Thai court grants Koh Tao evidence review for pair accused of Brit murders

[rockingrobin]

There has been mention that the bodies was discovered by beach cleaners, supposedly at 06:30 ish, (or maybe earlier ), but the local police informed around 11:00 am,

Therefore the reasonable question is what transpired in this 4-5 hour time frame.

I am assuming by local police they mean Surat Thani

[jdinasia]

dm - review the facts known and then get back with me.

[AleG]

Just one question to the hang'em high-brigade: soooooo...let's assume for a second, that you are right (which you are not IMO) and the B2 killed and raped poor Hannah (which they did not IMO).

They didn't care to flee the island, they didn't care for the hoe, they didn't care throwing the victims phone (one of many, if we follow all the police reporting) behind their place and they are overall totally careless with important evidence.

How come, the second murder weapon was never found and there never was any mentioning of bloodstained clothes...and as I understand, there should have been lots of blood!

They didn't give two hot sh1ts for all the "evidence" presented, but they were careful enough to get rid of the clothes and the second murder weapon, right?!

Just asking your opinions, of course!

One of the men on trial tried to flee the island, and was caught in the mainland. As for bloody clothes, they claimed theirs were stolen, along with the guitar they were playing, when they went swimming, however to their friend they told they had left the guitar at the bar, so which one is the lie? Since the guitar was actually found I would say the first one.

They cared enough for the phone as to try to get rid of it, for the hoe they were probably too drunk to think straight at the time. They also, allegedly, claimed to use a bottle to attack Miller, which could explain the cuts on the right side of his head, as if hit from behind by a right handed person and why it hasn't been found, glass fragments in the sand after the tide has come in and out would be impossible to find or relate to the murder, no need for forethought in getting rid of it (as opposed to making up an excuse when asked about the clothes they were wearing nearly three weeks after the events)

[boomerangutang]

Then, of course, the fact that the bodies were found by Burmese cleaners that then raised the alert completely demolishes Boomerangutang's latest display of self serving prejudice.

Whether cleaners found the bodies or not is not mentioned by either side of the prior missives. That's a side topic. You wanna talk about who found the bodies, and what action they took? We can talk about that, if you want. It may include Mon saying he was notified, and went running out, dressed only in his briefs (wrong direction, then right direction), and so on. Mon sure looked youthful that morning. How a 40-something yr. old man can look like a 19 yr old skinny kid is amazing. If he's got some 'fountain-of-youth' pills, tell him I'd like some. And all those players are hard-drinkers who party-hardy 'til the wee hours.

Stealing a cell phone and pair of sunglasses from a corpse (if that's what either of the B boys did) is disgusting, but not grounds for putting someone in jail for a year without bail, while facing the death penalty. There's still the prickly issue of who would get so enraged as to bludgeon a young woman to death. Two guys who, minutes earlier, were playing guitar by a campfire?

Answer that question, and you're probably well on the way to solving the case.

Are you really saying that the two defendants were gaoled and bail refused because of allegedly stealing a phone and sunglasses from one of the deceased. They confessed, didn't they, whether foolishly or otherwise, to the murders and rape, so I'd suggest it is for these reasons that they were gaoled and also because they were in the country illegally and were considered a flight risk. Now, whether it occurred as they alleged or not, they have taken themselves out of the frying pan and into the fire, either by being truthful and admitting to something without understanding their rights or, as they allege, were forced to confess.

Yes, they retracted their confessions, alleging they were made under duress but did this not occur until sometime later and only following a meeting with their legal representatives? Unfortunately, in any country, not only Thailand, if someone makes admissions and were found to be a flight risk, they too, would be interned until they had to present before a judge. I don't understand why you are forever harping on about them being gaoled and facing the death penalty, don't you understand that they are not facing anything yet, except a trail. They are not at risk of being executed for the alleged crimes, how can they be when they have not been convicted of any offence.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, privy to any of the evidence for or against the defendants until it is given in court. Now some may be released to the media but this is after the event so how is it that you profess to be an expert and have all this knowledge which enables you to decry others who have opposing opinions. No one knows what the outcome will be, I am sure the hell I don't and after reading the rubbish you post, I can assuredly state that you do not either, even though you think you do.

Biases, hearsay, innuendo, rumours and in some cases fabrications, do not come into play in a murder trail and the evidence given must be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants are guilty however, if this does not occur, then maybe, just maybe, they will be exonerated. I must add that your last statement is so ludicrous that one has to comment. No one, and I mean no one, on TVF, the lead investigators, detectives and lawyer, have any idea or will solve the case but it does make for some interesting reading. I really hope you were not serious with this aspect and said it, "tongue in cheek."

