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

jdinasia · May 5, 2015

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.

I wouldn't assume that. People are asserting that the police were with the HRC commissioner and his team. People are assuming that the lawyer was denied privacy with his clients. I am not assuming either to be true (or necessarily relevant)

The reenactment is something that I have never brought up (in any case I have discussed)

stephenterry · May 5, 2015

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.

I wouldn't assume that. People are asserting that the police were with the HRC commissioner and his team. People are assuming that the lawyer was denied privacy with his clients. I am not assuming either to be true (or necessarily relevant)

The reenactment is something that I have never brought up (in any case I have discussed)

The reenactment - yes, I know - I posted the full quote for accuracy. The relevant legal argument (to be tested) is 'within the investigation time-frame'. I'm not going to back-track on Andy Hall's statements, but I'm sure he said the B2 were not allowed to meet with anyone, including their lawyers, without RTP present. And if that's correct it would be understandable that the B2 wouldn't trust anyone purporting not to be RTP.

Si Thea01 · May 5, 2015

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.

I am far from being a hot shot courtroom lawyer, as you put it, but with some 30 years experience in law enforcement, I think I have a far greater insight into investigatory and judicial procedures then you ever will. I know why someone would be bailed refused and held in custody and what is required to prove a case, beyond reasonable doubt. I am ofay with investigatory procedures, the rules of evidence; know the difference between facts and hearsay, and what evidence is required in order to compile a brief of evidence. A prime example of your lack of experience and expertise in the policing and judicial processes is where you claim that an excerpt from a police statement to be factual or venture a scenario that has absolutely no relevance to this matter.

Unless you have been recently seconded to the prosecution team, you would not have access to any police statement, just something reported by the media as a quote from an officer during an interview. This is hearsay my friend, and from a third party, it is not fact. Just to help you, the definition of fact is, "A thing that is known or proved to be true," whilst hearsay is, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated." Understand? Now, in so far as evidence, and just to help you in your investigation, these are the various types of murder evidence required for you to use in apprehending and convicting the perpetrator/s. Please note the following: fingerprint and impression evidence; blood, semen, hair, and other biological evidence; eyewitness or videotape evidence; and documentary evidence. Now that you know the basics, go to it.

You also want people to respond in kind, then write something that is intelligible, not the miss mash you do now. Don't go accusing people of things you feel you must, this places you in a category that is commonly termed, vexatious. I have provided an insight as to why certain things occur, in law, but that, apparently, according to you, is me being a hotshot lawyer in a courtroom. Come on, if some one points something out to you and it does not fit your agenda then off you go on some wild tangent and the accusations start flying. It does not worry me what you fire back, I won't answer you again, as no matter what, nothing stated will ever sink in. So I'll just keeping reading you muses, have my daily laugh as you continuously display your ignorance.

Rimmer · May 5, 2015

A baiting post has been removed

berybert · May 5, 2015

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.

I am far from being a hot shot courtroom lawyer, as you put it, but with some 30 years experience in law enforcement, I think I have a far greater insight into investigatory and judicial procedures then you ever will. I know why someone would be bailed refused and held in custody and what is required to prove a case, beyond reasonable doubt. I am ofay with investigatory procedures, the rules of evidence; know the difference between facts and hearsay, and what evidence is required in order to compile a brief of evidence. A prime example of your lack of experience and expertise in the policing and judicial processes is where you claim that an excerpt from a police statement to be factual or venture a scenario that has absolutely no relevance to this matter.

Unless you have been recently seconded to the prosecution team, you would not have access to any police statement, just something reported by the media as a quote from an officer during an interview. This is hearsay my friend, and from a third party, it is not fact. Just to help you, the definition of fact is, "A thing that is known or proved to be true," whilst hearsay is, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated." Understand? Now, in so far as evidence, and just to help you in your investigation, these are the various types of murder evidence required for you to use in apprehending and convicting the perpetrator/s. Please note the following: fingerprint and impression evidence; blood, semen, hair, and other biological evidence; eyewitness or videotape evidence; and documentary evidence. Now that you know the basics, go to it.

You also want people to respond in kind, then write something that is intelligible, not the miss mash you do now. Don't go accusing people of things you feel you must, this places you in a category that is commonly termed, vexatious. I have provided an insight as to why certain things occur, in law, but that, apparently, according to you, is me being a hotshot lawyer in a courtroom. Come on, if some one points something out to you and it does not fit your agenda then off you go on some wild tangent and the accusations start flying. It does not worry me what you fire back, I won't answer you again, as no matter what, nothing stated will ever sink in. So I'll just keeping reading you muses, have my daily laugh as you continuously display your ignorance.

So as someone who is 100% sure of guilt you must be on the prosecution team ?

You seem to be telling us all we have is 3rd party news reports and have no idea of their innocence.

Yet you have nothing but 3rd party news reports but are certain they are guilty.

boomerangutang · May 5, 2015

I am far from being a hot shot courtroom lawyer, as you put it, but with some 30 years experience in law enforcement, I think I have a far greater insight into investigatory and judicial procedures then you ever will. I know why someone would be bailed refused and held in custody and what is required to prove a case, beyond reasonable doubt. I am ofay with investigatory procedures, the rules of evidence; know the difference between facts and hearsay, and what evidence is required in order to compile a brief of evidence. A prime example of your lack of experience and expertise in the policing and judicial processes is where you claim that an excerpt from a police statement to be factual or venture a scenario that has absolutely no relevance to this matter.

Unless you have been recently seconded to the prosecution team, you would not have access to any police statement, just something reported by the media as a quote from an officer during an interview. This is hearsay my friend, and from a third party, it is not fact. Just to help you, the definition of fact is, "A thing that is known or proved to be true," whilst hearsay is, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated." Understand? Now, in so far as evidence, and just to help you in your investigation, these are the various types of murder evidence required for you to use in apprehending and convicting the perpetrator/s. Please note the following: fingerprint and impression evidence; blood, semen, hair, and other biological evidence; eyewitness or videotape evidence; and documentary evidence. Now that you know the basics, go to it.

You also want people to respond in kind, then write something that is intelligible, not the miss mash you do now. Don't go accusing people of things you feel you must, this places you in a category that is commonly termed, vexatious. I have provided an insight as to why certain things occur, in law, but that, apparently, according to you, is me being a hotshot lawyer in a courtroom. Come on, if some one points something out to you and it does not fit your agenda then off you go on some wild tangent and the accusations start flying. It does not worry me what you fire back, I won't answer you again, as no matter what, nothing stated will ever sink in. So I'll just keeping reading you muses, have my daily laugh as you continuously display your ignorance.

A crafty-minded person can take issue with anything, if he so chooses. If someone says, "water is wet" the crafty person could twist words to prove that water is not always wet. It's not hard to counter anything, if one twists the words.

H's people shielders slither craftily like eels through water, depending how they want to convolute words to avoid admitting truth. Between offering opinions of their own, AleG and JD often demand facts/sources from others. A statement from a police spokesman at a press conference is about as close to fact as we can expect in this discussion. Now, if that statement doesn't suit H's shielders, then they'll come back with twisted words declaring that an official police statement is not a fact. Suit yourselves. It's all part of the plan of Thai officialdom, the H's people, and a few T.Visa posters walking in lockstep - trying desperately to discount anything which doesn't fit with their fixation of finding the B2 guilty - ....but more importantly (Bob forbid!) don't in any way even allude to the possibility that anyone else may have been in involved with the crime.

boomerangutang · May 5, 2015

After reading hundreds of posts and dozens of newspaper articles (pertaining to the botched investigation) over the past 30 weeks, there are a few issues which still loom large - in trying to decipher what really happened that awful night. And also to what extent there's a cover-up:

>>> Right after the photo-op taking of and typing of Nomsod's DNA, the RTP announced they would not share that data with Brit experts.

>>> A day after meeting in person with Brit PM (to agree on Brit experts assisting with the investigation), the Thai PM announces 'observers only.' PM also said if the Burmese DNA matched then they must be the murderers. The purported match came forth very quickly (by RTP) - surprisingly so when, just a week or so earlier, Thai officials said they were not able to type DNA in Thailand, beyond gender and general ethnicity (Asian or Caucasian or African, etc).

>>> Brit Coroner's Office announced in Sept/Oct they would release findings on Jan.6 '14. Just before that date, the Coroner says she may release findings in October, but maybe not, or maybe not ever. Isn't that part of her job? ....to determine cause of death, supposed murder weapon(s), DNA typing on victims, and a few other basic things (who died and when). It would be interesting if the defense calls the Brit Coroner to be interviewed. It won't happen, but would be dramatic.

