Hannah's murder was one of revenge, not lust, owing to the terrible attack on her with a hoe, and how her body was left, legs spread in an unseemly manner as if sending a 'not to <deleted> with me' message.

The RTP's scenario doesn't seem logical.

Seems like another Prosecution Gee-we-never-thought-about-that moment for Mr. Terry.

Seems like another Prosecution Gee-we-never-thought-about-that moment for Mr. Terry.

Well, they clearly didn't, did they, when they staged the re-enactment? They probably couldn't care less, anyway, the general public would swallow it.

Talking about murder weapons and the absence of - there was a still posted a while back where the guy who looked like Maung Maung was seen walking with what another poster said was a rubbish truck driving behind him. I can't find that picture now but the one here is a similar still but without the truck. A poster said that the trucks collected rubbish in the early hours on Koh Tao. Did the police check the truck for any bloodied objects I wonder?

Reminds me of a leaking dam (it being a cover-up) and the RTP trying to plug holes as more and more occur.

Talking about murder weapons and the absence of - there was a still posted a while back where the guy who looked like Maung Maung was seen walking with what another poster said was a rubbish truck driving behind him. I can't find that picture now but the one here is a similar still but without the truck. A poster said that the trucks collected rubbish in the early hours on Koh Tao. Did the police check the truck for any bloodied objects I wonder?

What would have been also interesting is whether the RTP questioned the beach cleaners who found the bodies, and their responses. I assume the RTP wouldn't have missed either.

Hannah's murder was one of revenge, not lust, owing to the terrible attack on her with a hoe, and how her body was left, legs spread in an unseemly manner as if sending a 'not to <deleted> with me' message.

The RTP's scenario doesn't seem logical.

I would agree that the attack on Hannah and David are different ,

We will see what DNA evidence is presented in court.

Don't pin all your hopes on DNA. If acceptable, it would be circumstantial at best, but would not be prima facie evidence of murder. Therein lies the rub. There are few who believe the B2 are the killers, but there is a lack of reported evidence to support that charge.

Maybe a number of prosecution witnesses who have miraculously materialised at a late stage instead of at the beginning of the investigation, will fill the gap. I find it laughable that these 60+ prosecution witnesses weren't able to march the B2 into RTP HQ in the few days following the murders.

Note: Extract from Wiki: In a trial under criminal law the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against the defendant. In a murder case, this would include evidence that i) the victim was in fact dead, i) that the defendant's act caused the death, and iii) evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought. If no party introduces new evidence, the case stands or falls just by the prima facie evidence or lack thereof.

Let's look at this. i) is fact. ii) No suspects DNA on the hoe, no other murder weapon = no prima facie evidence iii) no prima facie evidence to support malice, see ii).

Conclusion: there is a lack of prima facie evidence to support a murder charge.

Wrong conclusion.

You can get a murder conviction with no body and no murder weapon.

With eye witnesses and other prima facie evidence that would pass the 'beyond reasonable doubt' criteria - but in this case there's a lack of such evidence.

I still need to know how you think David was killed? Can't be the hoe. With a bottle? Or an AK47? Prove it. And this is what the prosecution faces. They need more to gain a murder conviction.

According to the coroner, David was killed by a massive blow to the head and drowning. The ocean is still there. The trial will tell us if the prosecution says the hoe caused the blow, or if it was another weapon. There's no need for the prosecution to introduce the other weapon.

I am trying to reason why on the 16th September the RTP could establish time of attack between 3 and 5 am

The 3 am would have come from interviewing friends (left between 3 and 4 ), but the official time of discovery is 6:30 ish,

So what is missing to get a time of 5am

Don't pin all your hopes on DNA. If acceptable, it would be circumstantial at best, but would not be prima facie evidence of murder. Therein lies the rub. There are few who believe the B2 are the killers, but there is a lack of reported evidence to support that charge.

Maybe a number of prosecution witnesses who have miraculously materialised at a late stage instead of at the beginning of the investigation, will fill the gap. I find it laughable that these 60+ prosecution witnesses weren't able to march the B2 into RTP HQ in the few days following the murders.