It's interesting that those who think the B2 are guilty (who are the same folks who shield the H's people and agree with everything the RTP states) are hot and cold. Here's what I mean: At times, they opine, and other times they act like this is a trial proceeding. It's always in response to somethings said by those of us seeking truth and justice. Here's how it goes: someone like myself gives an opinion, one of those opposed will try to jump all over it sounding (like the post above) like a hot shot lawyer in a courtroom. Another time, I may state something as fact (for example: and excerpt from a police statement), and the same crowd will retort with opinions, mentioning husbands shooting wives and such. Back and forth. Here's a suggestion: If I mention an opinion, or venture a possible crime scenario, how about responding in kind, and countering with an opposing opinion. If I mention something as fact (as I understand it), then counter with data which negates that fact, if you can.

Of course, nothing I say along these lines will alter the course of the conversation, and shrill denunciations and name-calling from those shielding the H's people (and agreeing note for note with everything the RTP puts forth) will be expected. Fire away fellows.

[AleG]

Then, of course, the fact that the bodies were found by Burmese cleaners that then raised the alert completely demolishes Boomerangutang's latest display of self serving prejudice.

Whether cleaners found the bodies or not is not mentioned by either side of the prior missives. That's a side topic. You wanna talk about who found the bodies, and what action they took? We can talk about that, if you want. It may include Mon saying he was notified, and went running out, dressed only in his briefs (wrong direction, then right direction), and so on. Mon sure looked youthful that morning. How a 40-something yr. old man can look like a 19 yr old skinny kid is amazing. If he's got some 'fountain-of-youth' pills, tell him I'd like some. And all those players are hard-drinkers who party-hardy 'til the wee hours.

Stealing a cell phone and pair of sunglasses from a corpse (if that's what either of the B boys did) is disgusting, but not grounds for putting someone in jail for a year without bail, while facing the death penalty. There's still the prickly issue of who would get so enraged as to bludgeon a young woman to death. Two guys who, minutes earlier, were playing guitar by a campfire?

Answer that question, and you're probably well on the way to solving the case.

You claimed that Asians wouldn't report finding the bodies for some imagined racial stereotyping of yours ("Asians in general try to skirt away from trouble as much as possible. Plus, every migrant Burmese knows how easy it is to become a scapegoat for a crime in Thailand."), the fact is Asians (Burmese in particular) found the bodies and reported the find, which demonstrate that once again you simply make things as you go to try to prop up a completely untenable "scenario.

[StealthEnergiser]

Then, of course, the fact that the bodies were found by Burmese cleaners that then raised the alert completely demolishes Boomerangutang's latest display of self serving prejudice.

Whether cleaners found the bodies or not is not mentioned by either side of the prior missives. That's a side topic. You wanna talk about who found the bodies, and what action they took? We can talk about that, if you want. It may include Mon saying he was notified, and went running out, dressed only in his briefs (wrong direction, then right direction), and so on. Mon sure looked youthful that morning. How a 40-something yr. old man can look like a 19 yr old skinny kid is amazing. If he's got some 'fountain-of-youth' pills, tell him I'd like some. And all those players are hard-drinkers who party-hardy 'til the wee hours.

Stealing a cell phone and pair of sunglasses from a corpse (if that's what either of the B boys did) is disgusting, but not grounds for putting someone in jail for a year without bail, while facing the death penalty. There's still the prickly issue of who would get so enraged as to bludgeon a young woman to death. Two guys who, minutes earlier, were playing guitar by a campfire?

Answer that question, and you're probably well on the way to solving the case.

I am not sure if we will ever know the reason why her face was smashed so bad but someone in the past mentioned that she may have been shot and the bullet could have been removed.

[AleG]

What official storey are you referring to? Doubter, naïve, your words, not mine. never wrote or intimated any such thing. If you want to respond fine, but don't change things around or add words in an attempt to discredit what I've posted. I might suggest that you're in need of a reality check if you think because someone has asked a number of questions of another poster that they have a readiness to believe the claims of others without sufficient evidence. (Naiveness) Please enlighten me as to what you're on about? What claims am I believing? I have no idea who committed the offenses and neither do you. To say otherwise is a total misconception.

You are making some spurious allegations in respect of the two alleged killers (Defendants). What is your expertise/background, given that you are not, never will be involved in the investigation, yet you are able to tell us that the real killers/rapists, have not been detained and that the two persons in custody are innocent. So you have a Police/legal background, have gained access to all the evidence, have accepted that the hearsay, innuendo and allegations that are flying around are gospel, therefore, in your infinite wisdom, you have gone from TVF lead Investigator ( Detective) to judge and found in favour of the defendants. (Not Guilty) On what grounds? You say that I suffer from naiveness, I would say that you suffer from delusions of grandeur if you truly believe what you are proffering.