>>> Thai officials enabled Sean to leave Thailand as quick as possible - even though a 4 yr old could surmise he could be key to solving the crime.

There are many more items which point to cover-up, but those 4 come to mind just now.

Edited May 5, 2015 by boomerangutang

Si Thea01 · May 5, 2015

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.

I am far from being a hot shot courtroom lawyer, as you put it, but with some 30 years experience in law enforcement, I think I have a far greater insight into investigatory and judicial procedures then you ever will. I know why someone would be bailed refused and held in custody and what is required to prove a case, beyond reasonable doubt. I am ofay with investigatory procedures, the rules of evidence; know the difference between facts and hearsay, and what evidence is required in order to compile a brief of evidence. A prime example of your lack of experience and expertise in the policing and judicial processes is where you claim that an excerpt from a police statement to be factual or venture a scenario that has absolutely no relevance to this matter.

Unless you have been recently seconded to the prosecution team, you would not have access to any police statement, just something reported by the media as a quote from an officer during an interview. This is hearsay my friend, and from a third party, it is not fact. Just to help you, the definition of fact is, "A thing that is known or proved to be true," whilst hearsay is, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated." Understand? Now, in so far as evidence, and just to help you in your investigation, these are the various types of murder evidence required for you to use in apprehending and convicting the perpetrator/s. Please note the following: fingerprint and impression evidence; blood, semen, hair, and other biological evidence; eyewitness or videotape evidence; and documentary evidence. Now that you know the basics, go to it.

You also want people to respond in kind, then write something that is intelligible, not the miss mash you do now. Don't go accusing people of things you feel you must, this places you in a category that is commonly termed, vexatious. I have provided an insight as to why certain things occur, in law, but that, apparently, according to you, is me being a hotshot lawyer in a courtroom. Come on, if some one points something out to you and it does not fit your agenda then off you go on some wild tangent and the accusations start flying. It does not worry me what you fire back, I won't answer you again, as no matter what, nothing stated will ever sink in. So I'll just keeping reading you muses, have my daily laugh as you continuously display your ignorance.

So as someone who is 100% sure of guilt you must be on the prosecution team ?

You seem to be telling us all we have is 3rd party news reports and have no idea of their innocence.

Yet you have nothing but 3rd party news reports but are certain they are guilty.

Are you really as unintelligible as your post suggests. Show me where I mentioned guilt, or even innocence. I have no idea, not really concerned, one way or another, as long as justice is done or at least seemed to be done. If they are found guilty, then so be it, but they have many avenues of appeal, as do others if they are found not guilty. This could be a very long drawn out process but we will all just have to sit back and see which way the cookie crumbles.

Now tell me, how were you able to interpret from my post that I am 100% sure of their guilt. Why do people like you fabricate things. If you read my post then you would understand its context but one or two things occurred in your feeble attempt to discredit me, either you can't read, or if you did, you are unable to comprehend the contents. Is it either or, or both? Given our friend doesn't understand, it appears there are now two of you who go on with unintelligible miss mash. Now if you want to verbal me, and many have tried over the years, then go your hardest as it doesn't worry me one iota because people will see you for what you are, someone who has scant regard for the truth.

If you want to get into the debate, fine, but having mentioned twice that I am certain of their guilt, which is untruthful, now I want you to show me the quote and don't fabricate anything. Then apologise but that would be beyond you. The 3rd party newspaper report was in reference to what Boomerangutang put foreword as fact, no one else, yet away you go and then tell me all I have is 3rd party reports and from these I know they are guilty. Another total untruth. As I said, I have had experts try to verbal me and you are far from that. Now that you had you chance, good luck, as I won't be responding to you again, either.

farangman · May 5, 2015

People here really should not respond to the usual suspects...especially not their new found buddies.

It's pretty obvious they are baiting people to respond discourteously in order to get one of the last remaining Koh Tao threads closed. They would rather there is no discussion about this case on this board.

AleG · May 5, 2015

I am far from being a hot shot courtroom lawyer, as you put it, but with some 30 years experience in law enforcement, I think I have a far greater insight into investigatory and judicial procedures then you ever will. I know why someone would be bailed refused and held in custody and what is required to prove a case, beyond reasonable doubt. I am ofay with investigatory procedures, the rules of evidence; know the difference between facts and hearsay, and what evidence is required in order to compile a brief of evidence. A prime example of your lack of experience and expertise in the policing and judicial processes is where you claim that an excerpt from a police statement to be factual or venture a scenario that has absolutely no relevance to this matter.

Unless you have been recently seconded to the prosecution team, you would not have access to any police statement, just something reported by the media as a quote from an officer during an interview. This is hearsay my friend, and from a third party, it is not fact. Just to help you, the definition of fact is, "A thing that is known or proved to be true," whilst hearsay is, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated." Understand? Now, in so far as evidence, and just to help you in your investigation, these are the various types of murder evidence required for you to use in apprehending and convicting the perpetrator/s. Please note the following: fingerprint and impression evidence; blood, semen, hair, and other biological evidence; eyewitness or videotape evidence; and documentary evidence. Now that you know the basics, go to it.

You also want people to respond in kind, then write something that is intelligible, not the miss mash you do now. Don't go accusing people of things you feel you must, this places you in a category that is commonly termed, vexatious. I have provided an insight as to why certain things occur, in law, but that, apparently, according to you, is me being a hotshot lawyer in a courtroom. Come on, if some one points something out to you and it does not fit your agenda then off you go on some wild tangent and the accusations start flying. It does not worry me what you fire back, I won't answer you again, as no matter what, nothing stated will ever sink in. So I'll just keeping reading you muses, have my daily laugh as you continuously display your ignorance.

A crafty-minded person can take issue with anything, if he so chooses. If someone says, "water is wet" the crafty person could twist words to prove that water is not always wet. It's not hard to counter anything, if one twists the words.

H's people shielders slither craftily like eels through water, depending how they want to convolute words to avoid admitting truth. Between offering opinions of their own, AleG and JD often demand facts/sources from others. A statement from a police spokesman at a press conference is about as close to fact as we can expect in this discussion. Now, if that statement doesn't suit H's shielders, then they'll come back with twisted words declaring that an official police statement is not a fact. Suit yourselves. It's all part of the plan of Thai officialdom, the H's people, and a few T.Visa posters walking in lockstep - trying desperately to discount anything which doesn't fit with their fixation of finding the B2 guilty - ....but more importantly (Bob forbid!) don't in any way even allude to the possibility that anyone else may have been in involved with the crime.

There you go again "H's people shielders", you just can't help yourself, can you? You keep insinuating people here are part of some criminal conspiracy, in case you have not paid attention to previous warnings, that constitutes libel.

Besides that, clearly, you don't understand what a fact is; according to you if the police say something it becomes a fact. Is this about Miller's phone confused for Witheridge's during a press briefing? You must be absolutely desperate to cling to a simple miscommunication as a vital piece in cracking the vast conspiracy you are trying to sell.

The phone was not hers, it was a different model, your insistence in insinuating that it was her phone planted by the police only underscores the extent of dishonesty you are willing to go to perpetuate your delusions.

GOLDBUGGY · May 5, 2015

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

In 3 pages of an internet forum discussion you have turned from a person who is against the death penalty to someone who would actually pull the trigger.

Unhinged springs to mind.

You keep changing the subject because you are caught in a web of Lies and BS.

A man comes home and finds his wife in bed with His Best Friend. He is in shock. He goes to his car to think things over and discovers how angry he is. He takes a Legal Gun from his glove compartment, goes back to the bedroom, and in anger shoots both of them. But law, this is premeditated murder and he would get the death sentence.

This is the kind of murder I am against for the death sentence.

But to Monsters who brutally rape and murder a young woman like this, I am not.

I have made it perfectly clear I am against the death penalty, but could quickly change if it was my daughter. For these monsters I have change my view. There is nothing wrong with my hinges. But there is certainly something wrong with you. Which you have now proved many times to everyone here.

I never called anyone a Troll before, so you don't get this honor from me either.

A Drunken Idiot would be closer to my thoughts! Which by-the-way surpasses the name Fool! You have presented nothing in your defense, or their defense, except nonsense. Which now coming from you this is all you have to present, so I fully understand.

You are fooling nobody here, except yourself.

Now go and play and let the Grown-ups talk!

I always thought the BiB cheerleading squad could use a hired goon to stir things up and muddy the water on occasion - just to keep things interesting. You may even be over qualified for the position.

