Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[berybert]

"Yes it is too serious a matter to be making things about."

Yes it is, now substantiate your claims that:

"The defendants' lawyer statement........... Obtained under duress and after torture

The HRC commissioner.................... Obtained under duress and after torture.

The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie.

Don't start rambling about other things, you made some claims, show us were they come from.

Can you do that?

I specially want to know about the one about being paid to lie, how do you know that?

Sorry but you first. You have made one claim after another, invented one story after another, taken peoples words and twisted them further than thought possible.

I specially want to know about the bloody condom. I call you a liar on that. Now would you like to prove me wrong ? And if you cant prove me wrong can we take it anything you have said is true ?

Or are we to believe you just want to see justice done and you have no connection to people on Koh Tao ?

This is all I have heard about the condom you are so obsessed about:

Condom found

• initially said to contain victim HWs DNA on the outside

• no other DNA (inside)

• re-enactment: it is considered unrelated to the crime

• only blood drop of victim HW was found on the condom

You see, when I say something I can back it up.

Now, I'll make it very simple for you, you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

Crimes on the blog, your source of enlightenment.

How do I know they were paid to lie

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/829343-thailand-brit-murder-suspects-still-waiting-on-evidence-review/page-16

[sambum]

In reply to JDinAsia Post # 406:-

And I'll ask you again - how do you feel about the statements being taken in a "safe" house with no representation - legal or other kind present?

Regarding the subject of "the DNA, and everything else" being decided in court, I think (surprisingly!) that you are right to a certain extent anyway. One area where we, and many others disagree, is whether the "court" will be completely fair in their judgement of the evidence. The "court" has already shown that it can make a concession to the defence one month, and then overturn it the next, so what is the chance of them being unreliable/pro prosecution in other areas? Quite high, I think.

However, due to the high profile of this case, and the fact that there are now huge amounts of money and face involved (Sorry - conspiracy theory - probably huge amounts of money involved!) I am not prepared to hazard a guess as to the outcome. Probably one that would satisfy most people would be for the case to be thrown out of court. The RTP could say that they had done an excellent job in fixing preparing the evidence, but never had a chance to prove it, and after all they have the PM's word on that, hence no loss of face. Similar result for the prosecution team, although they might be a bit peeved that they had to go over a case that had been made "perfect" a number of times, and no result to show for it. Similar result for the defence team - no case to answer, therefore a win for them, the "court" would not have to give a guilty or not guilty verdict, saving them and the country an enormous amount of grief as whichever way they decided, they would get a lot of flak, but the biggest winners would be the B2, because face is the last thing that they are wanting to save - it's their lives that they are wanting to save!

Further to my above post, the above scenario were to happen, one should not forget the obvious losers would be the victims' families for obvious reasons (no closure) It could also be argued that in this case, the biggest winners of all would be the country of Thailand, as for once, the Justice system would be seen by the rest of the world as at least trying to do the right thing, and in so doing, increase the chances that future investigations into crimes of this nature are carried out in a more competent and professional manner.

[AleG]

Crimes on the blog, your source of enlightenment.

How do I know they were paid to lie

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/829343-thailand-brit-murder-suspects-still-waiting-on-evidence-review/page-16

That is not an answer.

You said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

[jdinasia]

The case could be thrown out. Then again, the case has enough to work with to go forward in all likelihood.

DNA

The defendants' lawyer statement.

The HRC commissioner

The Burmese who had the phone.

DNA................ No independent testing done.

The defendants' lawyer statement........... Obtained under duress and after torture

The HRC commissioner.................... Obtained under duress and after torture.

The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie.

So their lawyer and the HRC tortured them into confession?

By the way, the torture allegations are that one of them claims to have been hit four times, which apparently didn't leave any marks, the other one didn't mention any such "torture".

As for paying to lie, it is the defense team and the men on trial that have admitted to having the phone since the day of the murders.

There was never a confession in a language understood by the RTP. It is a 3rd party, hearsay confession

The cell phone caper is a farce

Yet there were 2 other confessions. To the lawyer (public statements) and to the HRC commissioner.

The mobile phone ties everything together.