Neither you, I or anyone else on here has any factual knowledge of what occurred, however, like everyone else, we have access to what is written in newspaper articles but not to the evidence obtained. Sure, if one accepts that there is some truth in the articles, taking into account the misleading police statements and the contamination of the crime scene, and some other matters that you raised then concerns have to be raised and questions asked but not answered by anyone on here. Why? Because they cannot.

You raise the point of the DNA being kept in the Headman's fridge, or as you put it, allegedly. Remember what that word means? You also raise many other points, none of which I raised when posting so why you have, one can only guess as to your motives. As for those additional points you raised, anything is possible but without proof, all you have is allegations, so what are you trying to prove by raising them when none were the subject of my post?

So summarising everything you have to say, you are convinced that a criminal conspiracy has taken place, with or without the support of the RTP, that there was a big chance of a post mortem rape occurring, or like the fence sitter that you are, she may have had consensual sex prior to her murder. Go over what you have written and tell me if you really believe what you say?

From the text I removed "They were Thai, and will be referred to in this text as the Headman’s people (H’s people)"

So that's Boomerangutang's work of fiction regarding the case, well done, and excellent example of what I refer to as inbred nonsense.

Edited May 4, 2015 by seedy
Quote hidden post

[AleG]

The Police Chief made a mistake and got confused with names when he made that announcement, and said it was Hannah's Cell Phone when in fact it was David's. A Big Mistake! But a mistake is not a Lie! It also doesn't mean these guys were framed or are innocent. It just means that this Police Chief, who has since been replaced, should have been more careful with his words.

Read this LINK

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1412601958&typecate=06&section=

The police announced it was Hannah's phone because they thought that would add cement to their case against the B2. They were blindsided by social media, which showed how police were in possession of Hannah's phone right after the murder. So their ruse didn't float, and they very quickly switched to say it was David's phone. However, even that was suspect, because it was reported in mid-Sept that David's phone was found at the crime scene. Did he have 2 phones? Maybe.

Even if there was a stolen phone found on the premises, here's another scenario: The B2 are playing guitar with a small crowd around a fire at the beach, after midnight(no one disputes that). They hear a commotion southward about 50 meters. They go and see what all the noise was about. Perps have fled. They take a m.phone and sunglasses. If so, that's theft, and not much more (except leaving the scene of a crime without offering aid to victims. But is that a crime in Thailand?) Why wouldn't they sound an alarm? Asians in general try to skirt away from trouble as much as possible. Plus, every migrant Burmese knows how easy it is to become a scapegoat for a crime in Thailand.

What an amazing deduction from the thought police. Are you fair dinkum? Police did this because they thought it would do that, come on, stop treating members with contempt. A new scenario, straight out of a scene from Hawaii Five O or some other fictitious crime series. Asians skirting away from trouble, gee, now Asia is crime free. This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

But I quite "like" that scenario, they found the bodies but decide not to say anything in fear they could be implicated in the murders... and then steal a phone and sunglasses from the victims because, you know, being found with that would not implicate them in the murders.

I like it because it clearly exemplifies the lack of intellectual rigor that goes into Boomerangutang's ad-hoc rationalizations.

[seedy]

One post edited -

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news
articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[catweazle]

The full text again: http://thailandjustice.com/introduction-to-koh-tao-investigation/

[jdinasia]

Then, of course, the fact that the bodies were found by Burmese cleaners that then raised the alert completely demolishes Boomerangutang's latest display of self serving prejudice.

Whether cleaners found the bodies or not is not mentioned by either side of the prior missives. That's a side topic. You wanna talk about who found the bodies, and what action they took? We can talk about that, if you want. It may include Mon saying he was notified, and went running out, dressed only in his briefs (wrong direction, then right direction), and so on. Mon sure looked youthful that morning. How a 40-something yr. old man can look like a 19 yr old skinny kid is amazing. If he's got some 'fountain-of-youth' pills, tell him I'd like some. And all those players are hard-drinkers who party-hardy 'til the wee hours.

Stealing a cell phone and pair of sunglasses from a corpse (if that's what either of the B boys did) is disgusting, but not grounds for putting someone in jail for a year without bail, while facing the death penalty. There's still the prickly issue of who would get so enraged as to bludgeon a young woman to death. Two guys who, minutes earlier, were playing guitar by a campfire?

Answer that question, and you're probably well on the way to solving the case.

I am not sure if we will ever know the reason why her face was smashed so bad but someone in the past mentioned that she may have been shot and the bullet could have been removed.