I don't agree with their opnions and I'm often suspicious of their motivations but they are not idiots.

You arrived at the party late with too many empty bottles in your car - armed only with a few headlines that you read slowly while on the can.

Nobody is defending monsters and rapists. They are well meaning people who think for very good reasons that these guys are not the perps. I also do not believe that these 2 are the guilty ones. There are literally thousands of posts going back to last year that you can read through if you want the details as to why I and many others feel a good case can be made for their innocense.

I'm waiting to see what transpires at their trial - hopefully enough publicity will keep it from being a farce. I'm not holding my breath though......

Incidently, the case you describe in your post would likely be considered a 'crime of passion' and not premeditated murder - and not result in the death penalty.

You continue on with your nonsense!

Now you tell us that no lawyer would defend these guys unless they thought there were innocent. Hog Wash! Do your really believe that? That is the same as saying that all the Lawyers who defended some of the Worlds Worst Serial Killers all believed their Clients where innocent.

Lawyers will defend anyone who is willing to pay them. Or is some High Profile Cases, as like perhaps this one, for the attention they will receive from the Media. Which they hope later will attract a higher paying clients. But in all fairness to these Lawyers, everyone is entitled to Lawyer Representation when charged with a crime such as this. Even these two Rapists and Murdering Scum.

Sure! I believe you, sort of. I am sure a judge will to, The Accused didn't see anyone come to the crime scene, although they were sitting their all night and saw Hannah and David go their. But then later they heard a strange noise coming from their. So they walked over to the crime scene but again they did not see anyone go their and nobody was there now. But a brave thing for these guys to do when they want to stay away from trouble. But it was also there lucky day because they see a Cell Phone just laying there and they pick it up, after walking over 2 died bodies. Just to take it home and not report this, because they did not realizing they could get into trouble later.

My Friend! You would have made more logical sense if you said the murders must have been committed by Ghosts. Ghosts who have the exact same DNA and Sperm as the accused do, and which these samples were collected from Hannah's Private Parts. I actually like the Accused Story better than yours. They said they were drunk when they decided to sneak up on Hannah and David to see what they were doing. They caught them in a sex act, which really turned them on, to the point they lost control. The rest is history,

You really must think the Thai Police are really stupid. That when Hannah's Cell Phone Cover-up was discovered by the Social Media they switched their story to it now being Davids Cell Phone. My Friend! Nobody is that stupid. Even You!

If you are going to try and cover-up some story about Hannah's Cell being discovered in the accused house you certainly are not going to invite the Press to take a picture of her friend handing it over to you, and invite someone from the UK Embassy to witness that, are you? Even a 6 year old kid could do a better job of hiding than that.

Show me a LINK where they say Davids Cell Phone was discovered on the Beach. I don't recall reading that anywhere. But I won't hold my breath on this one either as it is probably just some more gossip you picked up at the bar over some Beer Talk.

No My Friend, you got it wrong once again. The scenario I told you was not a Crime of Passion. It was Premeditated Murder, which is a planned murdered, or pre-thought-out murdered. Which in some States carries the Death Penalty.

When he went back to his car to cool down, he had time to think, After some thinking he decided to kill them both and proceeded to do so. That is Premeditated Murder. Had it been different and when he first discovered them in the bedroom together, then grabbed a Baseball Bat laying against the wall, and beat them both to death, then this may have been considered a Crime of Passion.

Geese!

boomerangutang · May 5, 2015

If some posters are doing all they can to try to keep certain people from being scrutinized (re; the crime), it may stem from a bond of friendship, I don't know. AleG asserts he's being accused of a 'criminal conspiracy' (his introduced term). Sorry you feel that way AleG. (DELETED) You may have fanatic faith in the investigative prowess of the RTP and get offended by any disparaging remarks aimed at them. You may have a business interest in Ko Tao, and realize that this botched case may adversely affect the island's revenue stream. You may even seek complete truth and justice, though you could have fooled me, if that's the case.

Also, I'm not one bandying around the word 'fact.' I may use the word evidence, or the conditional: 'it appears as though....'. I may occasionally venture to describe a plausible scenario re; the crime. If some posters want only facts, let them go searching for facts. There are some facts herein (two people were murdered, no one has maintained a confession, DNA has been tested), ...but even some of those 'facts' are questionable. So, instead of trying to deflect things with throwing out the word 'fact', how about we pretend this is an online discussion, and post accordingly.

Police made statements which the general public are led to believe are true. Then awhile later, we find some of those statements were not true. This case is a maze of deceptions. In some ways, that's not surprising, because there were several murderers and probably several rapists that night, and for obvious reasons, none want to come forth and maintain a confession. It's human nature to be deceptive, particularly a criminal who is doing all he can to avoid serious penalty for a heinous crime.

Edited May 5, 2015 by seedy
troll / flaming

Fozfromoz · May 5, 2015

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

In 3 pages of an internet forum discussion you have turned from a person who is against the death penalty to someone who would actually pull the trigger.

Unhinged springs to mind.

You keep changing the subject because you are caught in a web of Lies and BS.

A man comes home and finds his wife in bed with His Best Friend. He is in shock. He goes to his car to think things over and discovers how angry he is. He takes a Legal Gun from his glove compartment, goes back to the bedroom, and in anger shoots both of them. But law, this is premeditated murder and he would get the death sentence.

This is the kind of murder I am against for the death sentence.

But to Monsters who brutally rape and murder a young woman like this, I am not.

I have made it perfectly clear I am against the death penalty, but could quickly change if it was my daughter. For these monsters I have change my view. There is nothing wrong with my hinges. But there is certainly something wrong with you. Which you have now proved many times to everyone here.

I never called anyone a Troll before, so you don't get this honor from me either.

A Drunken Idiot would be closer to my thoughts! Which by-the-way surpasses the name Fool! You have presented nothing in your defense, or their defense, except nonsense. Which now coming from you this is all you have to present, so I fully understand.

You are fooling nobody here, except yourself.

Now go and play and let the Grown-ups talk!

I always thought the BiB cheerleading squad could use a hired goon to stir things up and muddy the water on occasion - just to keep things interesting. You may even be over qualified for the position.

I don't agree with their opnions and I'm often suspicious of their motivations but they are not idiots.

You arrived at the party late with too many empty bottles in your car - armed only with a few headlines that you read slowly while on the can.

Nobody is defending monsters and rapists. They are well meaning people who think for very good reasons that these guys are not the perps. I also do not believe that these 2 are the guilty ones. There are literally thousands of posts going back to last year that you can read through if you want the details as to why I and many others feel a good case can be made for their innocense.

I'm waiting to see what transpires at their trial - hopefully enough publicity will keep it from being a farce. I'm not holding my breath though......

Incidently, the case you describe in your post would likely be considered a 'crime of passion' and not premeditated murder - and not result in the death penalty.

You continue on with your nonsense!

Now you tell us that no lawyer would defend these guys unless they thought there were innocent. Hog Wash! Do your really believe that? That is the same as saying that all the Lawyers who defended some of the Worlds Worst Serial Killers all believed their Clients where innocent.

Lawyers will defend anyone who is willing to pay them. Or is some High Profile Cases, as like perhaps this one, for the attention they will receive from the Media. Which they hope later will attract a higher paying clients. But in all fairness to these Lawyers, everyone is entitled to Lawyer Representation when charged with a crime such as this. Even these two Rapists and Murdering Scum.

Sure! I believe you, sort of. I am sure a judge will to, The Accused didn't see anyone come to the crime scene, although they were sitting their all night and saw Hannah and David go their. But then later they heard a strange noise coming from their. So they walked over to the crime scene but again they did not see anyone go their and nobody was there now. But a brave thing for these guys to do when they want to stay away from trouble. But it was also there lucky day because they see a Cell Phone just laying there and they pick it up, after walking over 2 died bodies. Just to take it home and not report this, because they did not realizing they could get into trouble later.

My Friend! You would have made more logical sense if you said the murders must have been committed by Ghosts. Ghosts who have the exact same DNA and Sperm as the accused do, and which these samples were collected from Hannah's Private Parts. I actually like the Accused Story better than yours. They said they were drunk when they decided to sneak up on Hannah and David to see what they were doing. They caught them in a sex act, which really turned them on, to the point they lost control. The rest is history,

You really must think the Thai Police are really stupid. That when Hannah's Cell Phone Cover-up was discovered by the Social Media they switched their story to it now being Davids Cell Phone. My Friend! Nobody is that stupid. Even You!