[mcm991]

No, the DNA samples have not been independently tested, that's what the trial is for.

The phone is the one found behind their lodgings, there's at least two witnesses saying they were given the phone by the men on trial and their own defense team admits they "found" it on the day of the murders.

Now, how about you ask Berybert to substantiate his claims that they were paid to lie about it?

As for this:

"Anyway, the statements should be disregarded by the court anyway, regardless of whether they were under duress or torture, as the defendants didn't have legal representation present when the statements were taken. (another b@#$%^p by the RTP)"

That is incorrect.

"Lawyer Aung Myo Thant said the pair, Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun, both 21, from the Arakanese town of Kyaukphyu, told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe on 15 September"

Is it too difficult to refrain from making things up regarding the case? It's not a trivial matter.

Very cheeky AleG........

Your quote from your link is conveniently truncated by you to distort the message.

Here is another paragraph from the same article.

A lawyer contracted by the Burmese embassy to defend two Burmese migrants accused of murdering a British couple on the Thai island of Koh Tao said the men confessed to the crimes on Monday, but told the legal team they had been tortured.

Lawyer Aung Myo Thant said the pair, Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun, both 21, from the Arakanese town of Kyaukphyu, told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe on 15 September. However, he said, their stories were “somewhat inconsistent” and “their faces portrayed fear”.

The interpretation of the article is a little dependant on how much you want to see them swing ... and we know how much you want to pull the lever.

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

Nothing to recap.

You imagine the context to fulfill your fantasy.

Article reports: They said to their lawyers ... 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'

Your reporting on the article: They said to their lawyers ........ 'yes we murdered them'.

Enough confusion to get it thrown out in a civilized court. Their own lawyers will never implicate their clients as you desire. Sorry.

[berybert]

Crimes on the blog, your source of enlightenment.

How do I know they were paid to lie

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/829343-thailand-brit-murder-suspects-still-waiting-on-evidence-review/page-16

That is not an answer.

You said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

What are you talking about ? You have taken something from a social media site and are using it to back up your point.

I am doing the same thing.

[sambum]

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

Let's recap:

I asked JD in another post, how he felt about the fact that the B2 had no representation of any kind, legal or otherwise when they were interrogated by the RTP in the "safe" house. I automatically assumed that you two being such good buddies and of like mind would have conferred on the issue. Obviously, you are not as close as I thought, but he does seem to "Like" almost everything you say!

Oh, and he hasn't answered my question!

Edited June 10, 2015 by sambum

[AleG]

What are you talking about ? You have taken something from a social media site and are using it to back up your point.

I am doing the same thing.

Whereas you are completely unable or unwilling to back up yours.

You said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

[AleG]

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

Nothing to recap.

You imagine the context to fulfill your fantasy.

Article reports: They said to their lawyers ... 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'

Your reporting on the article: They said to their lawyers ........ 'yes we murdered them'.

Enough confusion to get it thrown out in a civilized court. Their own lawyers will never implicate their clients as you desire. Sorry.

"Article reports: They said to their lawyers ... 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'"

The article says no such thing. You do understand that anyone can open the link, read the article and see that the text you quoted is not part of it?

Go on, show me, precisely, where in the article it says "yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that."?

[mcm991]

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

Nothing to recap.

You imagine the context to fulfill your fantasy.

Article reports: They said to their lawyers ... 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'

Your reporting on the article: They said to their lawyers ........ 'yes we murdered them'.

Enough confusion to get it thrown out in a civilized court. Their own lawyers will never implicate their clients as you desire. Sorry.

"Article reports: They said to their lawyers ... 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'"

The article says no such thing. You do understand that anyone can open the link, read the article and see that the text you quoted is not part of it?

Go on, show me, precisely, where in the article it says "yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that."?

If nothing else ... you are very entertaining.

When it suits you to take an article as gospel you do so unashamedly.

If anyone else does it ........ you jump on them.

Ok ... how about the big headline of the article you are quoting... the big letters which even I can read without my glasses......

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

Koh Tao ‘murderers’ were tortured, says Burmese embassy lawyer

Edited June 10, 2015 by mcm991

[berybert]

What are you talking about ? You have taken something from a social media site and are using it to back up your point.