No credible source has ever suggested that.

[AleG]

Then, of course, the fact that the bodies were found by Burmese cleaners that then raised the alert completely demolishes Boomerangutang's latest display of self serving prejudice.

Whether cleaners found the bodies or not is not mentioned by either side of the prior missives. That's a side topic. You wanna talk about who found the bodies, and what action they took? We can talk about that, if you want. It may include Mon saying he was notified, and went running out, dressed only in his briefs (wrong direction, then right direction), and so on. Mon sure looked youthful that morning. How a 40-something yr. old man can look like a 19 yr old skinny kid is amazing. If he's got some 'fountain-of-youth' pills, tell him I'd like some. And all those players are hard-drinkers who party-hardy 'til the wee hours.

Stealing a cell phone and pair of sunglasses from a corpse (if that's what either of the B boys did) is disgusting, but not grounds for putting someone in jail for a year without bail, while facing the death penalty. There's still the prickly issue of who would get so enraged as to bludgeon a young woman to death. Two guys who, minutes earlier, were playing guitar by a campfire?

Answer that question, and you're probably well on the way to solving the case.

Are you really saying that the two defendants were gaoled and bail refused because of allegedly stealing a phone and sunglasses from one of the deceased. They confessed, didn't they, whether foolishly or otherwise, to the murders and rape, so I'd suggest it is for these reasons that they were gaoled and also because they were in the country illegally and were considered a flight risk. Now, whether it occurred as they alleged or not, they have taken themselves out of the frying pan and into the fire, either by being truthful and admitting to something without understanding their rights or, as they allege, were forced to confess.

Yes, they retracted their confessions, alleging they were made under duress but did this not occur until sometime later and only following a meeting with their legal representatives? Unfortunately, in any country, not only Thailand, if someone makes admissions and were found to be a flight risk, they too, would be interned until they had to present before a judge. I don't understand why you are forever harping on about them being gaoled and facing the death penalty, don't you understand that they are not facing anything yet, except a trail. They are not at risk of being executed for the alleged crimes, how can they be when they have not been convicted of any offence.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, privy to any of the evidence for or against the defendants until it is given in court. Now some may be released to the media but this is after the event so how is it that you profess to be an expert and have all this knowledge which enables you to decry others who have opposing opinions. No one knows what the outcome will be, I am sure the hell I don't and after reading the rubbish you post, I can assuredly state that you do not either, even though you think you do.

Biases, hearsay, innuendo, rumours and in some cases fabrications, do not come into play in a murder trail and the evidence given must be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants are guilty however, if this does not occur, then maybe, just maybe, they will be exonerated. I must add that your last statement is so ludicrous that one has to comment. No one, and I mean no one, on TVF, the lead investigators, detectives and lawyer, have any idea or will solve the case but it does make for some interesting reading. I really hope you were not serious with this aspect and said it, "tongue in cheek."

It's interesting that those who think the B2 are guilty (who are the same folks who shield the H's people and agree with everything the RTP states) are hot and cold. Here's what I mean: At times, they opine, and other times they act like this is a trial proceeding. It's always in response to somethings said by those of us seeking truth and justice. Here's how it goes: someone like myself gives an opinion, one of those opposed will try to jump all over it sounding (like the post above) like a hot shot lawyer in a courtroom. Another time, I may state something as fact (for example: and excerpt from a police statement), and the same crowd will retort with opinions, mentioning husbands shooting wives and such. Back and forth. Here's a suggestion: If I mention an opinion, or venture a possible crime scenario, how about responding in kind, and countering with an opposing opinion. If I mention something as fact (as I understand it), then counter with data which negates that fact, if you can.

Of course, nothing I say along these lines will alter the course of the conversation, and shrill denunciations and name-calling from those shielding the H's people (and agreeing note for note with everything the RTP puts forth) will be expected. Fire away fellows.

Ah, those shrill and name-calling people that disagree and disprove your "opinions" and "facts" (in quotations because you have repeatedly failed to distinguish them apart). They are not nice and well mannered like you, who simply call them shills for an alleged mafia family responsible for a horrible double murder, because that's the nice way to argue with people, assume they are part of a criminal conspiracy and that's why they do the things they do; heaven's forbid they may actually have a better grasp of reality, logic and argumentation.

[rockingrobin]

Just one question to the hang'em high-brigade: soooooo...let's assume for a second, that you are right (which you are not IMO) and the B2 killed and raped poor Hannah (which they did not IMO).

They didn't care to flee the island, they didn't care for the hoe, they didn't care throwing the victims phone (one of many, if we follow all the police reporting) behind their place and they are overall totally careless with important evidence.

How come, the second murder weapon was never found and there never was any mentioning of bloodstained clothes...and as I understand, there should have been lots of blood!

They didn't give two hot sh1ts for all the "evidence" presented, but they were careful enough to get rid of the clothes and the second murder weapon, right?!

Just asking your opinions, of course!

One of the men on trial tried to flee the island, and was caught in the mainland. As for bloody clothes, they claimed theirs were stolen, along with the guitar they were playing, when they went swimming, however to their friend they told they had left the guitar at the bar, so which one is the lie? Since the guitar was actually found I would say the first one.

They cared enough for the phone as to try to get rid of it, for the hoe they were probably too drunk to think straight at the time. They also, allegedly, claimed to use a bottle to attack Miller, which could explain the cuts on the right side of his head, as if hit from behind by a right handed person and why it hasn't been found, glass fragments in the sand after the tide has come in and out would be impossible to find or relate to the murder, no need for forethought in getting rid of it (as opposed to making up an excuse when asked about the clothes they were wearing nearly three weeks after the events)

Aleg

You make an interesting observation, the apparent contradiction regarding the guitar , stolen or left at ac bar.

You then come to a conclusion the statement about clothes and Guitar being stolen is a lie , so therefore what happened to their bloodied clothes , (apparently washed ) , what journey did the guitar take before being discovered i.e. was it left at the scene, given to a friend colleague, taken to ac bar

Obviously Muang Muang should be able to shed some light on the issue ,on his returning to ac bar was the guitar present or not

With the issue of the bottle to attack Miler it is my understanding that the discredited interpreter made the claims and the RTP have gone to great lengths to say the wounds was caused by the hoe

With regards to the phone , well what can i say, Hannahs or Davids , would not work so given to friend and smashed and left in plastic bag

[AleG]

Just one question to the hang'em high-brigade: soooooo...let's assume for a second, that you are right (which you are not IMO) and the B2 killed and raped poor Hannah (which they did not IMO).

They didn't care to flee the island, they didn't care for the hoe, they didn't care throwing the victims phone (one of many, if we follow all the police reporting) behind their place and they are overall totally careless with important evidence.

How come, the second murder weapon was never found and there never was any mentioning of bloodstained clothes...and as I understand, there should have been lots of blood!

They didn't give two hot sh1ts for all the "evidence" presented, but they were careful enough to get rid of the clothes and the second murder weapon, right?!

Just asking your opinions, of course!

One of the men on trial tried to flee the island, and was caught in the mainland. As for bloody clothes, they claimed theirs were stolen, along with the guitar they were playing, when they went swimming, however to their friend they told they had left the guitar at the bar, so which one is the lie? Since the guitar was actually found I would say the first one.

They cared enough for the phone as to try to get rid of it, for the hoe they were probably too drunk to think straight at the time. They also, allegedly, claimed to use a bottle to attack Miller, which could explain the cuts on the right side of his head, as if hit from behind by a right handed person and why it hasn't been found, glass fragments in the sand after the tide has come in and out would be impossible to find or relate to the murder, no need for forethought in getting rid of it (as opposed to making up an excuse when asked about the clothes they were wearing nearly three weeks after the events)

Aleg

You make an interesting observation, the apparent contradiction regarding the guitar , stolen or left at ac bar.

You then come to a conclusion the statement about clothes and Guitar being stolen is a lie , so therefore what happened to their bloodied clothes , (apparently washed ) , what journey did the guitar take before being discovered i.e. was it left at the scene, given to a friend colleague, taken to ac bar

Obviously Muang Muang should be able to shed some light on the issue ,on his returning to ac bar was the guitar present or not

With the issue of the bottle to attack Miler it is my understanding that the discredited interpreter made the claims and the RTP have gone to great lengths to say the wounds was caused by the hoe

With regards to the phone , well what can i say, Hannahs or Davids , would not work so given to friend and smashed and left in plastic bag

They claimed the guitar and clothes were stolen, after they had told Muang Muang that they left it at the bar (after being arrested in fact). They guitar was not missing, else it wouldn't had been taken as evidence, ergo, the claim that it was stolen is not true... and it was claimed concurrently with their clothes (that may had been bloodstained) being missing.

Guitar not missing, clothes that could be incriminating missing, it doesn't take a genius to deduce that a fabricated story that seeks to justify the disappearance of physical evidence is suspicious.

The interpreter has been discredited only by those that want to ignore his statements, what he said has not been discredited, that's what the trial is for.

As for the phone, the notion that the police planted Whiteridge's phone is nonsense since they were not the same phone, Miller's phone was a different model and colour, as the one found.

[seedy]

one post hidden - with a link to facebook

you have had one post edited, continue to post against the rules and receive a posting suspension

[rockingrobin]

Aleg

I fail to see how it can be concluded conclusively that the statement about the clothes and guitar being stolen is untrue ,as they could have equally been lying when telling Muang Muang the guitar was at ac bar. In reality all their statements could be untrue

I have not read or heard anything from Muang Muang about the guitar, and without knowing how the guitar was discovered or found then it is somewhat inconclusive

As for the interpreter , he is discredited on the basis that he is not an official registered interpreter , but a police volunteer

[boomerangutang]

The translator was not, by any stretch, a professional translator. He was also very likely subjective in regards to rival ethnic undercurrents between his clan and the other Burmeses'. He may have been translating inaccurately. None of the attending police would have known, because none speak Burmese. Mention of a broken bottle appears to have been invented by the translator, as there is no mention prior of a bottle as a weapon. In an earlier post, someone mentioned that using a broken bottle as a weapon would likely break the bottle further, thereby leaving shards in the wound(s) and/or at the crime scene. As far as we've heard, there's no physical evidence of a broken bottle in this case. In sum, the translator was unprofessional, subjective and may have tried to individually steer the investigation. Will the defense get to hear an audio or see a video version of the interrogations? Doubtful. If not, it's yet added proof (as if more were needed) of the unprofessional way RTP have gone about their frame-up attempt.

Note: after the interrogations, the Burmese scapegoats said they were more afraid of the translator than anyone else at the scene. Did the translator hit or otherwise threaten them? Maybe we'll find out at the trial.

Edited May 4, 2015 by boomerangutang

[jdinasia]

There's absolutely no need to introduce the confessions to the police into court testimony. There are 2 other confessions/public statements to use. That of the first defense attorney and the other to the HRC commissioner.

As to the issue of the bottle, I am unaware of any mention of it being broken. There was also mention of a metal bar. The coroner will be on the stand to discuss cause of death. Not being able to present either a bottle or a metal bar isn't a significant issue for the prosecution. This goes for the bloody clothes. After all, the crime was committed at the beach by the ocean.

What would it take to get a conviction in the US?

1) we were there.

2) items belonging to the victims were given to a friend who will testify.

3) 2 admissible confessions (not counting the one to the police.

4) no alibi

5) we were so drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours that we don't really remember.

6) DNA

[IslandLover]

The translator was not, by any stretch, a professional translator. He was also very likely subjective in regards to rival ethnic undercurrents between his clan and the other Burmeses'. He may have been translating inaccurately. None of the attending police would have known, because none speak Burmese. Mention of a broken bottle appears to have been invented by the translator, as there is no mention prior of a bottle as a weapon. In an earlier post, someone mentioned that using a broken bottle as a weapon would likely break the bottle further, thereby leaving shards in the wound(s) and/or at the crime scene. As far as we've heard, there's no physical evidence of a broken bottle in this case. In sum, the translator was unprofessional, subjective and may have tried to individually steer the investigation. Will the defense get to hear an audio or see a video version of the interrogations? Doubtful. If not, it's yet added proof (as if more were needed) of the unprofessional way RTP have gone about their frame-up attempt.

Note: after the interrogations, the Burmese scapegoats said they were more afraid of the translator than anyone else at the scene. Did the translator hit or otherwise threaten them? Maybe we'll find out at the trial.

Did the translator hit or otherwise threaten them?

Apparently, yes.

[jimmybkk]

There's absolutely no need to introduce the confessions to the police into court testimony. There are 2 other confessions/public statements to use. That of the first defense attorney and the other to the HRC commissioner.

As to the issue of the bottle, I am unaware of any mention of it being broken. There was also mention of a metal bar. The coroner will be on the stand to discuss cause of death. Not being able to present either a bottle or a metal bar isn't a significant issue for the prosecution. This goes for the bloody clothes. After all, the crime was committed at the beach by the ocean.

What would it take to get a conviction in the US?

1) we were there.

2) items belonging to the victims were given to a friend who will testify.

3) 2 admissible confessions (not counting the one to the police.

4) no alibi

5) we were so drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours that we don't really remember.

6) DNA

Utter nonsense. You have no idea what it would take to get a conviction in the US, and yet your 1-6 list is presented as being somehow factual. Why would you need to do that?

It just serves to remind me that everything presented as factual in those other 20,000 other posts of yours should be viewed with disbelief unless and until proved otherwise...

[jdinasia]

There's absolutely no need to introduce the confessions to the police into court testimony. There are 2 other confessions/public statements to use. That of the first defense attorney and the other to the HRC commissioner.

As to the issue of the bottle, I am unaware of any mention of it being broken. There was also mention of a metal bar. The coroner will be on the stand to discuss cause of death. Not being able to present either a bottle or a metal bar isn't a significant issue for the prosecution. This goes for the bloody clothes. After all, the crime was committed at the beach by the ocean.

What would it take to get a conviction in the US?

1) we were there.

2) items belonging to the victims were given to a friend who will testify.

3) 2 admissible confessions (not counting the one to the police.

4) no alibi

5) we were so drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours that we don't really remember.

6) DNA

Utter nonsense. You have no idea what it would take to get a conviction in the US, and yet your 1-6 list is presented as being somehow factual. Why would you need to do that?

It just serves to remind me that everything presented as factual in those other 20,000 other posts of yours should be viewed with disbelief unless and until proved otherwise...

I actually do know what it would take.

My post count is immaterial as is whether you believe me or not. The fact that you brought it up, however, is rather interesting though.

[berybert]

Just one question to the hang'em high-brigade: soooooo...let's assume for a second, that you are right (which you are not IMO) and the B2 killed and raped poor Hannah (which they did not IMO).

They didn't care to flee the island, they didn't care for the hoe, they didn't care throwing the victims phone (one of many, if we follow all the police reporting) behind their place and they are overall totally careless with important evidence.

How come, the second murder weapon was never found and there never was any mentioning of bloodstained clothes...and as I understand, there should have been lots of blood!

They didn't give two hot sh1ts for all the "evidence" presented, but they were careful enough to get rid of the clothes and the second murder weapon, right?!

Just asking your opinions, of course!

One of the men on trial tried to flee the island, and was caught in the mainland. As for bloody clothes, they claimed theirs were stolen, along with the guitar they were playing, when they went swimming, however to their friend they told they had left the guitar at the bar, so which one is the lie? Since the guitar was actually found I would say the first one.

They cared enough for the phone as to try to get rid of it, for the hoe they were probably too drunk to think straight at the time. They also, allegedly, claimed to use a bottle to attack Miller, which could explain the cuts on the right side of his head, as if hit from behind by a right handed person and why it hasn't been found, glass fragments in the sand after the tide has come in and out would be impossible to find or relate to the murder, no need for forethought in getting rid of it (as opposed to making up an excuse when asked about the clothes they were wearing nearly three weeks after the events)

AleG you keep on and on posting untruths. They were wearing the same clothes 3 weeks after the murders ? the same ones you say they claim had been stolen ? would these be the same clothes the RTP claim were covered in blood ? and the same clothes they wore when standing in line to do the DNA test. which as we all know had no blood on them at all.

You do realize a glass bottle is more than just fragments don't you ? Or are you claiming they were so drunk they couldn't be bothered to do anything with the hoe but took the time to get rid of the bottle. A broken bottle that has never been found. And with all these fragments you claim went missing with the tides why were none found in the cuts on Millers head ?

[berybert]

What is interesting is that in Thailand, when you confess, as the 2 Burmese defendants did; you receive a reduced sentence (normally)

However, a man who confessed was sentenced to death at almost the same time as the defendants.

Ah so you are saying the defendants had use of the internet and newspapers and the T.V. in their cell and were aware of this other case.

Got ya.

[berybert]

There's absolutely no need to introduce the confessions to the police into court testimony. There are 2 other confessions/public statements to use. That of the first defense attorney and the other to the HRC commissioner.

As to the issue of the bottle, I am unaware of any mention of it being broken. There was also mention of a metal bar. The coroner will be on the stand to discuss cause of death. Not being able to present either a bottle or a metal bar isn't a significant issue for the prosecution. This goes for the bloody clothes. After all, the crime was committed at the beach by the ocean.

What would it take to get a conviction in the US?

1) we were there.

2) items belonging to the victims were given to a friend who will testify.

3) 2 admissible confessions (not counting the one to the police.

4) no alibi

5) we were so drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours that we don't really remember.

6) DNA

All makes sense apart from the blood and being on sand by a beach.

Those pictures of the crime scene which show a beach covered in blood, oh and David's lovely clean clothes kind of makes you wonder. Well maybe not you but it does me. Do tell me how David's lovely clean clothes manages to get sweeped out to sea then back to the beach yet none of the blood was washed away ?

Actually from your 6 questions above, if the crime took place in America.

1) were they ? probably hundreds of people had been on the beach that night.

2) would he ?

3) all admissions were given while RTP were present

4) Muang Muang who was once a suspect told the RTP the boys were in bed sleeping minutes after they were meant to have killed two people

5) not worthy of a reply

6) DNA which you are scared to let an expert examine.