If you are going to try and cover-up some story about Hannah's Cell being discovered in the accused house you certainly are not going to invite the Press to take a picture of her friend handing it over to you, and invite someone from the UK Embassy to witness that, are you? Even a 6 year old kid could do a better job of hiding than that.

Show me a LINK where they say Davids Cell Phone was discovered on the Beach. I don't recall reading that anywhere. But I won't hold my breath on this one either as it is probably just some more gossip you picked up at the bar over some Beer Talk.

No My Friend, you got it wrong once again. The scenario I told you was not a Crime of Passion. It was Premeditated Murder, which is a planned murdered, or pre-thought-out murdered. Which in some States carries the Death Penalty.

When he went back to his car to cool down, he had time to think, After some thinking he decided to kill them both and proceeded to do so. That is Premeditated Murder. Had it been different and when he first discovered them in the bedroom together, then grabbed a Baseball Bat laying against the wall, and beat them both to death, then this may have been considered a Crime of Passion.

Geese!

Why do you call them rapists and murdering scum? Has it been proved and have they been convicted? I thought the case was being heard in July.

Si Thea01 · May 5, 2015

I am far from being a hot shot courtroom lawyer, as you put it, but with some 30 years experience in law enforcement, I think I have a far greater insight into investigatory and judicial procedures then you ever will. I know why someone would be bailed refused and held in custody and what is required to prove a case, beyond reasonable doubt. I am ofay with investigatory procedures, the rules of evidence; know the difference between facts and hearsay, and what evidence is required in order to compile a brief of evidence. A prime example of your lack of experience and expertise in the policing and judicial processes is where you claim that an excerpt from a police statement to be factual or venture a scenario that has absolutely no relevance to this matter.

Unless you have been recently seconded to the prosecution team, you would not have access to any police statement, just something reported by the media as a quote from an officer during an interview. This is hearsay my friend, and from a third party, it is not fact. Just to help you, the definition of fact is, "A thing that is known or proved to be true," whilst hearsay is, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated." Understand? Now, in so far as evidence, and just to help you in your investigation, these are the various types of murder evidence required for you to use in apprehending and convicting the perpetrator/s. Please note the following: fingerprint and impression evidence; blood, semen, hair, and other biological evidence; eyewitness or videotape evidence; and documentary evidence. Now that you know the basics, go to it.

You also want people to respond in kind, then write something that is intelligible, not the miss mash you do now. Don't go accusing people of things you feel you must, this places you in a category that is commonly termed, vexatious. I have provided an insight as to why certain things occur, in law, but that, apparently, according to you, is me being a hotshot lawyer in a courtroom. Come on, if some one points something out to you and it does not fit your agenda then off you go on some wild tangent and the accusations start flying. It does not worry me what you fire back, I won't answer you again, as no matter what, nothing stated will ever sink in. So I'll just keeping reading you muses, have my daily laugh as you continuously display your ignorance.

A crafty-minded person can take issue with anything, if he so chooses. If someone says, "water is wet" the crafty person could twist words to prove that water is not always wet. It's not hard to counter anything, if one twists the words.

H's people shielders slither craftily like eels through water, depending how they want to convolute words to avoid admitting truth. Between offering opinions of their own, AleG and JD often demand facts/sources from others. A statement from a police spokesman at a press conference is about as close to fact as we can expect in this discussion. Now, if that statement doesn't suit H's shielders, then they'll come back with twisted words declaring that an official police statement is not a fact. Suit yourselves. It's all part of the plan of Thai officialdom, the H's people, and a few T.Visa posters walking in lockstep - trying desperately to discount anything which doesn't fit with their fixation of finding the B2 guilty - ....but more importantly (Bob forbid!) don't in any way even allude to the possibility that anyone else may have been in involved with the crime.

There you go again "H's people shielders", you just can't help yourself, can you? You keep insinuating people here are part of some criminal conspiracy, in case you have not paid attention to previous warnings, that constitutes libel.

Besides that, clearly, you don't understand what a fact is; according to you if the police say something it becomes a fact. Is this about Miller's phone confused for Witheridge's during a press briefing? You must be absolutely desperate to cling to a simple miscommunication as a vital piece in cracking the vast conspiracy you are trying to sell.

The phone was not hers, it was a different model, your insistence in insinuating that it was her phone planted by the police only underscores the extent of dishonesty you are willing to go to perpetuate your delusions.

I admire your stamina to keep running with fools. I tried, on a number occasions, to explain the legal process, from investigation through to court,

the difference between fact and hearsay, and why certain aspects are relevant and others not but all he could do was promote me to a hotshot courtroom lawyer. It's clear that he wears blinkers, cannot think outside the square, and cannot offer any logical responses. You only have to look at his reply to my last post. He is utterly confused, and still proclaims a quote taken from a police interview, is a statement and is fact. There is no doubt he and his mate, you can see who I am referring to, are delusional and do not warrant any further responses as it is a total waste of time.

jdinasia · May 5, 2015

He has to keep claiming that a newsarticle that was later revised is both factual and relevant.

AleG · May 5, 2015

If some posters are doing all they can to try to keep certain people from being scrutinized (re; the crime), it may stem from a bond of friendship, I don't know. AleG asserts he's being accused of a 'criminal conspiracy' (his introduced term). Sorry you feel that way AleG. (DELETED) You may have fanatic faith in the investigative prowess of the RTP and get offended by any disparaging remarks aimed at them. You may have a business interest in Ko Tao, and realize that this botched case may adversely affect the island's revenue stream. You may even seek complete truth and justice, though you could have fooled me, if that's the case.

Also, I'm not one bandying around the word 'fact.' I may use the word evidence, or the conditional: 'it appears as though....'. I may occasionally venture to describe a plausible scenario re; the crime. If some posters want only facts, let them go searching for facts. There are some facts herein (two people were murdered, no one has maintained a confession, DNA has been tested), ...but even some of those 'facts' are questionable. So, instead of trying to deflect things with throwing out the word 'fact', how about we pretend this is an online discussion, and post accordingly.

Police made statements which the general public are led to believe are true. Then awhile later, we find some of those statements were not true. This case is a maze of deceptions. In some ways, that's not surprising, because there were several murderers and probably several rapists that night, and for obvious reasons, none want to come forth and maintain a confession. It's human nature to be deceptive, particularly a criminal who is doing all he can to avoid serious penalty for a heinous crime.

I don't think enough trolling was removed from that post.

"You may have fanatic faith in the investigative prowess of the RTP and get offended by any disparaging remarks aimed at them. You may have a business interest in Ko Tao, and realize that this botched case may adversely affect the island's revenue stream. You may even seek complete truth and justice, though you could have fooled me, if that's the case."

Do you have no other way of making sense of the world than making up fantasies that sound good to yourself? It's pathetic, really.

"Also, I'm not one bandying around the word 'fact.'"

Aren't you? You said:

"A statement from a police spokesman at a press conference is about as close to fact as we can expect in this discussion"

As I said, clearly, you don't understand what a fact is; according to you if the police say something, even if it's subsequently proven to be incorrect, it is a fact.

That is of course nonsense, the result of your continuous self justifications and rationalizations that you make up on the spot, you just say whatever seems to be more advantageous at the moment and end up tripping on your own feet; for example:

"If some posters want only facts, let them go searching for facts"

So much for seeking Truth and Justice then, or is your "Truth and Justice" not based on facts? (That is a rhetorical question, you have amply demonstrated that the answer is no)

boomerangutang · May 5, 2015

If some posters are doing all they can to try to keep certain people from being scrutinized (re; the crime), it may stem from a bond of friendship, I don't know. AleG asserts he's being accused of a 'criminal conspiracy' (his introduced term). Sorry you feel that way AleG. (DELETED) You may have fanatic faith in the investigative prowess of the RTP and get offended by any disparaging remarks aimed at them. You may have a business interest in Ko Tao, and realize that this botched case may adversely affect the island's revenue stream. You may even seek complete truth and justice, though you could have fooled me, if that's the case.

Also, I'm not one bandying around the word 'fact.' I may use the word evidence, or the conditional: 'it appears as though....'. I may occasionally venture to describe a plausible scenario re; the crime. If some posters want only facts, let them go searching for facts. There are some facts herein (two people were murdered, no one has maintained a confession, DNA has been tested), ...but even some of those 'facts' are questionable. So, instead of trying to deflect things with throwing out the word 'fact', how about we pretend this is an online discussion, and post accordingly.