Note: Extract from Wiki: In a trial under criminal law the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against the defendant. In a murder case, this would include evidence that i) the victim was in fact dead, i) that the defendant's act caused the death, and iii) evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought. If no party introduces new evidence, the case stands or falls just by the prima facie evidence or lack thereof.

Let's look at this. i) is fact. ii) No suspects DNA on the hoe, no other murder weapon = no prima facie evidence iii) no prima facie evidence to support malice, see ii).

Conclusion: there is a lack of prima facie evidence to support a murder charge.

Wrong conclusion.

You can get a murder conviction with no body and no murder weapon.

With eye witnesses and other prima facie evidence that would pass the 'beyond reasonable doubt' criteria - but in this case there's a lack of such evidence.

I still need to know how you think David was killed? Can't be the hoe. With a bottle? Or an AK47? Prove it. And this is what the prosecution faces. They need more to gain a murder conviction.

According to the coroner, David was killed by a massive blow to the head and drowning. The ocean is still there. The trial will tell us if the prosecution says the hoe caused the blow, or if it was another weapon. There's no need for the prosecution to introduce the other weapon.

How many more times do I need to point out that the BKK autopsy report stated that David's DNA was NOT found on the hoe? That is prima facie evidence for the defence.

As far as I understand the the hoe was used to kill David and the reason that there is none of his dna on the hoe is because it was washed in the sea

However there was an early report that stated the Police was suspicious of the hoe because they would normally expect the perpetrators to throw it into the sea hoping it would get washed away

Don't pin all your hopes on DNA. If acceptable, it would be circumstantial at best, but would not be prima facie evidence of murder. Therein lies the rub. There are few who believe the B2 are the killers, but there is a lack of reported evidence to support that charge.

Maybe a number of prosecution witnesses who have miraculously materialised at a late stage instead of at the beginning of the investigation, will fill the gap. I find it laughable that these 60+ prosecution witnesses weren't able to march the B2 into RTP HQ in the few days following the murders.

Note: Extract from Wiki: In a trial under criminal law the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against the defendant. In a murder case, this would include evidence that i) the victim was in fact dead, i) that the defendant's act caused the death, and iii) evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought. If no party introduces new evidence, the case stands or falls just by the prima facie evidence or lack thereof.

Let's look at this. i) is fact. ii) No suspects DNA on the hoe, no other murder weapon = no prima facie evidence iii) no prima facie evidence to support malice, see ii).

Conclusion: there is a lack of prima facie evidence to support a murder charge.

Wrong conclusion.

You can get a murder conviction with no body and no murder weapon.

With eye witnesses and other prima facie evidence that would pass the 'beyond reasonable doubt' criteria - but in this case there's a lack of such evidence.

I still need to know how you think David was killed? Can't be the hoe. With a bottle? Or an AK47? Prove it. And this is what the prosecution faces. They need more to gain a murder conviction.

According to the coroner, David was killed by a massive blow to the head and drowning. The ocean is still there. The trial will tell us if the prosecution says the hoe caused the blow, or if it was another weapon. There's no need for the prosecution to introduce the other weapon.

How many more times do I need to point out that the BKK autopsy report stated that David's DNA was NOT found on the hoe? That is prima facie evidence for the defence.

Again no it is not. All the prosecution has to do is explain the death. They don't have to provide the murder weapon ( though one is right there, the ocean)

We don't know what the case that the prosecution is going to present.

(You somehow think that they need to prove something to you before the trial. They don't)

You do know... well, actually I'm sure you don't know, that phone records are kept by the service provider, they are not simply kept on the end user's phone.

I assumed that, but didn't know for sure, because there's been zero mention of that (except by me and a couple others who seek truth and justice) on this thread. The RTP certainly haven't mentioned anything about phone records. They did, however mention a mobile phone, but that was retracted quickly when it was shown, byt social media, to be a 'plant' by the cops. Thanks for clearing that up AleG. Now tell us why the RTP don't seem at all concerned about who called who early on Sept 15, 2014.