I am doing the same thing.

Whereas you are completely unable or unwilling to back up yours.

You said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

Yes you have used a social media site to back up your claim. Does this mean that all your putting down of CSILA was misinformed and you agree with everything he says.

PS. You have not backed anything up. Who is the source of the report that you are quoting from ?

Your trolling is getting out of hand.

[AleG]

Yes you have used a social media site to back up your claim. Does this mean that all your putting down of CSILA was misinformed and you agree with everything he says.

PS. You have not backed anything up. Who is the source of the report that you are quoting from ?

Your trolling is getting out of hand.

You said: "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

I said, you made that up.

You said, I did not!

I said what is your source

You linked to the page were you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie." in the first place.

Congratulations, you proved that you made it up.

[AleG]

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

Nothing to recap.

You imagine the context to fulfill your fantasy.

Article reports: They said to their lawyers ... 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'

Your reporting on the article: They said to their lawyers ........ 'yes we murdered them'.

Enough confusion to get it thrown out in a civilized court. Their own lawyers will never implicate their clients as you desire. Sorry.

"Article reports: They said to their lawyers ... 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'"

The article says no such thing. You do understand that anyone can open the link, read the article and see that the text you quoted is not part of it?

Go on, show me, precisely, where in the article it says "yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that."?

If nothing else ... you are very entertaining.

When it suits you to take an article as gospel you do so unashamedly.

If anyone else does it ........ you jump on them.

Ok ... how about the big headline of the article you are quoting... the big letters which even I can read without my glasses......

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

Koh Tao ‘murderers’ were tortured, says Burmese embassy lawyer

Not as entertaining as you jumping at at me for quoting verbatim from an article to accuse me of distorting things, and when I asked you what was the distortion you "quoted" from the article a paragraph that doesn't exist.

Between you and Berybert I don't know who is the one winning the race to the bottom today.

[mcm991]

"Article reports: They said to their lawyers ... 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'"

The article says no such thing. You do understand that anyone can open the link, read the article and see that the text you quoted is not part of it?

Go on, show me, precisely, where in the article it says "yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that."?

If nothing else ... you are very entertaining.

When it suits you to take an article as gospel you do so unashamedly.

If anyone else does it ........ you jump on them.

Ok ... how about the big headline of the article you are quoting... the big letters which even I can read without my glasses......

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

Koh Tao ‘murderers’ were tortured, says Burmese embassy lawyer

Not as entertaining as you jumping at at me for quoting verbatim from an article to accuse me of distorting things, and when I asked you what was the distortion you "quoted" from the article a paragraph that doesn't exist.

Between you and Berybert I don't know who is the one winning the race to the bottom today.

Wow ... you are a litle disappointing today. You are just picking fights without any regard to even your own dignity.

It was your link that I'm responding to.

OK... how about the first paragraph.......

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

'A lawyer contracted by the Burmese embassy to defend two Burmese migrants accused of murdering a British couple on the Thai island of Koh Tao said the men confessed to the crimes on Monday, but told the legal team they had been tortured.'

You posted the link to prove that the 2 had confessed. Not me ........

Maybe you should go and watch TV or something.....

[StealthEnergiser]

A forensic investigation on the phones of all suspicious people that may or may not have been in the area at the time of the killings including nomsod and relatives sean the police could help to pinpoint where they were and what calls were made.

Not sure if the defence can get this done. Also nomsod bank accounts and Atm cards have they been inspected i doubt it.

[berybert]

Yes you have used a social media site to back up your claim. Does this mean that all your putting down of CSILA was misinformed and you agree with everything he says.

PS. You have not backed anything up. Who is the source of the report that you are quoting from ?

Your trolling is getting out of hand.

You said: "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

I said, you made that up.

You said, I did not!

I said what is your source

You linked to the page were you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie." in the first place.

Congratulations, you proved that you made it up.

And have you yet proved a reliable source for the blood on the condom ? Or does social media become 100% factual when it fits your agenda. Yet 100% unreliable when it doesn't.

At least we are beginning to see just how desperate you are for these two Burmese to be put to death.