Police made statements which the general public are led to believe are true. Then awhile later, we find some of those statements were not true. This case is a maze of deceptions. In some ways, that's not surprising, because there were several murderers and probably several rapists that night, and for obvious reasons, none want to come forth and maintain a confession. It's human nature to be deceptive, particularly a criminal who is doing all he can to avoid serious penalty for a heinous crime.

I don't think enough trolling was removed from that post.

"You may have fanatic faith in the investigative prowess of the RTP and get offended by any disparaging remarks aimed at them. You may have a business interest in Ko Tao, and realize that this botched case may adversely affect the island's revenue stream. You may even seek complete truth and justice, though you could have fooled me, if that's the case."

Do you have no other way of making sense of the world than making up fantasies that sound good to yourself? It's pathetic, really.

"Also, I'm not one bandying around the word 'fact.'"

Aren't you? You said:

"A statement from a police spokesman at a press conference is about as close to fact as we can expect in this discussion"

As I said, clearly, you don't understand what a fact is; according to you if the police say something, even if it's subsequently proven to be incorrect, it is a fact.

That is of course nonsense, the result of your continuous self justifications and rationalizations that you make up on the spot, you just say whatever seems to be more advantageous at the moment and end up tripping on your own feet; for example:

"If some posters want only facts, let them go searching for facts"

So much for seeking Truth and Justice then, or is your "Truth and Justice" not based on facts? (That is a rhetorical question, you have amply demonstrated that the answer is no)

I was responding to requests for facts from your side. I didn't bandy around the word initially.

So tell us your facts, oh sage one. You're flipping faster than laundry on a line in a tornado. Your buddies ask for facts, then some facts are offered (fact: two young British subjects were killed), then you immediately go and twist things 180 degrees to try and obfuscate the issue.

You want to rely upon what the Police announce, but when it doesn't suit your wanted scenario, you claim the police can't be trusted. Back and forth. I'd expect as much from a kid with his hand stuck in the cookie jar, but not from a grown up.

mcm991 · May 5, 2015

I am far from being a hot shot courtroom lawyer, as you put it, but with some 30 years experience in law enforcement, I think I have a far greater insight into investigatory and judicial procedures then you ever will. I know why someone would be bailed refused and held in custody and what is required to prove a case, beyond reasonable doubt. I am ofay with investigatory procedures, the rules of evidence; know the difference between facts and hearsay, and what evidence is required in order to compile a brief of evidence. A prime example of your lack of experience and expertise in the policing and judicial processes is where you claim that an excerpt from a police statement to be factual or venture a scenario that has absolutely no relevance to this matter.

Unless you have been recently seconded to the prosecution team, you would not have access to any police statement, just something reported by the media as a quote from an officer during an interview. This is hearsay my friend, and from a third party, it is not fact. Just to help you, the definition of fact is, "A thing that is known or proved to be true," whilst hearsay is, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated." Understand? Now, in so far as evidence, and just to help you in your investigation, these are the various types of murder evidence required for you to use in apprehending and convicting the perpetrator/s. Please note the following: fingerprint and impression evidence; blood, semen, hair, and other biological evidence; eyewitness or videotape evidence; and documentary evidence. Now that you know the basics, go to it.

You also want people to respond in kind, then write something that is intelligible, not the miss mash you do now. Don't go accusing people of things you feel you must, this places you in a category that is commonly termed, vexatious. I have provided an insight as to why certain things occur, in law, but that, apparently, according to you, is me being a hotshot lawyer in a courtroom. Come on, if some one points something out to you and it does not fit your agenda then off you go on some wild tangent and the accusations start flying. It does not worry me what you fire back, I won't answer you again, as no matter what, nothing stated will ever sink in. So I'll just keeping reading you muses, have my daily laugh as you continuously display your ignorance.

A crafty-minded person can take issue with anything, if he so chooses. If someone says, "water is wet" the crafty person could twist words to prove that water is not always wet. It's not hard to counter anything, if one twists the words.

H's people shielders slither craftily like eels through water, depending how they want to convolute words to avoid admitting truth. Between offering opinions of their own, AleG and JD often demand facts/sources from others. A statement from a police spokesman at a press conference is about as close to fact as we can expect in this discussion. Now, if that statement doesn't suit H's shielders, then they'll come back with twisted words declaring that an official police statement is not a fact. Suit yourselves. It's all part of the plan of Thai officialdom, the H's people, and a few T.Visa posters walking in lockstep - trying desperately to discount anything which doesn't fit with their fixation of finding the B2 guilty - ....but more importantly (Bob forbid!) don't in any way even allude to the possibility that anyone else may have been in involved with the crime.

There you go again "H's people shielders", you just can't help yourself, can you? You keep insinuating people here are part of some criminal conspiracy, in case you have not paid attention to previous warnings, that constitutes libel.

Besides that, clearly, you don't understand what a fact is; according to you if the police say something it becomes a fact. Is this about Miller's phone confused for Witheridge's during a press briefing? You must be absolutely desperate to cling to a simple miscommunication as a vital piece in cracking the vast conspiracy you are trying to sell.

The phone was not hers, it was a different model, your insistence in insinuating that it was her phone planted by the police only underscores the extent of dishonesty you are willing to go to perpetuate your delusions.

I admire your stamina to keep running with fools. I tried, on a number occasions, to explain the legal process, from investigation through to court,

the difference between fact and hearsay, and why certain aspects are relevant and others not but all he could do was promote me to a hotshot courtroom lawyer. It's clear that he wears blinkers, cannot think outside the square, and cannot offer any logical responses. You only have to look at his reply to my last post. He is utterly confused, and still proclaims a quote taken from a police interview, is a statement and is fact. There is no doubt he and his mate, you can see who I am referring to, are delusional and do not warrant any further responses as it is a total waste of time.

I do not doubt your experience in law enforcement in another country but this is not that country.

You are correct about fact and hearsay and no doubt everything else you dealt with over a long career.

My concern is that this investigation by the BiB is not based in fact or experience or investigative powers or anything else honest.

I'm assuming that you are aware of prior cases here where grave miscarriages of justice were perpetrated by the police?

Others, who you call fools, share these concerns and have attempted to highlight some apparent inconsistancies that have not been answered in any official capacity. There are many. I'll wait for the trial and hopefully the publicity will keep things on the up and up.

The issue that you and your chums continue to ignore is the awful reputation of the Bib that have maliciously perverted and distorted justice for the sake of the wealthy and powerful in the past and by all accounts continue to do so.

You look foolish by denying this unhappy truth in this country but if you accept it, then you automatically accept the doubt of these 2 being guilty.

So instead you insult and deflect. (or ignore)

berybert · May 5, 2015

So as someone who is 100% sure of guilt you must be on the prosecution team ?

You seem to be telling us all we have is 3rd party news reports and have no idea of their innocence.

Yet you have nothing but 3rd party news reports but are certain they are guilty.

Are you really as unintelligible as your post suggests. Show me where I mentioned guilt, or even innocence. I have no idea, not really concerned, one way or another, as long as justice is done or at least seemed to be done. If they are found guilty, then so be it, but they have many avenues of appeal, as do others if they are found not guilty. This could be a very long drawn out process but we will all just have to sit back and see which way the cookie crumbles.

Now tell me, how were you able to interpret from my post that I am 100% sure of their guilt. Why do people like you fabricate things. If you read my post then you would understand its context but one or two things occurred in your feeble attempt to discredit me, either you can't read, or if you did, you are unable to comprehend the contents. Is it either or, or both? Given our friend doesn't understand, it appears there are now two of you who go on with unintelligible miss mash. Now if you want to verbal me, and many have tried over the years, then go your hardest as it doesn't worry me one iota because people will see you for what you are, someone who has scant regard for the truth.

If you want to get into the debate, fine, but having mentioned twice that I am certain of their guilt, which is untruthful, now I want you to show me the quote and don't fabricate anything. Then apologise but that would be beyond you. The 3rd party newspaper report was in reference to what Boomerangutang put foreword as fact, no one else, yet away you go and then tell me all I have is 3rd party reports and from these I know they are guilty. Another total untruth. As I said, I have had experts try to verbal me and you are far from that. Now that you had you chance, good luck, as I won't be responding to you again, either.

You are aware that unintelligible means not understandable ? Quite a comprehensive reply to something you didn't understand.

Now I would go looking for your quotes to show that you think they are guilty, but there really would be no point. Because I bet as you would also say to the experts who give you verbal's , 'I'm not talking to you again'

GOLDBUGGY · May 5, 2015

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!