Again, you create a strawman, that the police didn't check any phone records, you assume your self-serving story to be true and use it to arrive to, surprise surprise, to the conclusion you wanted to arrive in the first place. How very convenient.

In any case, it's funny how the same tired, thoroughly debunked memes get trotted out, over and over again. The pants in the crime scene in this case. They were Miller's pants, that's reality, do try to handle it.

You're right, I don't know for sure (if cops tried looking at phone data), and neither does anyone else on this blog. However, RTP and officials have mentioned many things: bikinis, semen on nipples, sunglasses, broken phones, million dollar offers for evidence, ....etc., yet haven't made a peep about phone records. They wouldn't be shielding some well-connected people, would they? nawwww, not possible in this Land of Honesty and Frankness.

On a side note: It's entirely possible that the phone company could be asked for data, and simply say, "sorry, we don't have that data any more. Too much time has passed by."

A similar scenario happened with me. I thought I had some money taken out of my account via an ATM in Thailand. I did a police report. Cops said, "no problem, we'll get the video for the times of withdrawal at those machines" (p.s. I did all the background work of garnering data about the ATM's times of withdrawals, etc.). A month later, cops told me the same, "Don't worry, we will get the CCTC data. It all first goes to Bkk, but we made a request, and we'll get it." Two months later, cops tell me with a smile; "Sorry. The office in Bkk said the data is no longer available. It all gets erased after 60 days."

the RTP and H's people know that a flurry of calls by H's people very early on Monday morning would be incriminating - and revealing if, for example, the calls were to speedboat operator(s) or Nomsod's mother, or the H himself or ..... policemen, or....people who do laundry. I'm not saying that happened, am just saying if such phone calls were made, it sure would open this case up. I'll bet anyone Bt.1,000 that such phone data won't be revealed (probably wasn't even sought) - to the general public or to the defense.

If none of Mr. Miller's DNA shows up on Ms. Witheridge, it is also possible that they were interrupted before Mr. Miller reached any climax.

And as I have pointed out before these two people who were in lust with each other didn't manage to swap saliva. Or do you only kiss after climax ?

Perhaps Crab was referring to something a farang friend of mine likes to do: sex without touching, ...though the man touches himself. Possible in the crime scenario? Extremely improbable.

According to the coroner, David was killed by a massive blow to the head and drowning. The ocean is still there. The trial will tell us if the prosecution says the hoe caused the blow, or if it was another weapon. There's no need for the prosecution to introduce the other weapon.

What about the several stab wounds to the right side of David's neck? And other stab wounds to his body? ...all same size. Not possible with a blunt force object like a a clumsy blunt hoe. I don't deny that David may have had his skull hit by the back end of a hoe. Either way, it's odd the hoe wasn't chucked in to the ocean or otherwise disposed of. The panic of the moment, at a dark site, probably explains it.

I am trying to reason why on the 16th September the RTP could establish time of attack between 3 and 5 am

The 3 am would have come from interviewing friends (left between 3 and 4 ), but the official time of discovery is 6:30 ish,

So what is missing to get a time of 5am

The running man with not top and white shorts seems, to me, to indicate time of crime. That CCTV of him was just before 5 am, so I deduce the crime happened in the half hour leading up to 5 am. The most dramatic parts of the crime may have only taken 10 to 15 minutes in toto. Only the criminals know for sure.

You're absolutely right. I have no idea to what extent the UK forensics persons are able to obtain DNA from another person's saliva from a corpse that has been embalmed and repatriated to the home country.

Sorry you seem to have lost the plot. Hannah was murdered in Thailand, so it would be up to the Thai authorities to find out the who what's and wherefore.

Thank you. I have indeed lost the plot ... I am off now to find it knowing that the search for truth & justice remains in able hands.

You're absolutely right. I have no idea to what extent the UK forensics persons are able to obtain DNA from another person's saliva from a corpse that has been embalmed and repatriated to the home country.