[AleG]

Not as entertaining as you jumping at at me for quoting verbatim from an article to accuse me of distorting things, and when I asked you what was the distortion you "quoted" from the article a paragraph that doesn't exist.

Between you and Berybert I don't know who is the one winning the race to the bottom today.

Wow ... you are a litle disappointing today. You are just picking fights without any regard to even your own dignity.

It was your link that I'm responding to.

OK... how about the first paragraph.......

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

'A lawyer contracted by the Burmese embassy to defend two Burmese migrants accused of murdering a British couple on the Thai island of Koh Tao said the men confessed to the crimes on Monday, but told the legal team they had been tortured.'

You posted the link to prove that the 2 had confessed. Not me ........

Maybe you should go and watch TV or something.....

Keep digging...

You quoted the article as saying: 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'

Nowhere in the article it says that, you made that quote up.

[AleG]

You said: "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

I said, you made that up.

You said, I did not!

I said what is your source

You linked to the page were you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie." in the first place.

Congratulations, you proved that you made it up.

And have you yet proved a reliable source for the blood on the condom ? Or does social media become 100% factual when it fits your agenda. Yet 100% unreliable when it doesn't.

At least we are beginning to see just how desperate you are for these two Burmese to be put to death.

I'm not desperate to put anyone to death because I don't support the death penalty.

Is there any other thing you may want to make up?

[berybert]

You said: "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

I said, you made that up.

You said, I did not!

I said what is your source

You linked to the page were you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie." in the first place.

Congratulations, you proved that you made it up.

And have you yet proved a reliable source for the blood on the condom ? Or does social media become 100% factual when it fits your agenda. Yet 100% unreliable when it doesn't.

At least we are beginning to see just how desperate you are for these two Burmese to be put to death.

I'm not desperate to put anyone to death because I don't support the death penalty.

Is there any other thing you may want to make up?

I don't need to make things up were you are concerned. You have proved time and again that you have no interest in this crime being solved.

Now time you went back to your social media site to find some more facts about these murders.

[Neeranam]

My God, does anyone actually think the real killers will get justice at this point? If so, you must be newcomers here.

There have been sssoooooo many influentials escaping justice for years - why should this be any different.

Some (well many) are above the law - accept it an move on.

[AleG]

I'm not desperate to put anyone to death because I don't support the death penalty.

Is there any other thing you may want to make up?

I don't need to make things up were you are concerned. You have proved time and again that you have no interest in this crime being solved.

Now time you went back to your social media site to find some more facts about these murders.

"You have proved time and again that you have no interest in this crime being solved."

Says you.

"Now time you went back to your social media site to find some more facts about these murders."

I don't have a social media site.

So that's two more thing you made up. Is that enough?

[AleG]

Not as entertaining as you jumping at at me for quoting verbatim from an article to accuse me of distorting things, and when I asked you what was the distortion you "quoted" from the article a paragraph that doesn't exist.

Between you and Berybert I don't know who is the one winning the race to the bottom today.

Wow ... you are a litle disappointing today. You are just picking fights without any regard to even your own dignity.

It was your link that I'm responding to.

OK... how about the first paragraph.......

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

'A lawyer contracted by the Burmese embassy to defend two Burmese migrants accused of murdering a British couple on the Thai island of Koh Tao said the men confessed to the crimes on Monday, but told the legal team they had been tortured.'

You posted the link to prove that the 2 had confessed. Not me ........

Maybe you should go and watch TV or something.....

Keep digging...

You quoted the article as saying: 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'

Nowhere in the article it says that, you made that quote up.

You've been into the sherry tonight....... have'nt you?

You posted the link to prove that the 2 had confessed to their lawyers that they had murdered the victims.

I merely pointed out that they did also said that they had confessed because they were tortured into doing so. I'm sorry if I paraphrased - it seems to have upset you.

But I feel that the small addition of being tortured was a valid point to add.

Now ... I'm sorry to have to run ... but my sock drawer has become messy again and I need to tidy it.

I never drink alcohol... what's up with you and Berybert that just can't help yourselves from making things up about me?

