Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[berybert]

So how did David get a fractured skull? If he was hit with the hoe, wouldn't it have left some blood? Wouldn't there be some DNA?

The re-enactment did not feature the "other" "sharp" "metal" weapon mentioned by police that was used to inflict the "deep cut" in David's neck and lacerations all over his face, skull, and shoulders, which obviously he sustained during a fight with someone. There was no fight re-enactment.

How can the prosecution case be taken seriously without any evidence?

How can two young men be convicted of murder and sent to their deaths without any proof that they did this?

Two bodies next to each other are evidence, a murder weapon is evidence, DNA from rape in one of the bodies is evidence, belongings of one of the deceased in possession of the suspects is evidence, witness, DNA in objects and CCTV video placing the suspects in the area of the murders, at the approximate time of the murders is evidence, etc, etc...

Saying there is no evidence is false, plain and simple.

If that evidence constitutes proof is up to the judge to decide, not some people that would rather ignore actual evidence in favour of fanciful speculation.

Sorry you have called BS too many times. CCTV showing the suspects in the area of the murders at the approximate time of the murders. Care to show us any evidence of that ?

Other than some people who are 100% not the suspects being seen on CCTV in the area at the approximate time of the murders, I for one don't recall any such thing.

Fanciful speculation indeed.

As for evidence being evidence. What evidence do you have that David was killed by a hoe ? No DNA = No evidence. No blood = No evidence.

No DNA of the accussed on hoe = No evidence.

But you know 100% the hoe is the murder weapon because someone In a uniform said so and you believe him.

The biker who was shot dead by a cop. His family were told he died banging his head after he fell off his bike. Sad to think if that had been your Son that would have been the end of it. Because you would have believed what the man in a uniform told you.

Edited March 19, 2015 by berybert

[AleG]

rtp

What fact? That Miller fought with his attackers?, that is not a fact, that is speculation.

If you can stop treating speculation and your own opinion (as in "David was killed by a hoe that has been discredited as his murder weapon") as facts and evidence as "evidence" then maybe you'll have a chance of actually being objective about the case.

RTP report plus autopsy report, re the cuts - or are those speculations? Or was Miller just standing there?

Being objective is being open-minded enough to question both sides of an 'argument'. In all of your posts on here, you've done nothing other than trying to discredit others' opinions.

Which means you're in denial. In denial that the RTP cannot be wrong, that their assertions cannot be faulty, that their case against the suspects cannot be questioned, that their evidence is factual and fool-proof. When you can accept that other opinions have validity, you're on your way to being objective.

And if you think I do not have any doubts as to the B2's innocence/non involvement, you're wrong again. However, as you've never raised any of those issues, I feel disinclined to relate any.

If I discredit your opinion is because there's no credibility behind it. You claim something, can't back it up with facts, then what credibility is there to support it?

Case in point:

"RTP report plus autopsy report, re the cuts - or are those speculations? Or was Miller just standing there?"

Have seen the autopsy report that states, as a fact, that he defended himself during the attack?

Because I am certain that you are just repeating speculation and re-branding it as fact.

"Which means you're in denial. In denial that the RTP cannot be wrong, that their assertions cannot be faulty, that their case against the suspects cannot be questioned, that their evidence is factual and fool-proof. When you can accept that other opinions have validity, you're on your way to being objective."

If your opinion is that something is a fact when it is not, then your opinion doesn't have validity, if you can't see it, it is not me who is in denial.

All the "Truth and Justice" league should take the time to put their theories through Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit:

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?

2. Does the source make similar claims?

3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?

4. Does this fit with the way the world works?

5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

6. Where does the preponderance of the evidence point?

7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?

8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

I had, and the result is: Baloney.

[catsanddogs]

So how did David get a fractured skull? If he was hit with the hoe, wouldn't it have left some blood? Wouldn't there be some DNA?

The re-enactment did not feature the "other" "sharp" "metal" weapon mentioned by police that was used to inflict the "deep cut" in David's neck and lacerations all over his face, skull, and shoulders, which obviously he sustained during a fight with someone. There was no fight re-enactment.

How can the prosecution case be taken seriously without any evidence?

How can two young men be convicted of murder and sent to their deaths without any proof that they did this?

Two bodies next to each other are evidence, a murder weapon is evidence, DNA from rape in one of the bodies is evidence, belongings of one of the deceased in possession of the suspects is evidence, witness, DNA in objects and CCTV video placing the suspects in the area of the murders, at the approximate time of the murders is evidence, etc, etc...