Okay! Who says they didn't take care of the Hoe? If I recall they didn't find any evidence on that Hoe. So it must have been washed clean from the Ocean Salt Water. It also wasn't found next to the bodies either. It was in fact put back to the Garden and where they got it from. To me, that tells me they tried to hide evidence and the Murder Weapon.

It was only by matching the Hoe to the wound on David Miller's Head that they deduced that this Hoe was in fact the Murder Weapon. The Accused must have figured that by trying to hide this Hoe someplace else would have raised the alarm bells, when the farmer reported it missing the next day. So since it was washed of evidence it was probably wiser to put it back.

So the first answer to you questions is, and like many Rapist Murderers, they didn't think they would get caught. It certainly took a long time to catch Ted Bundy and others like this. They knew that nobody else had witnessed their crime (with one guy probably being the Look Out) and the only 2 who could identify them they had killed. They must have felt so sure they wouldn't get caught, or be suspects, that they even took David Millers Cell Phone. Thinking nobody would look at them for it.

Now whether you think this was wise or even wonder why they would take such a risk, knowing that if they got caught with this phone it would link them to the murders, you have to remember this. They are Migrant Workers from a poor country and thus also poorly educated. As such, they were not hired to work their as Brain Surgeons. They were both hired and had low paying jobs. They probably also don't have much knowledge on DNA, and like we do There were (as they both admitted several times) drunk during this time. At the very least many people saw they were drinking. So there thought process that night, on top of there poor education, and everything else, was hindered.

Why they didn't find the second Murder Weapon that killed Hannah is for the same reason you first said they didn't do. Which was they took care of it. I don't think they even know for sure exactly what it was, except it was a Blunt Instrument. Thus can't be the Hoe. Perhaps some wooden stick or club, which after it is throw back into the Ocean it becomes Drift Wood again. But the fact they didn't find anything near the victims which would do that, then it is obvious they tried to hide it. They tried to hide evidence.

Why do you keep thinking there would be a lot of blood? They both were injured by head wounds, and not stabbed 100 times with a dull kitchen knife to the body. If you were hit in the face or on the nose, there would be blood. But they were hit on the tops and top sides of their heads, which doesn't produce much blood at all.

Why didn't they leave the island right after they committed this crime? It is probably a combination of several reasons.The most important one was they didn't think they would be suspects and thus get caught. But if they suddenly left and quit their jobs, this would arouse suspicious.They also were working without proper working papers, so there Visa may have expired as well. They also probably needed their jobs to help support their families back home. So since they probably didn't have much money, and also probably no family or friends on the main land, where could they run to. For them their employer is expect to pay there way home after a year, or sometimes longer.

I am surprised you didn't ask about the cigarette butts found near the Crime Scene. It never says they were taken 50 Meters away, at the log these guys sat on, but that's say this is so. The significance of the Cigarette Butts is the DNA Testing of those Butts also matched the sperm DNA Sample taken from Hannah. After talking to staff at the Resort, this is when they discovered that the accused where there that night playing their guitar. So it was these cigarettes Butts that led the Police to the suspects, and after DNA Sampling of them, which again matched the sperm found in Hannah, they were charged with Murder.

metisdead · May 5, 2015

Inflammatory posts have been removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters.

You have every right to express your opinion about the topic. You may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.

rockingrobin · May 5, 2015

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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!

Okay! Who says they didn't take care of the Hoe? If I recall they didn't find any evidence on that Hoe. So it must have been washed clean from the Ocean Salt Water. It also wasn't found next to the bodies either. It was in fact put back to the Garden and where they got it from. To me, that tells me they tried to hide evidence and the Murder Weapon.

It was only by matching the Hoe to the wound on David Miller's Head that they deduced that this Hoe was in fact the Murder Weapon. The Accused must have figured that by trying to hide this Hoe someplace else would have raised the alarm bells, when the farmer reported it missing the next day. So since it was washed of evidence it was probably wiser to put it back.

So the first answer to you questions is, and like many Rapist Murderers, they didn't think they would get caught. It certainly took a long time to catch Ted Bundy and others like this. They knew that nobody else had witnessed their crime (with one guy probably being the Look Out) and the only 2 who could identify them they had killed. They must have felt so sure they wouldn't get caught, or be suspects, that they even took David Millers Cell Phone. Thinking nobody would look at them for it.

Now whether you think this was wise or even wonder why they would take such a risk, knowing that if they got caught with this phone it would link them to the murders, you have to remember this. They are Migrant Workers from a poor country and thus also poorly educated. As such, they were not hired to work their as Brain Surgeons. They were both hired and had low paying jobs. They probably also don't have much knowledge on DNA, and like we do There were (as they both admitted several times) drunk during this time. At the very least many people saw they were drinking. So there thought process that night, on top of there poor education, and everything else, was hindered.

Why they didn't find the second Murder Weapon that killed Hannah is for the same reason you first said they didn't do. Which was they took care of it. I don't think they even know for sure exactly what it was, except it was a Blunt Instrument. Thus can't be the Hoe. Perhaps some wooden stick or club, which after it is throw back into the Ocean it becomes Drift Wood again. But the fact they didn't find anything near the victims which would do that, then it is obvious they tried to hide it. They tried to hide evidence.

Why do you keep thinking there would be a lot of blood? They both were injured by head wounds, and not stabbed 100 times with a dull kitchen knife to the body. If you were hit in the face or on the nose, there would be blood. But they were hit on the tops and top sides of their heads, which doesn't produce much blood at all.

Why didn't they leave the island right after they committed this crime? It is probably a combination of several reasons.The most important one was they didn't think they would be suspects and thus get caught. But if they suddenly left and quit their jobs, this would arouse suspicious.They also were working without proper working papers, so there Visa may have expired as well. They also probably needed their jobs to help support their families back home. So since they probably didn't have much money, and also probably no family or friends on the main land, where could they run to. For them their employer is expect to pay there way home after a year, or sometimes longer.

I am surprised you didn't ask about the cigarette butts found near the Crime Scene. It never says they were taken 50 Meters away, at the log these guys sat on, but that's say this is so. The significance of the Cigarette Butts is the DNA Testing of those Butts also matched the sperm DNA Sample taken from Hannah. After talking to staff at the Resort, this is when they discovered that the accused where there that night playing their guitar. So it was these cigarettes Butts that led the Police to the suspects, and after DNA Sampling of them, which again matched the sperm found in Hannah, they were charged with Murder.

Goldbuggy

Your response contains a number of errors , and ommissions that I am left to arrive at a conclusion that you are not really interested in the crime and posting with an intent of being vexatious

berybert · May 5, 2015

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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!

Okay! Who says they didn't take care of the Hoe? If I recall they didn't find any evidence on that Hoe. So it must have been washed clean from the Ocean Salt Water. It also wasn't found next to the bodies either. It was in fact put back to the Garden and where they got it from. To me, that tells me they tried to hide evidence and the Murder Weapon.

It was only by matching the Hoe to the wound on David Miller's Head that they deduced that this Hoe was in fact the Murder Weapon. The Accused must have figured that by trying to hide this Hoe someplace else would have raised the alarm bells, when the farmer reported it missing the next day. So since it was washed of evidence it was probably wiser to put it back.

So the first answer to you questions is, and like many Rapist Murderers, they didn't think they would get caught. It certainly took a long time to catch Ted Bundy and others like this. They knew that nobody else had witnessed their crime (with one guy probably being the Look Out) and the only 2 who could identify them they had killed. They must have felt so sure they wouldn't get caught, or be suspects, that they even took David Millers Cell Phone. Thinking nobody would look at them for it.

Now whether you think this was wise or even wonder why they would take such a risk, knowing that if they got caught with this phone it would link them to the murders, you have to remember this. They are Migrant Workers from a poor country and thus also poorly educated. As such, they were not hired to work their as Brain Surgeons. They were both hired and had low paying jobs. They probably also don't have much knowledge on DNA, and like we do There were (as they both admitted several times) drunk during this time. At the very least many people saw they were drinking. So there thought process that night, on top of there poor education, and everything else, was hindered.

Why they didn't find the second Murder Weapon that killed Hannah is for the same reason you first said they didn't do. Which was they took care of it. I don't think they even know for sure exactly what it was, except it was a Blunt Instrument. Thus can't be the Hoe. Perhaps some wooden stick or club, which after it is throw back into the Ocean it becomes Drift Wood again. But the fact they didn't find anything near the victims which would do that, then it is obvious they tried to hide it. They tried to hide evidence.

Why do you keep thinking there would be a lot of blood? They both were injured by head wounds, and not stabbed 100 times with a dull kitchen knife to the body. If you were hit in the face or on the nose, there would be blood. But they were hit on the tops and top sides of their heads, which doesn't produce much blood at all.

Why didn't they leave the island right after they committed this crime? It is probably a combination of several reasons.The most important one was they didn't think they would be suspects and thus get caught. But if they suddenly left and quit their jobs, this would arouse suspicious.They also were working without proper working papers, so there Visa may have expired as well. They also probably needed their jobs to help support their families back home. So since they probably didn't have much money, and also probably no family or friends on the main land, where could they run to. For them their employer is expect to pay there way home after a year, or sometimes longer.

I am surprised you didn't ask about the cigarette butts found near the Crime Scene. It never says they were taken 50 Meters away, at the log these guys sat on, but that's say this is so. The significance of the Cigarette Butts is the DNA Testing of those Butts also matched the sperm DNA Sample taken from Hannah. After talking to staff at the Resort, this is when they discovered that the accused where there that night playing their guitar. So it was these cigarettes Butts that led the Police to the suspects, and after DNA Sampling of them, which again matched the sperm found in Hannah, they were charged with Murder.

Its begining to make sense now. They were really drunk and being uneducated they didn't have a clue how they could get caught. So drunk in fact that while one of them was look out the other one killed a guy twice his size then raped the girl. Now don't forget the girl could have run while the boy was being murdered because the other one was keeping looky watch but she just sat and watched.

The weapon that killed Hannah was the hoe, you know the one that didn't have Davids DNA on it but did have Hannahs DNA on it.

The hoe was covered in Hannahs blood. That will be the blood you say was washed off by the sea water. This was done as you claim by two drunken boys who didn't have a clue what was happening because they were so drunk. As to why we think there was a lot of blood is because we have seen pictures of the bloody hoe, the beach the morning after the murder and the pictures of Hannahs broken body. You should go look at them and get a clue as to what happened to her.

What was the name of the famer who reported his hoe missing the following day ? Would it be the same one who found the hoe in the same place it was taken from ? How does something that is in the same place get reported missing ?

Hey heres a thought, maybe the log they were sitting on playing their guitar was what they used to kill Hannah, I mean David, god you got me confused now.

They then washed the log in the ocean to clean the blood off and put it back where they found it !! genius.

Well you have convinced me. Hang them high.

GOLDBUGGY · May 6, 2015

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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!

Okay! Who says they didn't take care of the Hoe? If I recall they didn't find any evidence on that Hoe. So it must have been washed clean from the Ocean Salt Water. It also wasn't found next to the bodies either. It was in fact put back to the Garden and where they got it from. To me, that tells me they tried to hide evidence and the Murder Weapon.

It was only by matching the Hoe to the wound on David Miller's Head that they deduced that this Hoe was in fact the Murder Weapon. The Accused must have figured that by trying to hide this Hoe someplace else would have raised the alarm bells, when the farmer reported it missing the next day. So since it was washed of evidence it was probably wiser to put it back.

So the first answer to you questions is, and like many Rapist Murderers, they didn't think they would get caught. It certainly took a long time to catch Ted Bundy and others like this. They knew that nobody else had witnessed their crime (with one guy probably being the Look Out) and the only 2 who could identify them they had killed. They must have felt so sure they wouldn't get caught, or be suspects, that they even took David Millers Cell Phone. Thinking nobody would look at them for it.

Now whether you think this was wise or even wonder why they would take such a risk, knowing that if they got caught with this phone it would link them to the murders, you have to remember this. They are Migrant Workers from a poor country and thus also poorly educated. As such, they were not hired to work their as Brain Surgeons. They were both hired and had low paying jobs. They probably also don't have much knowledge on DNA, and like we do There were (as they both admitted several times) drunk during this time. At the very least many people saw they were drinking. So there thought process that night, on top of there poor education, and everything else, was hindered.

Why they didn't find the second Murder Weapon that killed Hannah is for the same reason you first said they didn't do. Which was they took care of it. I don't think they even know for sure exactly what it was, except it was a Blunt Instrument. Thus can't be the Hoe. Perhaps some wooden stick or club, which after it is throw back into the Ocean it becomes Drift Wood again. But the fact they didn't find anything near the victims which would do that, then it is obvious they tried to hide it. They tried to hide evidence.

Why do you keep thinking there would be a lot of blood? They both were injured by head wounds, and not stabbed 100 times with a dull kitchen knife to the body. If you were hit in the face or on the nose, there would be blood. But they were hit on the tops and top sides of their heads, which doesn't produce much blood at all.

Why didn't they leave the island right after they committed this crime? It is probably a combination of several reasons.The most important one was they didn't think they would be suspects and thus get caught. But if they suddenly left and quit their jobs, this would arouse suspicious.They also were working without proper working papers, so there Visa may have expired as well. They also probably needed their jobs to help support their families back home. So since they probably didn't have much money, and also probably no family or friends on the main land, where could they run to. For them their employer is expect to pay there way home after a year, or sometimes longer.

I am surprised you didn't ask about the cigarette butts found near the Crime Scene. It never says they were taken 50 Meters away, at the log these guys sat on, but that's say this is so. The significance of the Cigarette Butts is the DNA Testing of those Butts also matched the sperm DNA Sample taken from Hannah. After talking to staff at the Resort, this is when they discovered that the accused where there that night playing their guitar. So it was these cigarettes Butts that led the Police to the suspects, and after DNA Sampling of them, which again matched the sperm found in Hannah, they were charged with Murder.

Goldbuggy

Your response contains a number of errors , and ommissions that I am left to arrive at a conclusion that you are not really interested in the crime and posting with an intent of being vexatious

Oh?

Well I stand to be corrected.

Prove it!

boomerangutang · May 6, 2015

There's a scene in the remake of the Nutty Professor (Eddie Murphy) where the professor (hyped-up on his drug concoction) shows up late for a first date with a ravishing lady he's crazy about. During the course of making excuses for being late, he maniacally charges through a staccato litany of ridiculous excuses, which is humorous. Reminds me of what the hang-em-high group are doing in this topic, while trying to justify their flimsy arguments.

More on topic: Ok, we now hear that the judge will allow defense team's request to review DNA evidence. That's probably good, but several questions immediately arise:

>>> Who/What entity will get the nod to do the review?
Apparently Ms Porntip will be part of (or heading?) the team. One word from me, in response: good. To what degree will the new team be beholden to RTP and other authorities? Are they being paid by government or are they connected to private firms?

>>> How restrictive will that review be? Will it be tightly restricted to merely examining the B2 (not the 3rd?), or will the new team be allowed to reference DNA of other 'persons of interest'? Very doubtful that authorities would allow that. I strongly suspect this issue is being discussed (probably heatedly) by those involved, as we speak.

>>> How much access will be allowed? Will the new team have access to bodily fluid samples directly from the victim(s)? Who will provide the samples. Where have they been kept, and who labelled them originally and subsequently?

>>> Will clothing and the hoe be on the agenda? Such items were probably not scrutinized closely enough during the initial stages of the investigation. Indeed, some (or all) the clothing looks so clean, it could have been laundered in the hours after the crime.

>>> Will there be any comparison with Brit Coroner's findings? That's probably a moot point, because thus far, the Brit Coroner appears to be distancing herself as far as possible from the case.

Edited May 6, 2015 by boomerangutang

GOLDBUGGY · May 6, 2015

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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!

Okay! Who says they didn't take care of the Hoe? If I recall they didn't find any evidence on that Hoe. So it must have been washed clean from the Ocean Salt Water. It also wasn't found next to the bodies either. It was in fact put back to the Garden and where they got it from. To me, that tells me they tried to hide evidence and the Murder Weapon.

It was only by matching the Hoe to the wound on David Miller's Head that they deduced that this Hoe was in fact the Murder Weapon. The Accused must have figured that by trying to hide this Hoe someplace else would have raised the alarm bells, when the farmer reported it missing the next day. So since it was washed of evidence it was probably wiser to put it back.

So the first answer to you questions is, and like many Rapist Murderers, they didn't think they would get caught. It certainly took a long time to catch Ted Bundy and others like this. They knew that nobody else had witnessed their crime (with one guy probably being the Look Out) and the only 2 who could identify them they had killed. They must have felt so sure they wouldn't get caught, or be suspects, that they even took David Millers Cell Phone. Thinking nobody would look at them for it.

Now whether you think this was wise or even wonder why they would take such a risk, knowing that if they got caught with this phone it would link them to the murders, you have to remember this. They are Migrant Workers from a poor country and thus also poorly educated. As such, they were not hired to work their as Brain Surgeons. They were both hired and had low paying jobs. They probably also don't have much knowledge on DNA, and like we do There were (as they both admitted several times) drunk during this time. At the very least many people saw they were drinking. So there thought process that night, on top of there poor education, and everything else, was hindered.

Why they didn't find the second Murder Weapon that killed Hannah is for the same reason you first said they didn't do. Which was they took care of it. I don't think they even know for sure exactly what it was, except it was a Blunt Instrument. Thus can't be the Hoe. Perhaps some wooden stick or club, which after it is throw back into the Ocean it becomes Drift Wood again. But the fact they didn't find anything near the victims which would do that, then it is obvious they tried to hide it. They tried to hide evidence.

Why do you keep thinking there would be a lot of blood? They both were injured by head wounds, and not stabbed 100 times with a dull kitchen knife to the body. If you were hit in the face or on the nose, there would be blood. But they were hit on the tops and top sides of their heads, which doesn't produce much blood at all.

Why didn't they leave the island right after they committed this crime? It is probably a combination of several reasons.The most important one was they didn't think they would be suspects and thus get caught. But if they suddenly left and quit their jobs, this would arouse suspicious.They also were working without proper working papers, so there Visa may have expired as well. They also probably needed their jobs to help support their families back home. So since they probably didn't have much money, and also probably no family or friends on the main land, where could they run to. For them their employer is expect to pay there way home after a year, or sometimes longer.

I am surprised you didn't ask about the cigarette butts found near the Crime Scene. It never says they were taken 50 Meters away, at the log these guys sat on, but that's say this is so. The significance of the Cigarette Butts is the DNA Testing of those Butts also matched the sperm DNA Sample taken from Hannah. After talking to staff at the Resort, this is when they discovered that the accused where there that night playing their guitar. So it was these cigarettes Butts that led the Police to the suspects, and after DNA Sampling of them, which again matched the sperm found in Hannah, they were charged with Murder.

Its begining to make sense now. They were really drunk and being uneducated they didn't have a clue how they could get caught. So drunk in fact that while one of them was look out the other one killed a guy twice his size then raped the girl. Now don't forget the girl could have run while the boy was being murdered because the other one was keeping looky watch but she just sat and watched.

The weapon that killed Hannah was the hoe, you know the one that didn't have Davids DNA on it but did have Hannahs DNA on it.

The hoe was covered in Hannahs blood. That will be the blood you say was washed off by the sea water. This was done as you claim by two drunken boys who didn't have a clue what was happening because they were so drunk. As to why we think there was a lot of blood is because we have seen pictures of the bloody hoe, the beach the morning after the murder and the pictures of Hannahs broken body. You should go look at them and get a clue as to what happened to her.

What was the name of the famer who reported his hoe missing the following day ? Would it be the same one who found the hoe in the same place it was taken from ? How does something that is in the same place get reported missing ?

Hey heres a thought, maybe the log they were sitting on playing their guitar was what they used to kill Hannah, I mean David, god you got me confused now.

They then washed the log in the ocean to clean the blood off and put it back where they found it !! genius.

Well you have convinced me. Hang them high.

Easy to kill a guy twice your size when he is standing in front of you Butt Naked and you are holding a weapon!

The reason why Hannah did not run and cry for help was the same reason I knew from the beginning, and before it was reported, that there had to have been at least 2 people involved in these Murders. One fighting with David! One holding Hannah with a knife to her throat, and broken beer bottle, or whatever, to keep her still and quiet. No problem with a weapon to her throat and holding her by her hair and leading her over to the last rock and to the look out point.

You can't read and understand what you read can you? What I said was that they put the Hoe back to the Garden they took it from because they did not want to arouse suspicion. So since the Garden Hoe was back were it belonged it wasn't stolen. If it wasn't stolen then the farmer would not report it missing, now would he. Geese!

Them being drunk comes from both of the Accuses own testimony to the police, lawyers, and hell knows who else. I did not invent this, like the way you do with your stories here. There are also several witnesses you placed them near the crime scene and that they were drinking. So if you are calling the Accused Liars, then I agree with you 100%.

As I have said all along LINK a post that proves the DNA on the Hoe was just Hannah's, and who's it was. I would really like to see that LINK. The last I read about it they were not sure what killed Hannah. The originally thought maybe the Hoe, but changed their mind later after the autopsy. But go ahead and show me this proof. I will be waiting.

But either way, whether it was a Garden Hoe that killed Hanna, or a Ancient Egyptian Wooden Dildo, it does make these guy anymore innocent. Why can't you understand that? That just because they are not sure what killed her, or maybe not even have a murder weapon. doesn't make her any less dead and them more innocent!

Geese

stephenterry · May 6, 2015

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script ty

Goldbuggy

Your response contains a number of errors , and ommissions that I am left to arrive at a conclusion that you are not really interested in the crime and posting with an intent of being vexatious

Oh?

Well I stand to be corrected.

Prove it!

I am sure the court hearings will show that your purported scenario is incorrect from both the prosecution's side and the defence's counter arguments. In the meantime be cool.

Edited May 6, 2015 by stephenterry

boomerangutang · May 6, 2015

Just a thought, but considering David's body was found nude: Was there blood on his torso and in his hair? How much? Granted, he was purportedly dragged in to the water, but that's not going to wash off all blood.

Perhaps more to the point: his clothes. Even if taken off before the confrontation, one would expect them to have at least some blood splatter if the clothing was nearby. It points to a possibility of clothes being taken from the scene (perhaps taken off his body) laundered, and then returned to the scene of the crime to dry in the sun. How late in the morning did police arrive? Some say hours. Even when they arrived, they probably didn't move clothing around, so the clothing would have added time to dry in the sun. Where are the closest places to the crime scene - to get clothing laundered? All would be needed is a water tap and some soap. Who would do that? Someone who was involved in the crime would do that if they thought some of their own blood/DNA/fingerprints might show up on the clothing. Perhaps it's seems very odd for someone to take bloody clothes from a crime scene, launder the clothes, ......then why return them? Perhaps to try and make the scene plausible (David would not be walking around the beach nude). Also, criminals don't often do reasonable things in the heat of the moment. They've got adrenaline going like a freight train, it's dark, they're scared .....weird actions often ensue.

boomerangutang · May 6, 2015

I'd like to see the photos again, of the crime scene (perhaps someone could post 'em). From recollection, David's shorts were laid out flat on the sand, and they were not near Hannah (her body's final position). According to the RTP scenario, the two went to the rocky area, took their clothes off to have sex. Few observers believe that, but let's play along with what the RTP want us to believe. If a man is taking his clothes off to commence to have sex (as an aside: most men would not take all their clothes off on a public beach in that scenario, but that's a side issue) ....the man would very unlikely take his shorts and lay them flat on the sand, several meters from where the woman is. If a man took off his shorts, he would either drop them on the ground in a lump or put them up on the rock. It's just one more, of the hundreds of details which the RTP got wrong. Whether by stupidity or by scheming, we may never know.

Edited May 6, 2015 by boomerangutang

stephenterry · May 6, 2015

I admire your stamina to keep running with fools. I tried, on a number occasions, to explain the legal process, from investigation through to court,

the difference between fact and hearsay, and why certain aspects are relevant and others not but all he could do was promote me to a hotshot courtroom lawyer. It's clear that he wears blinkers, cannot think outside the square, and cannot offer any logical responses. You only have to look at his reply to my last post. He is utterly confused, and still proclaims a quote taken from a police interview, is a statement and is fact. There is no doubt he and his mate, you can see who I am referring to, are delusional and do not warrant any further responses as it is a total waste of time.

I have highlighted the relevant sentence. On the understanding that the source is a reputable press release accompanied by a picture of a police officer, it is a fact that a statement was made and reported. That is not, by any reasonable measurement, hearsay.

Whether the statement has been wrongly reported or correctly reported and yet to be subsequently challenged in court, has to be determined. But that would apply to all of the police press releases if the transcript is not signed off as being factual. Whether that quality check is carried out in Thailand, I don't know.

The inference, if nothing released is to be regarded as fact, is pure conjecture over the RTP's case against the B2, until it comes to trial. What many posters on here have been doing, is to question the investigation at length, a behavioural reaction that is alien to officialdom here.

I will make my position quite clear. The behavioral pattern shown by both the local Thais and the B2 since the very beginning is contrary to what the RTP have disclosed to date in asserting that the B2 committed these crimes. That this country has an unenviable record of convicting scapegoats in serious crime cases, cannot be ruled out in this case. That will have to be tested in court..

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US