Edited May 4, 2015 by berybert

[seedy]

troll / flaming post removed, posts quoting same edited

[mcm991]

There's absolutely no need to introduce the confessions to the police into court testimony. There are 2 other confessions/public statements to use. That of the first defense attorney and the other to the HRC commissioner.

As to the issue of the bottle, I am unaware of any mention of it being broken. There was also mention of a metal bar. The coroner will be on the stand to discuss cause of death. Not being able to present either a bottle or a metal bar isn't a significant issue for the prosecution. This goes for the bloody clothes. After all, the crime was committed at the beach by the ocean.

What would it take to get a conviction in the US?

1) we were there.

2) items belonging to the victims were given to a friend who will testify.

3) 2 admissible confessions (not counting the one to the police.

4) no alibi

5) we were so drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours that we don't really remember.

6) DNA

I think this is probably a bit simplistic.

With repect to your point #5. There has been confusion from way back about what they were drinking - largely the fault of translations. It was first stated as 'wine' but later corrected as 'alcohol' due to poor translations.

They may indeed have been very drunk as stated.

[boomerangutang]

What's DNA? Don't kNow Nothin'? Sorry, I'm in a silly mood this morning, must be too little berry juice in my brandy.

As for flames, I'd like to get flames painted on the side of my old beat up p.u.truck - might make it run better.

[AleG]

What is interesting is that in Thailand, when you confess, as the 2 Burmese defendants did; you receive a reduced sentence (normally)

However, a man who confessed was sentenced to death at almost the same time as the defendants.

Ah so you are saying the defendants had use of the internet and newspapers and the T.V. in their cell and were aware of this other case.

Got ya.

The "same clothes" you talk about are the T-Shirts from their workplace, the uniform they had to wear at work everyday. You shouldn't make commentary about things you don't understand.

Also you don't know what the results from the postmortem on the injuries is so you shouldn't make commentary on things you don't know.

[berybert]

What is interesting is that in Thailand, when you confess, as the 2 Burmese defendants did; you receive a reduced sentence (normally)

However, a man who confessed was sentenced to death at almost the same time as the defendants.

Ah so you are saying the defendants had use of the internet and newspapers and the T.V. in their cell and were aware of this other case.

Got ya.

The "same clothes" you talk about are the T-Shirts from their workplace, the uniform they had to wear at work everyday. You shouldn't make commentary about things you don't understand.

Also you don't know what the results from the postmortem on the injuries is so you shouldn't make commentary on things you don't know.

Sorry ? as per the quote you used I mentioned the internet, the T.V. and newspapers. BTY if you are not happy with people talking about things they know nothing about , would you kindly do the same.

Are you aware as to why the Thai police make criminals do a reenactment ?

[stephenterry]

There's absolutely no need to introduce the confessions to the police into court testimony. There are 2 other confessions/public statements to use. That of the first defense attorney and the other to the HRC commissioner.

As to the issue of the bottle, I am unaware of any mention of it being broken. There was also mention of a metal bar. The coroner will be on the stand to discuss cause of death. Not being able to present either a bottle or a metal bar isn't a significant issue for the prosecution. This goes for the bloody clothes. After all, the crime was committed at the beach by the ocean.

What would it take to get a conviction in the US?

1) we were there.

2) items belonging to the victims were given to a friend who will testify.

3) 2 admissible confessions (not counting the one to the police.

4) no alibi

5) we were so drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours that we don't really remember.

6) DNA

I think this is probably a bit simplistic.

With repect to your point #5. There has been confusion from way back about what they were drinking - largely the fault of translations. It was first stated as 'wine' but later corrected as 'alcohol' due to poor translations.

They may indeed have been very drunk as stated.

Extracts from publicised sources.

Courts are no longer allowed to accept as evidence suspects' accounts during their re-enactment of serious crimes after laws were amended to prevent a repeat of some high-profile criminal cases in which scapegoats were convicted. (There's a thing, surely not?)

For criminal cases liable to over five years imprisonment, the court will not consider suspects' testimony during police investigations, whether confessions or denials. (One could state that point3 above is inadmissable as the confessions were made during the investigation with RTP present at the time.)

Sri-amporn Salikup,chief justice of the Supreme Court, said a re-enactment provides an imaginative model of how the crime is committed. (However), a confession is not enough for conviction and police must provide evidence to prove that suspects committed a crime. If a suspect reverses his confession during a trial, then the re-enactment is meaningless, he said.

I would presume the defence could persuade the court that all confessions and their subsequent retractions fall within the investigation time-frame.

Edited May 5, 2015 by stephenterry