Saying there is no evidence is false, plain and simple.

If that evidence constitutes proof is up to the judge to decide, not some people that would rather ignore actual evidence in favour of fanciful speculation.

Were the bodies found next to each other?

What is the murder weapon for David?

Where is the evidence Hannah was actually raped?

Where is the hard evidence belongings of one of the deceased were actually in possession of the suspects?

Where is the CCTV evidence that places the B2 in the area of the murders at the approximate time of the murders? I am particularly keen for enlightenment on this last point as it certainly seems that you have been privy to CCTV that the rest of the posters on here have not.

[berybert]

So how did David get a fractured skull? If he was hit with the hoe, wouldn't it have left some blood? Wouldn't there be some DNA?

The re-enactment did not feature the "other" "sharp" "metal" weapon mentioned by police that was used to inflict the "deep cut" in David's neck and lacerations all over his face, skull, and shoulders, which obviously he sustained during a fight with someone. There was no fight re-enactment.

How can the prosecution case be taken seriously without any evidence?

How can two young men be convicted of murder and sent to their deaths without any proof that they did this?

Two bodies next to each other are evidence, a murder weapon is evidence, DNA from rape in one of the bodies is evidence, belongings of one of the deceased in possession of the suspects is evidence, witness, DNA in objects and CCTV video placing the suspects in the area of the murders, at the approximate time of the murders is evidence, etc, etc...

Saying there is no evidence is false, plain and simple.

If that evidence constitutes proof is up to the judge to decide, not some people that would rather ignore actual evidence in favour of fanciful speculation.

Were the bodies found next to each other?

What is the murder weapon for David?

Where is the evidence Hannah was actually raped?

Where is the hard evidence belongings of one of the deceased were actually in possession of the suspects?

Where is the CCTV evidence that places the B2 in the area of the murders at the approximate time of the murders? I am particularly keen for enlightenment on this last point as it certainly seems that you have been privy to CCTV that the rest of the posters on here have not.

In fact some of the statements AleG made are laughable. The bodies were found next to each other even more so than the CCTV footage,

I seem to recall David having his lungs full of water because he had been dragged into the sea.

But never let BS get in the way of a good story.

[AleG]

Two bodies next to each other are evidence, a murder weapon is evidence, DNA from rape in one of the bodies is evidence, belongings of one of the deceased in possession of the suspects is evidence, witness, DNA in objects and CCTV video placing the suspects in the area of the murders, at the approximate time of the murders is evidence, etc, etc...

Saying there is no evidence is false, plain and simple.

If that evidence constitutes proof is up to the judge to decide, not some people that would rather ignore actual evidence in favour of fanciful speculation.

Were the bodies found next to each other?

What is the murder weapon for David?

Where is the evidence Hannah was actually raped?

Where is the hard evidence belongings of one of the deceased were actually in possession of the suspects?

Where is the CCTV evidence that places the B2 in the area of the murders at the approximate time of the murders? I am particularly keen for enlightenment on this last point as it certainly seems that you have been privy to CCTV that the rest of the posters on here have not.

By your first question I can tell that you are being deliberately disingenuous, I don't bother dealing with that kind of beheaviour.

[thailandchilli]

I wonder if the prosecution will make similar replies to questions as above ^^ deflection may not work in court

[berybert]

I wonder if the prosecution will make similar replies to questions as above ^^ deflection may not work in court

I think some of it has to do with being in Thailand for to long. If you have a senior position you don't expect to ever be questioned.

I.E. Manager in Thailand, The two bodies were found together.

Underling, Yes sir very good sir.

In the U.K. Manager, The two bodies where found together.

Underling. No sir.

Sadly it seems here no one is never expected to be questioned, even when he knows that you know that he is lying.

That includes pictures proving what was sad was wrong also. No wonder justice is rarely seen.

[jdinasia]

I wonder if the prosecution will make similar replies to questions as above ^^ deflection may not work in court

Nope, the prosecution won't make a mistake in the wording.

The defense won't be using the conspiracy theorists' arguments either, as conspiracy theories won't work in court either.

[berybert]

I wonder if the prosecution will make similar replies to questions as above ^^ deflection may not work in court

Nope, the prosecution won't make a mistake in the wording.

