 am onward, on Monday. pre- and just after dawn are not common times for people to be making phone calls. Finding records of such phone calls, would be a big step towards implicating guilt. For example: We know it's likely the crime took place between 4:30 and 5 am on Monday. If there were a flurry of mobile phone calls between 4:30 and 8 am, let's say connecting Nomsod, Mon, the Headman, Nomsod's mother, speedboat operator(s), car drivers/taxis, girlfriends, other friends, people who do laundry/clean-up, etc ......that would be indicative of serious concerns (among the callers). Thus far, we've heard absolutely zero about phone calls from authorities. It's as if mobile phones and support technology doesn't exist on KT.

As usual, you rather dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of your own fantasies; not only that, you blatantly insist on peddling things that have been debunked, repeatedly, for example Miller had two phones, I'm certain you know this, yet you still say "Yet, David's phone was found at the crime scene, was it not? What the 'found phone' most likely shows is police planted it."

You also know that "Thai officials originally claimed the phone was Hannah's." is not true, it was one official during one press conference that mistook the ownership of the phone while addressing the press, you don't care about that, you just want to peddle innuendo and misleading information.

The funny thing is you accused me of wanting to destroy evidence against your boogiemen, and here what do you do? desperately trying to sweep under the rug actual evidence that doesn't match what you would really, really want to believe. You have serious projection issues.

Not just one official but the head of the RTP Somyot Pumphanmuang stated that it was Hannah's phone that was found. Yes this was recanted as a mistake, so many mistakes in this case it seems

Also while its possible David had 2 phones, I've never seen a confirmation report on that, as far as I know its purely speculation

[stephen terry]

So the prosecution will use the finding of a mobile phone and sunglasses as circumstantial evidence against the B2. They would need witnesses to state that they were in the possession of the B2 to form a definite link. I am sure the RTP are quite capable of doing this whether or not it is true.

It's up to the defence to counter this, by contesting exactly the circumstances and location these items were found.

For example, in the bushes behind the Burmese lodgings, which is easy to contest. With no fingerprints on the articles, anyone could have planted them, or anyone could have stolen them, or anyone could have found them on the beach prior to the discovery of the bodies. Possibly also state that the initial RTP did search the area where the B2 were lodging.

The defence would also need to contest or disprove any witnesses' statements. For example, what is laughable, if it wasn't so serious, is why anyone of sound mind would pocket sunglasses? What, to parade around the island wearing them while a hundred cops were prowling around looking for clues?

[greenchair]

Really, it's neither here nor there whose phone it was.

The fact is there was a phone of one of the victims. It is possible that the phone was given to the b2. By the same person who conveniently gave the police the guitar and their clothes. The person who produced these evidence has never been revealed. These objects were not part of the original items found at the scene. Apparently they were given to the police by a concerned citizen. Stands to reason, that if said person has clothes and guitar. Then also could have phone of victim. Could it be he was a thief, that stole clothes and phone.

[greenchair]

Mon himself, might have, maybe given phone to b2. If I was them i would reveal that at all. As it is too dangerous for them.

[seahorse]

Really, it's neither here nor there whose phone it was.

The fact is there was a phone of one of the victims. It is possible that the phone was given to the b2. By the same person who conveniently gave the police the guitar and their clothes. The person who produced these evidence has never been revealed. These objects were not part of the original items found at the scene. Apparently they were given to the police by a concerned citizen. Stands to reason, that if said person has clothes and guitar. Then also could have phone of victim. Could it be he was a thief, that stole clothes and phone.

Of course it matters whose phone it was. Hannah's phone was handed in to police and David's phone was found at the crime scene. If the phone behind the Burmese accommodation is one of these two, it means that it was put there by police.

[berybert]

All this talk about the found phone. I think the phone is a gnat's ass from moot. At most, it might show that one of the B stole it from the scene of the crime. What's the penalty for stealing a mobile phone? Let's not forget, Thai officials originally claimed the phone was Hannah's. Then, when social media showed Hannah's phone was in police custody the day of the murders, Thai officials changed and claimed it was David's phone. Yet, David's phone was found at the crime scene, was it not? What the 'found phone' most likely shows is police planted it. They may have also planted the sunglasses purportedly stolen from David or the crime scene. Again, what's the penalty for stealing a pair of sunglasses? And how do cops assert the sunglasses were David's? DNA, dandruff, bits of hair, or a friend of David's assertion?

In sum, the phone and sunglasses supposedly found or planted behind the B's dwelling are ...red herrings. They detract from what investigators should be scrutinizing: the people and clues connecting the Headman's people to the crime.

Also: I don't know much about mobile phones, but shouldn't there be some sort of record of what numbers are calling which other numbers and the locations? If some of the headman's people were involved with the crime, it would be likely that a flurry of phone calls transpired from 4:30 am onward, on Monday. pre- and just after dawn are not common times for people to be making phone calls. Finding records of such phone calls, would be a big step towards implicating guilt. For example: We know it's likely the crime took place between 4:30 and 5 am on Monday. If there were a flurry of mobile phone calls between 4:30 and 8 am, let's say connecting Nomsod, Mon, the Headman, Nomsod's mother, speedboat operator(s), car drivers/taxis, girlfriends, other friends, people who do laundry/clean-up, etc ......that would be indicative of serious concerns (among the callers). Thus far, we've heard absolutely zero about phone calls from authorities. It's as if mobile phones and support technology doesn't exist on KT.

As usual, you rather dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of your own fantasies; not only that, you blatantly insist on peddling things that have been debunked, repeatedly, for example Miller had two phones, I'm certain you know this, yet you still say "Yet, David's phone was found at the crime scene, was it not? What the 'found phone' most likely shows is police planted it."

You also know that "Thai officials originally claimed the phone was Hannah's." is not true, it was one official during one press conference that mistook the ownership of the phone while addressing the press, you don't care about that, you just want to peddle innuendo and misleading information.

The funny thing is you accused me of wanting to destroy evidence against your boogiemen, and here what do you do? desperately trying to sweep under the rug actual evidence that doesn't match what you would really, really want to believe. You have serious projection issues.

Not just one official but the head of the RTP Somyot Pumphanmuang stated that it was Hannah's phone that was found. Yes this was recanted as a mistake, so many mistakes in this case it seems

Also while its possible David had 2 phones, I've never seen a confirmation report on that, as far as I know its purely speculation

I am sure most if not all who have commented on this thread have seen the video of Chris being show what is meant to be David's phone. He shakes his head as if to say it's not David's phone.

So how does an RTP apologist explain that ?

[thailandchilli]

David Miller according to reports went back to his room for the night and then told Chris Ware he was going out again to buy some cigarettes. So why would he on his way out again bring his sunglasses. There's cctv of him with what looks like the sunglasses hanging on the collar of his t shirt and then theres more shots taken of him without the sunglasses. Not sure what time these were taken but I would guess the one with sunglasses is before he went back to his room and the one without is when he went out again.

We know the RTP did a full search of David's and Chris Ware's room after the murders. Its possible they could have picked up any number of his personal items including the sunglasses if they were there and the phone. Afterall they packed Davids trousers into Chris's bag!

[Jai Dee]

From the Forum Rules:

10) Do not discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy.