Koh Tao murders: NGO appeals for funds to ensure justice

[craigt3365]

Enough with the personal attacks, please.

[bunglebag]

Come on guys. This fund needs bumping up as it is pitifully low at present considering the UK petition got over 100,000 signatures.

Anyone who feels injustice is likely being done can surely afford a few quid / dollars / baht? I'm unemployed, overdrawn, and could lose my house in the next month or two and still I can find the cost of a couple of beers to donate. Only takes a minute or two and various ways to pay donation. No need to register anywhere is you already have a paypal account etc.

The defence team already have a job on their hands. Most of us cannot help in any way apart from donating a small amount of change to this fund. Almost anyone can afford the cost of a couple of drinks

[jdinasia]

Heres another one that mentions the case has been rescheduled dated the 27th December 2014. Rescheduled from when ? the middle of 2015.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Koh-Tao-murder-trial-rescheduled-30250774.html

You carry on with your lies At least jd enjoys them.

Heres a snippet of the link.

"

The trial of two Myanmar men accused of murdering a pair of British tourists on Koh Tao will be heard in the second half of next year, after the Koh Samui Court agreed yesterday to postpone the case.

"

So the judge agreed to postpone the case. Was that the case he started to judge on the 26th of December or the case he started to judge in June 2015 ?

LOL

Not rescheduled.

Strange how this works. First pre-trial hearing was on the 26th of December. On that day they scheduled the dates for the trial the newspaper runs the article on the 27th. The day after the first pre-trial hearing

[Linky]

Abbott and Costello comes to mind in this thread

[seahorse]

There's one law for the rich and another for the poor.

[rockingrobin]

Heres another one that mentions the case has been rescheduled dated the 27th December 2014. Rescheduled from when ? the middle of 2015.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Koh-Tao-murder-trial-rescheduled-30250774.html

You carry on with your lies At least jd enjoys them.

Heres a snippet of the link.

"

The trial of two Myanmar men accused of murdering a pair of British tourists on Koh Tao will be heard in the second half of next year, after the Koh Samui Court agreed yesterday to postpone the case.

"

So the judge agreed to postpone the case. Was that the case he started to judge on the 26th of December or the case he started to judge in June 2015 ?

LOL

Not rescheduled.

Strange how this works. First pre-trial hearing was on the 26th of December. On that day they scheduled the dates for the trial the newspaper runs the article on the 27th. The day after the first pre-trial hearing

JD

From reading various reports I tend to agree with Berybert,

It is my understanding that the trial was set to begin Feb2015 , then abruptly brought forward to Dec 26th and subsequently postponed to July 2015

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30602984

There are other links

[catsanddogs]

Heres another one that mentions the case has been rescheduled dated the 27th December 2014. Rescheduled from when ? the middle of 2015.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Koh-Tao-murder-trial-rescheduled-30250774.html

You carry on with your lies At least jd enjoys them.

Heres a snippet of the link.

"

The trial of two Myanmar men accused of murdering a pair of British tourists on Koh Tao will be heard in the second half of next year, after the Koh Samui Court agreed yesterday to postpone the case.

"

So the judge agreed to postpone the case. Was that the case he started to judge on the 26th of December or the case he started to judge in June 2015 ?

LOL

Not rescheduled.

Strange how this works. First pre-trial hearing was on the 26th of December. On that day they scheduled the dates for the trial the newspaper runs the article on the 27th. The day after the first pre-trial hearing

JD

From reading various reports I tend to agree with Berybert,

It is my understanding that the trial was set to begin Feb2015 , then abruptly brought forward to Dec 26th and subsequently postponed to July 2015

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30602984

There are other links

That's been my understanding of it too.

[jdinasia]

First hearing (pre-trial hearing) only. Just like there have been other motions ruled on since

[berybert]

(DELETED)

I seem to recall many of us were up in arms about the trail being bought forward to December the 26th. There are many posts about that very fact on the threads that have been closed down. Now I would recommend anyone who might be starting to Believe jdinasia and AleG go read those threads and see if you can find one post in which either of them or anyone else or any other link from anywhere else that mentions the 26th December 2014 date was a pre trial hearing.

Edited May 12, 2015 by seedy
troll / flaming

[jdinasia]

December 26th pre-trial hearing

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-confident-testimony-clear-myanmar-130717752.html

All over the net.

Edited May 12, 2015 by jdinasia

[berybert]

Heres another one that mentions the case has been rescheduled dated the 27th December 2014. Rescheduled from when ? the middle of 2015.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Koh-Tao-murder-trial-rescheduled-30250774.html

You carry on with your lies At least jd enjoys them.

Heres a snippet of the link.

"

The trial of two Myanmar men accused of murdering a pair of British tourists on Koh Tao will be heard in the second half of next year, after the Koh Samui Court agreed yesterday to postpone the case.

"

So the judge agreed to postpone the case. Was that the case he started to judge on the 26th of December or the case he started to judge in June 2015 ?

LOL

Not rescheduled.

Strange how this works. First pre-trial hearing was on the 26th of December. On that day they scheduled the dates for the trial the newspaper runs the article on the 27th. The day after the first pre-trial hearing

Nope not rescheduled.

As you can see from the link quote provided, Postponed.

Not really that funny is it. Judge decides to postpone the trial because the defense asked for more time to prepare for the case. Which the papers reported the following day.

I seem to recall you not being very happy about that at the time. And also you have made a number of posts after people have mentioned maybe the case was put back 6 months so it can be forgotten about, that those people have got what they asked for i.e. the case being postponed by 6 months and still they wernt happy.

Edited May 12, 2015 by berybert

[seedy]

Let's keep the personal references and attacks out of this thread.

[jdinasia]

1st hearing for such a high profile case after almost 10 months? In my opinion this clearly shows they are playing for time so that worldwide interest in the case fades. Would make it easier to hang 2 patsies.

When the hearing was moved to December 26th last year, didn't you claim that was so they could try, convict, and execute the 2 Burmese defendants before the scheduled report from the UK inquest?

Nothing seems to have changed there then, does it ?

Nope, nothing changed. They weren't tried, convicted, and executed. Contrary to member claims that this is exactly what would happen before any defense could be mounted.

The pre-trial hearing only set some ground rules, as is normal. It only set the trial dates, as is normal

[berybert]

1st hearing for such a high profile case after almost 10 months? In my opinion this clearly shows they are playing for time so that worldwide interest in the case fades. Would make it easier to hang 2 patsies.

When the hearing was moved to December 26th last year, didn't you claim that was so they could try, convict, and execute the 2 Burmese defendants before the scheduled report from the UK inquest?

Nothing seems to have changed there then, does it ?

Nope, nothing changed. They weren't tried, convicted, and executed. Contrary to member claims that this is exactly what would happen before any defense could be mounted.

The pre-trial hearing only set some ground rules, as is normal. It only set the trial dates, as is normal

People dying starving etc etc all over Thailand and the only thing that concerns you is the Koh Tao murder case.

Sleep well.

[jdinasia]

1st hearing for such a high profile case after almost 10 months? In my opinion this clearly shows they are playing for time so that worldwide interest in the case fades. Would make it easier to hang 2 patsies.

When the hearing was moved to December 26th last year, didn't you claim that was so they could try, convict, and execute the 2 Burmese defendants before the scheduled report from the UK inquest?

Nothing seems to have changed there then, does it ?

Nope, nothing changed. They weren't tried, convicted, and executed. Contrary to member claims that this is exactly what would happen before any defense could be mounted.

The pre-trial hearing only set some ground rules, as is normal. It only set the trial dates, as is normal

People dying starving etc etc all over Thailand and the only thing that concerns you is the Koh Tao murder case.

Sleep well.

Well, that little rant of yours is truly off-topic.

You don't know what concerns me, but I like Thai people. You have said that you don't.

[berybert]

1st hearing for such a high profile case after almost 10 months? In my opinion this clearly shows they are playing for time so that worldwide interest in the case fades. Would make it easier to hang 2 patsies.

When the hearing was moved to December 26th last year, didn't you claim that was so they could try, convict, and execute the 2 Burmese defendants before the scheduled report from the UK inquest?

Nothing seems to have changed there then, does it ?

Nope, nothing changed. They weren't tried, convicted, and executed. Contrary to member claims that this is exactly what would happen before any defense could be mounted.

The pre-trial hearing only set some ground rules, as is normal. It only set the trial dates, as is normal

People dying starving etc etc all over Thailand and the only thing that concerns you is the Koh Tao murder case.

Sleep well.

Well, that little rant of yours is truly off-topic.

You don't know what concerns me, but I like Thai people. You have said that you don't.

Yes i am aware you like Thai people. The fact you are happy to see Thai murderers walking free proves that.

I guess Burmese you like not so much, and are happy to see them hang for crimes others committe.

[jdinasia]

Nope, I tend to like Burmese people as well. However, I have no pity available for the 2 Burmese defendants. The right people are on trial in this case.

So, yet again, you get it wrong each and every time you ascribe qualities to me

[Happy Grumpy]

I have no pity available for the 2 Burmese defendants. The right people are on trial in this case.

Up, up and away.

[PaPiPuPePo]

Looks like the same round-and-round arguing, kind of like one of those fatty floaters that refuse to flush.

Unlike the experts making their pronouncements of certainty from the comfort of their computer keyboards, I recently spent a few weeks on KT again. Didn't want to go back but it was the most convenient way for me to up my diving certs. While there, I asked some people I know from previous visits, that is folks I could expect some kind of answer from, about these murders.

I wasn't too surprised to get the exact same answer, even if the wording varied: to choose the most succinct response, it was "we don't talk about that here." This guy, and the others, said it quickly and with either some nervousness and/or lowered voices. The distinct impression was that it's a taboo subject. On top of that, at one of the dive shops I'd frequented where I asked one of the instructors, who's an impressively tough dude (ex-mil diver etc), I noticed a chill in the reception I got the next couple times I stopped by. Maybe just a coincidence or a misinterpretation of mine, but maybe not.

Now, pray tell, if the B2 were indeed guilty, and all these folks knew it or believed so, why would they clam up so nervously? No, they'd say something like "well it's unfortunate that these rumours about the local family/families involvement came up, but fortunately that passed and thank god they caught the monsters who did it." But no, it was a tight lipped "we don't talk about that."

I also had a look at the crime scene a couple of times: there's no indication anything happened there, not that I expected anything else.

So the 2 or 5 very busy commenters here who are so sure they got the right guys, say what you want, but I left the island (for the last time) more sure than ever about what happened, and it wasn't the soft-looking B2 that did it. I suggest you go there yourselves (unless you're already there hint hint) and start asking around openly, make some inquiries without being too discrete, if you're so sure there's no reason to worry about a "conspiracy" or cover-up. One of those tough-guys that populate the island, the ones who act like wise guys, might be happy to make your acquaintance.

I suggest the rest of us, rather than wasting time rather pointlessly debating this issue on the internet (providing new, useful info's another thing), do something to help assure a just outcome, to the extent that's possible.

[AleG]

Looks like the same round-and-round arguing, kind of like one of those fatty floaters that refuse to flush.

Unlike the experts making their pronouncements of certainty from the comfort of their computer keyboards, I recently spent a few weeks on KT again. Didn't want to go back but it was the most convenient way for me to up my diving certs. While there, I asked some people I know from previous visits, that is folks I could expect some kind of answer from, about these murders.

I wasn't too surprised to get the exact same answer, even if the wording varied: to choose the most succinct response, it was "we don't talk about that here." This guy, and the others, said it quickly and with either some nervousness and/or lowered voices. The distinct impression was that it's a taboo subject. On top of that, at one of the dive shops I'd frequented where I asked one of the instructors, who's an impressively tough dude (ex-mil diver etc), I noticed a chill in the reception I got the next couple times I stopped by. Maybe just a coincidence or a misinterpretation of mine, but maybe not.

Now, pray tell, if the B2 were indeed guilty, and all these folks knew it or believed so, why would they clam up so nervously? No, they'd say something like "well it's unfortunate that these rumours about the local family/families involvement came up, but fortunately that passed and thank god they caught the monsters who did it." But no, it was a tight lipped "we don't talk about that."

I also had a look at the crime scene a couple of times: there's no indication anything happened there, not that I expected anything else.

So the 2 or 5 very busy commenters here who are so sure they got the right guys, say what you want, but I left the island (for the last time) more sure than ever about what happened, and it wasn't the soft-looking B2 that did it. I suggest you go there yourselves (unless you're already there hint hint) and start asking around openly, make some inquiries without being too discrete, if you're so sure there's no reason to worry about a "conspiracy" or cover-up. One of those tough-guys that populate the island, the ones who act like wise guys, might be happy to make your acquaintance.

I suggest the rest of us, rather than wasting time rather pointlessly debating this issue on the internet (providing new, useful info's another thing), do something to help assure a just outcome, to the extent that's possible.

"Unlike the experts making their pronouncements of certainty from the comfort of their computer keyboards"

"it wasn't the soft-looking B2 that did it."

Evil family imposing the Thai version of omertà, or the people there are fed up with the "Death Island" crowd? I'll guess the former, if anything has been proven in this threads is that people that tie their moral self worth to the innocence of the two Burmese men are not going to be interested in hearing anything to the contrary; so no wonder the people there rather not humor them. I've done the same with people that approach me to talk about the Jews and their schemes, or how the Moon Landings were fake or any other number of topics that demonstrate that they are out to lunch.

Meanwhile, beyond the fancy theories and mind reading, there is enough real, physical evidence to implicate those two in the murders, for example in the last hearing they admitted of having David Miller's phone, I had a bit of a morbid curiosity to hear what new, convoluted theory would be concocted to explain that away but... nothing. I guess because "The Police planted Hanna's phone" battle cry is too dear to abandon so better pretend that they never mentioned that they had Miller's phone all along.

So, instead of wasting time with biased anecdotes why not better talk about things directly related to the case? For example I'd like to hear how come, out of all the people on the island the police just happened to pick as "scapegoats" the men that "found" Miller's phone. Because the phone was rediscovered after they were arrested (not to mention the witnesses that said they were given the phone to dispose of it well before the arrests) so either it was a fantastic coincidence or they have the right people.

Science, and the scientific method is the best tool humanity has to understand the world, here's a brief intro of how it works, you have a mystery, you create an hypothesis and test it against the real world, if you discover that those tests validate your theory then you know your hypothesis was correct.

So when the police caught those two men and subsequently evidence was found confirming their involvement (they having the phone in this case) that hypothesis is validated until a better theory can be constructed. So far the only alternative theories are the conspiracy variety, that rely on conjecture, specious logic and willfully ignoring the real world evidence in order to pin the murders on someone else, sorry but no no sale, I'll take the one grounded on reality and mutually validating evidence.

They had one of the victim's phone, their DNA was inside the other victim, they were close to the murder scene at the approximate time of the murders, no alibi placing them anywhere else, one tried to flee the island shortly after having DNA samples taken, they confessed to the police, their own lawyers and the UNHRC, their defense up to this point, amounts to "we were too drunk to remember anything"; that all adds up to a strong case against them.

[jdinasia]

You have to love it when someone who said that they would never go back to Koh Tao ; suddenly claims to have gone back. Then provides anecdotal claims to support their position.

Now, based solely on hearsay, we are told believe 2 things.

1) He actually went. Asked people openly. Etc

2) He'll never go back again.

[PaPiPuPePo]

I have no pity available for the 2 Burmese defendants. The right people are on trial in this case.

Up, up and away.

Good example of the forked tongue approach of this person: claims he's only interested in the facts and is waiting to see the results of the trial (which we all know is guaranteed to be fair /sarc), but then drops his guard occasionally and reveals his true biases. Next time he claims to be objective quote this back to him.

[jdinasia]

I have no pity available for the 2 Burmese defendants. The right people are on trial in this case.

Up, up and away.

Good example of the forked tongue approach of this person: claims he's only interested in the facts and is waiting to see the results of the trial (which we all know is guaranteed to be fair /sarc), but then drops his guard occasionally and reveals his true biases. Next time he claims to be objective quote this back to him.

Oops sorry, I failed once to preface my statement with "imho"

[jdinasia]

I have no pity available for the 2 Burmese defendants. The right people are on trial in this case.

Up, up and away.

Good example of the forked tongue approach of this person: claims he's only interested in the facts and is waiting to see the results of the trial (which we all know is guaranteed to be fair /sarc), but then drops his guard occasionally and reveals his true biases. Next time he claims to be objective quote this back to him.

Oops sorry, I failed once to preface my statement with "imho"

Do you have an "IMHO", or friends...?

Hmmmm

Both.

I have a researched opinion.

I have friends. (none attached to this case even remotely)

Putting me above others on both counts

[rockingrobin]

Looks like the same round-and-round arguing, kind of like one of those fatty floaters that refuse to flush.

Unlike the experts making their pronouncements of certainty from the comfort of their computer keyboards, I recently spent a few weeks on KT again. Didn't want to go back but it was the most convenient way for me to up my diving certs. While there, I asked some people I know from previous visits, that is folks I could expect some kind of answer from, about these murders.

I wasn't too surprised to get the exact same answer, even if the wording varied: to choose the most succinct response, it was "we don't talk about that here." This guy, and the others, said it quickly and with either some nervousness and/or lowered voices. The distinct impression was that it's a taboo subject. On top of that, at one of the dive shops I'd frequented where I asked one of the instructors, who's an impressively tough dude (ex-mil diver etc), I noticed a chill in the reception I got the next couple times I stopped by. Maybe just a coincidence or a misinterpretation of mine, but maybe not.

Now, pray tell, if the B2 were indeed guilty, and all these folks knew it or believed so, why would they clam up so nervously? No, they'd say something like "well it's unfortunate that these rumours about the local family/families involvement came up, but fortunately that passed and thank god they caught the monsters who did it." But no, it was a tight lipped "we don't talk about that."

I also had a look at the crime scene a couple of times: there's no indication anything happened there, not that I expected anything else.

So the 2 or 5 very busy commenters here who are so sure they got the right guys, say what you want, but I left the island (for the last time) more sure than ever about what happened, and it wasn't the soft-looking B2 that did it. I suggest you go there yourselves (unless you're already there hint hint) and start asking around openly, make some inquiries without being too discrete, if you're so sure there's no reason to worry about a "conspiracy" or cover-up. One of those tough-guys that populate the island, the ones who act like wise guys, might be happy to make your acquaintance.

I suggest the rest of us, rather than wasting time rather pointlessly debating this issue on the internet (providing new, useful info's another thing), do something to help assure a just outcome, to the extent that's possible.

"Unlike the experts making their pronouncements of certainty from the comfort of their computer keyboards"

"it wasn't the soft-looking B2 that did it."

Evil family imposing the Thai version of omertà, or the people there are fed up with the "Death Island" crowd? I'll guess the former, if anything has been proven in this threads is that people that tie their moral self worth to the innocence of the two Burmese men are not going to be interested in hearing anything to the contrary; so no wonder the people there rather not humor them. I've done the same with people that approach me to talk about the Jews and their schemes, or how the Moon Landings were fake or any other number of topics that demonstrate that they are out to lunch.

Meanwhile, beyond the fancy theories and mind reading, there is enough real, physical evidence to implicate those two in the murders, for example in the last hearing they admitted of having David Miller's phone, I had a bit of a morbid curiosity to hear what new, convoluted theory would be concocted to explain that away but... nothing. I guess because "The Police planted Hanna's phone" battle cry is too dear to abandon so better pretend that they never mentioned that they had Miller's phone all along.

So, instead of wasting time with biased anecdotes why not better talk about things directly related to the case? For example I'd like to hear how come, out of all the people on the island the police just happened to pick as "scapegoats" the men that "found" Miller's phone. Because the phone was rediscovered after they were arrested (not to mention the witnesses that said they were given the phone to dispose of it well before the arrests) so either it was a fantastic coincidence or they have the right people.

Science, and the scientific method is the best tool humanity has to understand the world, here's a brief intro of how it works, you have a mystery, you create an hypothesis and test it against the real world, if you discover that those tests validate your theory then you know your hypothesis was correct.

So when the police caught those two men and subsequently evidence was found confirming their involvement (they having the phone in this case) that hypothesis is validated until a better theory can be constructed. So far the only alternative theories are the conspiracy variety, that rely on conjecture, specious logic and willfully ignoring the real world evidence in order to pin the murders on someone else, sorry but no no sale, I'll take the one grounded on reality and mutually validating evidence.

They had one of the victim's phone, their DNA was inside the other victim, they were close to the murder scene at the approximate time of the murders, no alibi placing them anywhere else, one tried to flee the island shortly after having DNA samples taken, they confessed to the police, their own lawyers and the UNHRC, their defense up to this point, amounts to "we were too drunk to remember anything"; that all adds up to a strong case against them.

Some of the points you make are not in the public domain or you are mistaken

[Happy Grumpy]

The most shocking thing about all of this, and I mean the most shocking thing, is that people believe what the Thai police and authorities say, and consider a complete cover up as unlikely.

One of the most sickening things, is that they are surely only pretending to for some sick kick.

[PaPiPuPePo]

"

Meanwhile, beyond the fancy theories and mind reading, there is enough real, physical evidence to implicate those two in the murders, for example in the last hearing they admitted of having David Miller's phone, I had a bit of a morbid curiosity to hear what new, convoluted theory would be concocted to explain that away but... nothing. I guess because "The Police planted Hanna's phone" battle cry is too dear to abandon so better pretend that they never mentioned that they had Miller's phone all along.

I'd like to hear how come, out of all the people on the island the police just happened to pick as "scapegoats" the men that "found" Miller's phone. Because the phone was rediscovered after they were arrested (not to mention the witnesses that said they were given the phone to dispose of it well before the arrests) so either it was a fantastic coincidence or they have the right people.

So when the police caught those two men and subsequently evidence was found confirming their involvement (they having the phone in this case) that hypothesis is validated until a better theory can be constructed. So far the only alternative theories are the conspiracy variety, that rely on conjecture, specious logic and willfully ignoring the real world evidence in order to pin the murders on someone else, sorry but no no sale, I'll take the one grounded on reality and mutually validating evidence.

They had one of the victim's phone, their DNA was inside the other victim, they were close to the murder scene at the approximate time of the murders, no alibi placing them anywhere else, one tried to flee the island shortly after having DNA samples taken, they confessed to the police, their own lawyers and the UNHRC, their defense up to this point, amounts to "we were too drunk to remember anything"; that all adds up to a strong case against them.

Some of the points you make are not in the public domain or you are mistaken

I'll ignore the mote-in-your-eye comment about anecdotes, and the condescension as if some of us grew up in the dark ages before science, and focus on these claims about the mobile phone: I've heard very different accounts of this issue, and like everything it's spread around dozens of threads and posts, so can someone who's not this poster (since he's made his version clear) re-cap what happened with the phones? It seems pretty strange IIRC, there being more than one phone ascribed to David and Hannah, etc.

Also, that the B2's DNA was found inside Hannah? This also seems to be a disputed point.

The fact that they were nearby doesn't implicate them any more than than the fact that others can't be proved to have been there resolves them of suspicion. This forum member really should learn to reason better especially if he's going to be so condescending to others.

The confession doesn't prove anything, in fact--speaking of evidence--that they were scaled with water speaks volumes about the veracity of their confession (never mind it's common knowledge if you don't want to wilfully ignore it that forced confessions are far from uncommon in a number of countries including this one).

Anyway, how about a re-cap of the mobile phone(s) mystery.

If you've been face-to-face with brutal killers enough times you know the look in the eyes, aside from a percentage of total psychos, and the calculating ones--not the case here; but I'll allow that's not reliable info for most people. If they are indeed psycho killers and did those monstrous things to poor Hannah out of lust (I'd belly laugh at that ridiculous notion if it weren't such a tragic situation), then I'm all for eye-for-an-eye in this case. And I'll happily issue a huge mea culpa and apology to Mr AleG and Mr JDinAsia for wasting their precious time.

[AleG]

Meanwhile, beyond the fancy theories and mind reading, there is enough real, physical evidence to implicate those two in the murders, for example in the last hearing they admitted of having David Miller's phone, I had a bit of a morbid curiosity to hear what new, convoluted theory would be concocted to explain that away but... nothing. I guess because "The Police planted Hanna's phone" battle cry is too dear to abandon so better pretend that they never mentioned that they had Miller's phone all along.

I'd like to hear how come, out of all the people on the island the police just happened to pick as "scapegoats" the men that "found" Miller's phone. Because the phone was rediscovered after they were arrested (not to mention the witnesses that said they were given the phone to dispose of it well before the arrests) so either it was a fantastic coincidence or they have the right people.

So when the police caught those two men and subsequently evidence was found confirming their involvement (they having the phone in this case) that hypothesis is validated until a better theory can be constructed. So far the only alternative theories are the conspiracy variety, that rely on conjecture, specious logic and willfully ignoring the real world evidence in order to pin the murders on someone else, sorry but no no sale, I'll take the one grounded on reality and mutually validating evidence.

They had one of the victim's phone, their DNA was inside the other victim, they were close to the murder scene at the approximate time of the murders, no alibi placing them anywhere else, one tried to flee the island shortly after having DNA samples taken, they confessed to the police, their own lawyers and the UNHRC, their defense up to this point, amounts to "we were too drunk to remember anything"; that all adds up to a strong case against them.

Some of the points you make are not in the public domain or you are mistaken

I'll ignore the mote-in-your-eye comment about anecdotes, and the condescension as if some of us grew up in the dark ages before science, and focus on these claims about the mobile phone: I've heard very different accounts of this issue, and like everything it's spread around dozens of threads and posts, so can someone who's not this poster (since he's made his version clear) re-cap what happened with the phones? It seems pretty strange IIRC, there being more than one phone ascribed to David and Hannah, etc.

Also, that the B2's DNA was found inside Hannah? This also seems to be a disputed point.

The fact that they were nearby doesn't implicate them any more than than the fact that others can't be proved to have been there resolves them of suspicion. This forum member really should learn to reason better especially if he's going to be so condescending to others.

The confession doesn't prove anything, in fact--speaking of evidence--that they were scaled with water speaks volumes about the veracity of their confession (never mind it's common knowledge if you don't want to wilfully ignore it that forced confessions are far from uncommon in a number of countries including this one).

Anyway, how about a re-cap of the mobile phone(s) mystery.

If you've been face-to-face with brutal killers enough times you know the look in the eyes, aside from a percentage of total psychos, and the calculating ones--not the case here; but I'll allow that's not reliable info for most people. If they are indeed psycho killers and did those monstrous things to poor Hannah out of lust (I'd belly laugh at that ridiculous notion if it weren't such a tragic situation), then I'm all for eye-for-an-eye in this case. And I'll happily issue a huge mea culpa and apology to Mr AleG and Mr JDinAsia for wasting their precious time.

It's patently obvious that you are looking for excuses, any excuse, to ignore the actual evidence implicating the two Burmese men to the crime.

[dageurreotype]

Not a good look when you have to beg to get money to fight a case that as far as the RTP would consider an open and shut case, mind that's their opinion , on past experience they could be so far off the mark that they wouldn't have a clue who committed the murders and personally when a senior officer declares that the DNA isn't Asian I would have to say that once again the RPT couldn't solve the case of a missing shit house roll, the Burmese boys need the best legal representation they can muster because one thing is for sure the RPT cannot afford egg on face in front of a international audience, this they don't want, so they will pull out all stops to win.

You seriously believe the quality of their legal representation would help? Given that the real culprits were quickly identified but the then 'identifiers' were swiftly moved to another post? Together with the very salient fact the British Embassy have turned their usual blind eye, upheld by the disgrace that was the 'UK Police 'review'? Stupid. BTW, your use of this passive/aggressive emoticon, post after post, is getting tedious.

[jdinasia]

Not a good look when you have to beg to get money to fight a case that as far as the RTP would consider an open and shut case, mind that's their opinion , on past experience they could be so far off the mark that they wouldn't have a clue who committed the murders and personally when a senior officer declares that the DNA isn't Asian I would have to say that once again the RPT couldn't solve the case of a missing shit house roll, the Burmese boys need the best legal representation they can muster because one thing is for sure the RPT cannot afford egg on face in front of a international audience, this they don't want, so they will pull out all stops to win.

You seriously believe the quality of their legal representation would help? Given that the real culprits were quickly identified but the then 'identifiers' were swiftly moved to another post? Together with the very salient fact the British Embassy have turned their usual blind eye, upheld by the disgrace that was the 'UK Police 'review'? Stupid. BTW, your use of this passive/aggressive emoticon, post after post, is getting tedious.

Several sets of people were looked at for this crime. Several sets were dismissed.

If you are referring to Panya. He was promoted after the last set were dismissed as suspects.

Nothing you present offers any reasonable refutation of the prosecution case.