The defense won't be using the conspiracy theorists' arguments either, as conspiracy theories won't work in court either.

I hope you are right jd. Just plain old detective work. Facts would also be nice. No need for lies .

Don't want another of these cases where by the police claim someone died from falling off a bike, We know the person died from falling off a bike. Missing out the bit that an officer put a bullet thru his head to make him fall off the bike is quite a statement to leave out.

Edited March 19, 2015 by berybert

[thailandchilli]

I wonder if the prosecution will make similar replies to questions as above ^^ deflection may not work in court

Nope, the prosecution won't make a mistake in the wording.

The defense won't be using the conspiracy theorists' arguments either, as conspiracy theories won't work in court either.

Oh really, no mistakes can be made by the prosecution in their wording, better have a word with them because they've already made one booby in court in Dec...........

"Zaw Lin’s produced his passport in response to the prosecutors charge of illegal stay in Thailand, he was lawfully residing in Thailand at time of his arrest." http://www.samuitimes.com/koh-tao-murders-trial-underway-samui-provincial-court/

Seems checking the evidence for this particular charge was somewhat, um forgotten about??

But good to see your so sure no more mistakes by them will be made, I admire your confidence though do not share it.

[boomerangutang]

Add DNA to the other direct and circumstantial evidence and, while not a foregone conclusion, it is likely the defendants will be convicted.

I agree the defendents will likely be convicted. Do I think 'fairly'? No.

Saying there is no evidence is false, plain and simple.

Ummm, like CCTV evidence showing Nomsod walking fast and looking paranoid at 4.59 am on Monday morning, meters from the crime?

Nope, the prosecution won't make a mistake in the wording.

The defense won't be using the conspiracy theorists' arguments either, as conspiracy theories won't work in court either.

Interesting that jdinasia seems to know so much about what the prosecution may or may not do. Will 'the pprosecution not make a mistake...' like their police buddies didn't make any mistakes in the reenactment, or...

>>> not insisting on CCTV from the bars or

>>> not doing full body searches of 'people of interest' or

>>> getting caught in the lie of saying they found Hannah's phone at the Burmeses' and shortly after (when dreaded social media showed that was not possible) retracted that statement.

>>> not looking for bloody clothing outside the crime scene

>>> not searching Mon's room

>>> not looking at phone histories from that morning

>>> believing the flaccid, badly concocted alibi video of Nomsod at U with no books/papers/ in a room which showed furniture which had been moved out weeks earlier (also revealed by dreaded social media).

....the beat goes on....

[AleG]

I wonder if the prosecution will make similar replies to questions as above ^^ deflection may not work in court

I don't know, are you going to resort to that sort of disingenuous beheaviour at court?

[AleG]

Saying there is no evidence is false, plain and simple.

Ummm, like CCTV evidence showing Nomsod walking fast and looking paranoid at 4.59 am on Monday morning, meters from the crime?

You still don't understand that your biased opinion does not constitute evidence of anything but your own biases.

Edited March 19, 2015 by AleG

[thailandchilli]

I wonder if the prosecution will make similar replies to questions as above ^^ deflection may not work in court

I don't know, are you going to resort to that sort of disingenuous beheaviour at court?

I'm not going to court so I'm not sure what on earth your talking about and what on earth its got to do with my post, deflection however was something to do with it, but I see you deflect that again

[catsanddogs]

Saying there is no evidence is false, plain and simple.

Ummm, like CCTV evidence showing Nomsod walking fast and looking paranoid at 4.59 am on Monday morning, meters from the crime?

You still don't understand that your biased opinion does not constitute evidence of anything but your own biases.

AleG. Please back up your statement that 'CCTV evidence places the B2 in the area of the murders at the approximate time of the murders'. As you know, many posters on here have spent much time in the past 6 months looking at the available CCTV in order to gain some understanding of what happened on 15th September 2014. Do you have the footage or stills please? Or have you been made aware of this footage from another source? Sincerely hoping that you can back your statement up because you need to.

[IslandLover]

stephenterry, on 19 Mar 2015 - 04:37, said:stephenterry, on 19 Mar 2015 - 04:37, said:

IslandLover, on 19 Mar 2015 - 03:44, said:IslandLover, on 19 Mar 2015 - 03:44, said:

seahorse, on 19 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:seahorse, on 19 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:seahorse, on 19 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:

So how did David get a fractured skull? If he was hit with the hoe, wouldn't it have left some blood? Wouldn't there be some DNA?

The re-enactment did not feature the "other" "sharp" "metal" weapon mentioned by police that was used to inflict the "deep cut" in David's neck and lacerations all over his face, skull, and shoulders, which obviously he sustained during a fight with someone. There was no fight re-enactment.

How can the prosecution case be taken seriously without any evidence?

How can two young men be convicted of murder and sent to their deaths without any proof that they did this?

Several reports stated that David had wounds on his hands which would indicate that he fought with his attackers. This was NOT represented in the farcical reenactment.

Why let facts spoil a good police theory? You'll want us to believe David was killed by a hoe that has been discredited as his murder weapon, next.

The whole point is I DO NOT think David was battered and killed by the hoe that was used on Hannah. The RTP themselves said David's wounds to his hands indicated he fought with his attackers (also according to the autopsy report if I remember correctly). This fact seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the RTP. The reenactment was entirely based on the "confessions" (later retracted) of the B2. There is no way they could have killed David in the manner suggested by the reenactment when most of his wounds were so obviously knife wounds. The actual cause of death was drowning according to the Thais.

Edited March 19, 2015 by IslandLover

[thailandchilli]

stephenterry, on 19 Mar 2015 - 04:37, said:stephenterry, on 19 Mar 2015 - 04:37, said:

IslandLover, on 19 Mar 2015 - 03:44, said:IslandLover, on 19 Mar 2015 - 03:44, said:

seahorse, on 19 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:seahorse, on 19 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:seahorse, on 19 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:

So how did David get a fractured skull? If he was hit with the hoe, wouldn't it have left some blood? Wouldn't there be some DNA?

The re-enactment did not feature the "other" "sharp" "metal" weapon mentioned by police that was used to inflict the "deep cut" in David's neck and lacerations all over his face, skull, and shoulders, which obviously he sustained during a fight with someone. There was no fight re-enactment.

How can the prosecution case be taken seriously without any evidence?

How can two young men be convicted of murder and sent to their deaths without any proof that they did this?

Several reports stated that David had wounds on his hands which would indicate that he fought with his attackers. This was NOT represented in the farcical reenactment.

Why let facts spoil a good police theory? You'll want us to believe David was killed by a hoe that has been discredited as his murder weapon, next.

The whole point is I DO NOT think David was battered and killed by the hoe that was used on Hannah. The RTP themselves said David's wounds to his hands indicated he fought with his attackers (also according to the autopsy report if I remember correctly). This fact seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the RTP. The reenactment was entirely based on the "confessions" (later retracted) of the B2. There is no way they could have killed David in the manner suggested by the reenactment when most of his wounds were so obviously knife wounds. The actual cause of death was drowning according to the Thais.

Just to draw on a report for that Islandlover,

Koh Tao, Thailand: Hannah Witheridge 'Not Raped' and David Miller 'Struggled' Before He Died

tests performed by the Police Hospital's Institute of Forensic Medicine have revealed she appeared to have engaged in consensual "sexual relations" before her death.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/koh-tao-thailand-hannah-witheridge-not-raped-david-miller-struggled-before-he-died-1465844

Actually there's a much better report on this on the AD website but not allowed to link to it from the 17th Sept

Edited March 19, 2015 by thailandchilli

[boomerangutang]

Saying there is no evidence is false, plain and simple.

Ummm, like CCTV evidence showing Nomsod walking fast and looking paranoid at 4.59 am on Monday morning, meters from the crime?

You still don't understand that your biased opinion does not constitute evidence of anything but your own biases.

During the first week of the investigation, police investigators were looking for Nomsod, who they said was the man in the CCTV. So it's not only me (and tens of thousands of other concerned observers) who think it's Nomsod in that video. Nomsod evaded police for a week. Do you deny that? Even when they caught up with him, he was allowed to avoid having his DNA tested. No such allowances were offered to any of the dozens of Burmese migrants. It's very doubtful that police did a full body search of Nomsod or checked his phone records from the time of the crime. Cops probably didn't even check his room or seriously question people who are close to him.

All the cops seemed to do was swallow, hook line and sinker, the two still shots waved around by Nomsod's lawyer (before the doctored video was released). Cops were so eager to indict non-Thai migrants, that they apparently dismissed their prior prime suspects, Mon and Nomsod, in a Ko Tao heartbeat.