Sorry you seem to have lost the plot. Hannah was murdered in Thailand, so it would be up to the Thai authorities to find out the who what's and wherefore.

Which they believe that they have done, which is why there are suspects charged with the crime and why there's going to be a trial.

As far as I understand the the hoe was used to kill David and the reason that there is none of his dna on the hoe is because it was washed in the sea

However there was an early report that stated the Police was suspicious of the hoe because they would normally expect the perpetrators to throw it into the sea hoping it would get washed away

Ok, we'll kill the man with the hoe, wash it off in the sea to remove all traces of his DNA, and then kill the woman with it and leave it lying there on the beach unwashed with her DNA all over it.

Plausible?

Repeat: the absence of David's DNA on the hoe (for whatever reason), or any other missing murder weapon, cannot directly link his death to the B2. The prosecution needs more prima facie evidence.

Oh, and the second sentence - the enraged killer couldn't give a toss, this is what happens if you mess with me.

According to the coroner, David was killed by a massive blow to the head and drowning. The ocean is still there. The trial will tell us if the prosecution says the hoe caused the blow, or if it was another weapon. There's no need for the prosecution to introduce the other weapon.

What about the several stab wounds to the right side of David's neck? And other stab wounds to his body? ...all same size. Not possible with a blunt force object like a a clumsy blunt hoe. I don't deny that David may have had his skull hit by the back end of a hoe. Either way, it's odd the hoe wasn't chucked in to the ocean or otherwise disposed of. The panic of the moment, at a dark site, probably explains it.

It really doesn't matter, because there's no reported evidence that the B2 attacked David (or Hannah, come to that). Unless new evidence is revealed at the trial to directly link the B2 to David's attack there is no case for them to answer.

According to the coroner, David was killed by a massive blow to the head and drowning. The ocean is still there. The trial will tell us if the prosecution says the hoe caused the blow, or if it was another weapon. There's no need for the prosecution to introduce the other weapon.

What about the several stab wounds to the right side of David's neck? And other stab wounds to his body? ...all same size. Not possible with a blunt force object like a a clumsy blunt hoe. I don't deny that David may have had his skull hit by the back end of a hoe. Either way, it's odd the hoe wasn't chucked in to the ocean or otherwise disposed of. The panic of the moment, at a dark site, probably explains it.

It really doesn't matter, because there's no reported evidence that the B2 attacked David (or Hannah, come to that). Unless new evidence is revealed at the trial to directly link the B2 to David's attack there is no case for them to answer.

DNA in Hannah is evidence, Miller's possessions on the hands of the suspects is evidence, their DNA in the cigarettes at the crime scene is evidence, their presence in the area at the time of the murder is evidence, their confession is evidence.

According to the coroner, David was killed by a massive blow to the head and drowning. The ocean is still there. The trial will tell us if the prosecution says the hoe caused the blow, or if it was another weapon. There's no need for the prosecution to introduce the other weapon.

How many more times do I need to point out that the BKK autopsy report stated that David's DNA was NOT found on the hoe? That is prima facie evidence for the defence.

Again no it is not. All the prosecution has to do is explain the death. They don't have to provide the murder weapon ( though one is right there, the ocean)

We don't know what the case that the prosecution is going to present.

(You somehow think that they need to prove something to you before the trial. They don't)

All the prosecution needs to do is to explain the death (not true) - they need to provide evidence to show it was the B2 that caused it. How?

'Well your honour, they were at the vicinity of the crime scene, and we have a DNA match on the rape, and we have a witness stating they had an I-phone belonging to one of the victims.'

'And that proves they killed the victims? Have you any evidence of that? A murder weapon with their DNA on it? Fingerprints? Eye-witnesses? Forensic analysis of their lodgings and clothing? Behavourial attitude pre and post murders? Anything that could directly link them to the killings?'

Unless the prosecution has, their case comes to a halt. However galling it might be to those who believe the B2 are guilty of the murder crimes, if it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the court should have no option but to state there is insufficient evidence to convict them of murder.

This is what justice means. Whether it will be applied in this case, is debatable.

It really doesn't matter, because there's no reported evidence that the B2 attacked David (or Hannah, come to that). Unless new evidence is revealed at the trial to directly link the B2 to David's attack there is no case for them to answer.

DNA in Hannah is evidence, Miller's possessions on the hands of the suspects is evidence, their DNA in the cigarettes at the crime scene is evidence, their presence in the area at the time of the murder is evidence, their confession is evidence.

<snip>

AleG. I know it must be frustrating to read an opinion that is different from yours, and to clear up one falsehood - the confession was retracted. None of the other evidence is anything more than circumstantial regarding the charge of murder. Whether that is enough to convince the judge they committed the killings is what this trial is all about.

<snip>

It really doesn't matter, because there's no reported evidence that the B2 attacked David (or Hannah, come to that). Unless new evidence is revealed at the trial to directly link the B2 to David's attack there is no case for them to answer.

DNA in Hannah is evidence, Miller's possessions on the hands of the suspects is evidence, their DNA in the cigarettes at the crime scene is evidence, their presence in the area at the time of the murder is evidence, their confession is evidence.

<snip>

AleG. I know it must be frustrating to read an opinion that is different from yours, and to clear up one falsehood - the confession was retracted. None of the other evidence is anything more than circumstantial regarding the charge of murder. Whether that is enough to convince the judge they committed the killings is what this trial is all about.

<snip>

"there's no reported evidence that the B2 attacked David (or Hannah, come to that)."

That statement is false, regardless of whether you take issue at that fact being pointed out or not.

<snip>

By the way, it is not up to the accused to disregard their confession as evidence, that is up to the judge.

And no judge in the modern world would allow a confession as evidence when it is retracted and complaints of torture. In the modern world.

And no judge in the modern world would allow a confession as evidence when it is retracted and complaints of torture. In the modern world.

Since there were at least 3 confessions there's no telling what a group of judges would rule.

It is plausible that the confessions to the police would be allowed back in after deposing the HRC commissioner and the lawyer who both made public statements after the 2 Burmese men charged with the crimes confessed to them.

And no judge in the modern world would allow a confession as evidence when it is retracted and complaints of torture. In the modern world.

Since there were at least 3 confessions there's no telling what a group of judges would rule.

It is plausible that the confessions to the police would be allowed back in after deposing the HRC commissioner and the lawyer who both made public statements after the 2 Burmese men charged with the crimes confessed to them.

Well hopefully being as we are in the 21st century not only should there be a recording of the confessions there should also be film of it. Show the film.

Unlike the CCTV footage, the police will own their own film. So any reason they wouldn't show it ?

A couple of posts referencing moderation have been removed.

And no judge in the modern world would allow a confession as evidence when it is retracted and complaints of torture. In the modern world.

Since there were at least 3 confessions there's no telling what a group of judges would rule.

It is plausible that the confessions to the police would be allowed back in after deposing the HRC commissioner and the lawyer who both made public statements after the 2 Burmese men charged with the crimes confessed to them.

Well hopefully being as we are in the 21st century not only should there be a recording of the confessions there should also be film of it. Show the film.

Unlike the CCTV footage, the police will own their own film. So any reason they wouldn't show it ?

You may wish to reread what I wrote.

It really doesn't matter, because there's no reported evidence that the B2 attacked David (or Hannah, come to that). Unless new evidence is revealed at the trial to directly link the B2 to David's attack there is no case for them to answer.

DNA in Hannah is evidence, Miller's possessions on the hands of the suspects is evidence, their DNA in the cigarettes at the crime scene is evidence, their presence in the area at the time of the murder is evidence, their confession is evidence. <snip>

AleG. I know it must be frustrating to read an opinion that is different from yours, and to clear up one falsehood - the confession was retracted. None of the other evidence is anything more than circumstantial regarding the charge of murder. Whether that is enough to convince the judge they committed the killings is what this trial is all about.

<snip>

DNA on a weapon is circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence.

Guilty verdicts can be obtained from circumstantial evidence.