BTW, has there been any official announcement that Nomsod and Mon are no longer suspects? Or is it simply inferred by those who bend over backwards trying to shield them from any scrutiny.

400 posts ago, I admitted I was biased in this case. I'm biased toward getting the people who are paid by taxpayers (police investigators) to do their jobs. Their jobs are to protect the people who pay their salaries. It is to protect the people (Thai, migrants, tourists, everyone in Thailand), as well as find and bring to court people who are likely criminals. Thai cops, in this case (and others) are clearly not doing their jobs. Every official involved with this investigation, from the top down, should be docked 6 months pay, for not doing their jobs. Not just Thai officials, but also British (with any involvement in this case), all of whom are derelict in their professions. If I hire someone to fix my toilet, and they take payment and leave while the toilet is still broken, ...I can surmise they're derelict in their job, and took my money unfairly. How different is that from what Thai officials have been doing re; the Ko Tao case since September '14?

[jimmybkk]

As for how the trial is reported, let's see when it gets here.

Uhmmm... Nah. Why wait? You've made it clear that you're in the know about this subject so let's take a look at it now.

No it is not safe to say that. You will most likely hear about the testimony and evidence daily. You will hear about it again at the reading of the verdict.

The daily reporting will need to match what the observers see. (the court could reasonably limit what is reported -regarding the details -as there will be other people testifying to the same topics who should not be influenced by the testimony of others)

I expect the daily reports to be limited to things such as "today the prosecution presented evidence of the DNA from the semen found in Hannah to match the defendants " followed by"the defense contested this evidence on the grounds of..."

Or "today the prosecution presented evidence of the confessions by the defendants made to the police then later to..." The defense claims that the confessions to the police was coerced....

We certainly won't know how much credence the judges give either argument until the verdict is read.

This is an important point and you have offered some interesting insight into what we can expect in terms of the reporting, so let's not close the door on this just yet. As per the title of this thread the lives of 2 young men are at stake here and there are clearly numerous people who would like to see justice to be served. Not only posters on this forum, but also family and friends of both the defendants and the victims who no doubt are interested to know just what can be expected of the reporting of events at the trial and to what extent they are likely to to be able to "see" justice being served if they cannot attend the trial in person. I believe the parents of the victims have stated their desire for a fair and transparent trial, and no doubt they would be comforted to know that events will be reported on daily, because naturally this suggests an element of transparency. I suppose it is even possible that some interested parties in the UK, Jersey or Myanmar, who are perhaps debating whether to come all the way to Thailand to attend the trial, may feel based on your posts that if they ultimately decide that they cannot afford the time and expense of attending in person they need not be heartbroken because at least they will be kept abreast of events as they happen, day to day, and the trial shall be conducted under the watchful eye of the media which hopefully should prevent any miscarriages of justice from taking place.

So I think most people would agree that this is an important point we are discussing here, and your style of posting is very authoritative. You are not afraid to make assertions and based on the certainty with which you make some of these assertions it appears that you are more familiar than most with the judicial process in Thailand, and I could understand if people were to believe what you post as being true. For example, I cannot recall reading one of your posts that starts: "Well, I'm no expert, but here's what I think..." or "If I were to take a guess I would say that...". You know, those disclaimers at the beginning of a sentence that let's the reader know that ultimately they should not entirely trust what they are about to read because it is only an opinion, not a fact.

In the posts of yours I've quoted above, the underlying sentiment is that there is no question about whether or not daily reporting of events shall take place, the only uncertainty is regarding what will be the content of such reporting. For example, you do not start the 2nd quoted post with: "In the event that there is daily reporting of events, it would need to match what observers see.". You are authoritatively stating that THERE WILL BE DAILY REPORTING, and here is an example of the form I expect those reports to take... And so, given your knowledge of the judicial system here, and your obvious contempt for anything posted that is not factual, it is only natural to assume that you have some historical evidence of trials such as this where the public has been kept abreast of events by the releasing of daily reports. So, given the importance of this subject I think it only correct that you corroborate your assertion that the release of daily trial reports is something that has occurred in previous murder trials and something we can expect to see in this trial, by pointing to where we can find examples of such reports. I have tried searching for some examples but all of my searching leads me to information which directly contradicts what you are asserting. I have read that journalists present at a trial may be barred from taking any notes and, with few exceptions, are not allowed to publish any reports of trial events until the trial is over. I've also read that witnesses that fail to show up when they should, or lawyers failing to show up when they should can result in trials that go on for years

But anyway - you seem to know differently and you will be posting links that will silence anyone who is beginning to think you are lying about those daily reports, right? Because I should warn you that in my experience if you don't post the links people are sure to start questioning why you're not posting the links, and that will probably lead people to thinking you're not posting the links because there are no links, and that there are no links because there are no daily reports, and if there are no daily reports then some people may start thinking you've been deliberately lying to them and before you know it you get labelled as a liar, and everything you ever posted becomes "unreliable" and it's pretty hard to get past the fact of being unreliable once you get labelled that on a forum.

[jimmybkk]

If I discredit your opinion is because there's no credibility behind it. You claim something, can't back it up with facts, then what credibility is there to support it?

Case in point:

"RTP report plus autopsy report, re the cuts - or are those speculations? Or was Miller just standing there?"

Have seen the autopsy report that states, as a fact, that he defended himself during the attack?

Because I am certain that you are just repeating speculation and re-branding it as fact.

"Which means you're in denial. In denial that the RTP cannot be wrong, that their assertions cannot be faulty, that their case against the suspects cannot be questioned, that their evidence is factual and fool-proof. When you can accept that other opinions have validity, you're on your way to being objective."

If your opinion is that something is a fact when it is not, then your opinion doesn't have validity, if you can't see it, it is not me who is in denial.

All the "Truth and Justice" league should take the time to put their theories through Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit:

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?

2. Does the source make similar claims?

3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?

4. Does this fit with the way the world works?

5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

6. Where does the preponderance of the evidence point?

7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?

8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

I had, and the result is: Baloney.

Hmmm... I dunno if this kit may be rigged to give the same answer every time, because I just tried running the whole theory that the 2 Burmese lads may be guilty through it and got the same answer as you. I then tried running just the DNA match to the defendants through it and got the same answer again.

Are you sure that's the genuine detection kit and not a fake? I thought the genuine kit had a hyphen in the name somewhere...

[boomerangutang]

I just watched the movie; Serpico. That's what Thailand needs now, particularly in regard to this case: a police insider who is brave enough to blow the whistle on endemic corruption. In Serpico, the corruption among NYC cops went all the way up to the commissioner and beyond ....to the mayor. Just as Serpico was hated by his fellow cops, any Thai cop who tries to go clean will be hated by his fellow cops. Worse than hated, that person will likely wind up like the Thai cop who mysteriously fell off a precipice and died, just weeks after the Ko Tao case got started. Maybe he was a Thai Serpico who got nipped in the bud.

In many countries, there are politicians making speeches about ridding uniformed ranks of corruption, but it's mostly grandstanding words - will little real action. Note to any would-be Serpicos: you could be a hero, but you could also be killed, so take care and watch your back.

[seahorse]

stephenterry, on 19 Mar 2015 - 04:37, said:stephenterry, on 19 Mar 2015 - 04:37, said:

IslandLover, on 19 Mar 2015 - 03:44, said:IslandLover, on 19 Mar 2015 - 03:44, said:

seahorse, on 19 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:seahorse, on 19 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:seahorse, on 19 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:

So how did David get a fractured skull? If he was hit with the hoe, wouldn't it have left some blood? Wouldn't there be some DNA?

The re-enactment did not feature the "other" "sharp" "metal" weapon mentioned by police that was used to inflict the "deep cut" in David's neck and lacerations all over his face, skull, and shoulders, which obviously he sustained during a fight with someone. There was no fight re-enactment.

How can the prosecution case be taken seriously without any evidence?

How can two young men be convicted of murder and sent to their deaths without any proof that they did this?

Several reports stated that David had wounds on his hands which would indicate that he fought with his attackers. This was NOT represented in the farcical reenactment.

Why let facts spoil a good police theory? You'll want us to believe David was killed by a hoe that has been discredited as his murder weapon, next.

The whole point is I DO NOT think David was battered and killed by the hoe that was used on Hannah. The RTP themselves said David's wounds to his hands indicated he fought with his attackers (also according to the autopsy report if I remember correctly). This fact seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the RTP. The reenactment was entirely based on the "confessions" (later retracted) of the B2. There is no way they could have killed David in the manner suggested by the reenactment when most of his wounds were so obviously knife wounds. The actual cause of death was drowning according to the Thais.

It's quite obvious that David was attacked with the "other" "sharp" "metal" weapon that the Surat Thani police were looking for. Anyone who has seen the photographs would know that. No just court could see those photographs and conclude that he was attacked by a hoe.

The prosecution case is full of holes.

[seahorse]

Colonel Prachum Ruangthong said the victims' bodies were found naked on a rocky beach, with the woman reportedly wearing just a bikini top and their clothes blood-stained.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/koh-tao-thailand-david-miller-jersey-hannah-witheridge-named-back-pack-murder-victims-first-1465533

In this report, the Surat Thani police say that "their clothes" were "blood-stained." Was the blood on these clothes tested for DNA? If not, why not?

[MaxLee]

No matter how you put it,... the peeps in the court are paid in advance......

[AleG]

I don't know, are you going to resort to that sort of disingenuous beheaviour at court?

I'm not going to court so I'm not sure what on earth your talking about and what on earth its got to do with my post, deflection however was something to do with it, but I see you deflect that again

Well, since you are not as keen on the concept of transparency as you claim to be I will clarify, you work with/for the defense team, therefore when I say "you" I mean the defense team.

[AleG]

You still don't understand that your biased opinion does not constitute evidence of anything but your own biases.

AleG. Please back up your statement that 'CCTV evidence places the B2 in the area of the murders at the approximate time of the murders'. As you know, many posters on here have spent much time in the past 6 months looking at the available CCTV in order to gain some understanding of what happened on 15th September 2014. Do you have the footage or stills please? Or have you been made aware of this footage from another source? Sincerely hoping that you can back your statement up because you need to.

Pages and pages of wasted bandwidth with the internet detectives going over every single detail (real or imagined) of the CCTV footage of the suspects caught on the night of the murders and you have the chutzpah to ask, again, the same inane question.

[thailandchilli]

I don't know, are you going to resort to that sort of disingenuous beheaviour at court?

I'm not going to court so I'm not sure what on earth your talking about and what on earth its got to do with my post, deflection however was something to do with it, but I see you deflect that again

Well, since you are not as keen on the concept of transparency as you claim to be I will clarify, you work with/for the defense team, therefore when I say "you" I mean the defense team.

Avoidance and deflection of my post content again. You make claims and cant back them up, a recurring theme with your posts

[stephenterry]

Saying there is no evidence is false, plain and simple.

Ummm, like CCTV evidence showing Nomsod walking fast and looking paranoid at 4.59 am on Monday morning, meters from the crime?

You still don't understand that your biased opinion does not constitute evidence of anything but your own biases.

AleG. Please back up your statement that 'CCTV evidence places the B2 in the area of the murders at the approximate time of the murders'. As you know, many posters on here have spent much time in the past 6 months looking at the available CCTV in order to gain some understanding of what happened on 15th September 2014. Do you have the footage or stills please? Or have you been made aware of this footage from another source? Sincerely hoping that you can back your statement up because you need to.

He can't. Because it doesn't exist. And, further, if it did exist, the B2 would have been arrested in the first few days following the murder. What did exist, and by now it's probably erased, is the footage that the Headman refused to hand over, and the RTP agreed it was private property. That is on record.

[berybert]

You still don't understand that your biased opinion does not constitute evidence of anything but your own biases.

AleG. Please back up your statement that 'CCTV evidence places the B2 in the area of the murders at the approximate time of the murders'. As you know, many posters on here have spent much time in the past 6 months looking at the available CCTV in order to gain some understanding of what happened on 15th September 2014. Do you have the footage or stills please? Or have you been made aware of this footage from another source? Sincerely hoping that you can back your statement up because you need to.

Pages and pages of wasted bandwidth with the internet detectives going over every single detail (real or imagined) of the CCTV footage of the suspects caught on the night of the murders and you have the chutzpah to ask, again, the same inane question.

This post just about sums you up. You are full of nothing.

So the suspects on the morning of the murder, cause lets not forget the night of the murder would have been 15 hours after the two had been killed.

The morning of the murder we have seen footage of the Burmese shopping for cigarettes hours before anyone was killed and we have seen footage of them riding on a motorbike hours before anyone was killed.

My hope would be that they get found not guilty. Then start doing that wonderful Thai thing of suing people for telling lies. So that would be people like you.

[Scott]

Factually untrue posts and replies removed.