"You posted the link to prove that the 2 had confessed to their lawyers that they had murdered the victims."

Yes, and what does the article say?

"Kyaw Thaung, a representative of the Myanmar Association in Thailand, who attended the interview with the defendants, said, “We went to the prison [on Koh Samui] and were allowed to meet with the two freely. They confessed to committing the crime under the influence of alcohol. When asked for further details, they said they bashed the victims two or three times each with the blunt end of a hoe, but not with the sharp end. They said they did it because they were drunk but did not intend to kill the couple."

Ergo, it proves that they confessed to their lawyers that they had murdered the victims.

So now your "quote" was just paraphrasing what the article said, well, nowhere in the article it says "that they had confessed because they were tortured into doing so" that's your own spin, paraphrasing is using different words to convey the same meaning, not spinning things to change the meaning into something else.

And you accuse me of distorting it to fit my own narrative.

[berybert]

I'm not desperate to put anyone to death because I don't support the death penalty.

Is there any other thing you may want to make up?

I don't need to make things up were you are concerned. You have proved time and again that you have no interest in this crime being solved.

Now time you went back to your social media site to find some more facts about these murders.

"You have proved time and again that you have no interest in this crime being solved."

Says you.

"Now time you went back to your social media site to find some more facts about these murders."

I don't have a social media site.

So that's two more thing you made up. Is that enough?

You continue to contradict yourself. Where did you find the blood on the condom story ? oh that's right a social media site. Quite a lucky find being as you don't use it.

Now you will tell us you do use it but its not your site.

And yes says me that you have no interest in the crime being solved. And I am sure most other posters on here will agree with me.

[berybert]

Not as entertaining as you jumping at at me for quoting verbatim from an article to accuse me of distorting things, and when I asked you what was the distortion you "quoted" from the article a paragraph that doesn't exist.

Between you and Berybert I don't know who is the one winning the race to the bottom today.

Wow ... you are a litle disappointing today. You are just picking fights without any regard to even your own dignity.

It was your link that I'm responding to.

OK... how about the first paragraph.......

https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

'A lawyer contracted by the Burmese embassy to defend two Burmese migrants accused of murdering a British couple on the Thai island of Koh Tao said the men confessed to the crimes on Monday, but told the legal team they had been tortured.'

You posted the link to prove that the 2 had confessed. Not me ........

Maybe you should go and watch TV or something.....

Keep digging...

You quoted the article as saying: 'yes we murdered them but we were were tortured to say that.'

Nowhere in the article it says that, you made that quote up.

I think anyone who reads this article can make up their own mind as to whether the Burmese had claimed they were tortured or not.

Tell me when you go out with your friend do you chastise them If they tell you something they had read in a newspaper earlier in the day, and they don't quote it word for word ?

[AleG]

"You have proved time and again that you have no interest in this crime being solved."

Says you.

"Now time you went back to your social media site to find some more facts about these murders."

I don't have a social media site.

So that's two more thing you made up. Is that enough?

You continue to contradict yourself. Where did you find the blood on the condom story ? oh that's right a social media site. Quite a lucky find being as you don't use it.

Now you will tell us you do use it but its not your site.

And yes says me that you have no interest in the crime being solved. And I am sure most other posters on here will agree with me.

There are plenty of articles that mention DNA from the female victim retrieved from outside the condom and not from inside, which is entirely consistent with the scenario of the condom being there and a blood drop falling on it.

Now, do you want to have another go at explaining were did you get this from: "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie." ?

Please, do keep in mind that is the two men on trial that said they had the phone since the day of the murders.

Crimes are solved by finding real evidence, not by dismissing evidence you don't like based on made up excuses, like the one you adamantly refuse to substantiate.

Edited June 10, 2015 by AleG

[Mooner]

AleG is quite critical of police in previous posts on other threads and seems to hold a belief that they are corrupt and not to be believed.

Yet in this case completely adamant that the RTP version of this crime is watertight.

[rockingrobin]

With refarance to the Condom , a couple of points

When blood is found on a piece of evidence or item then this is not usually described as dna , but as blood

If blood was indeed discovered on the condom then how can it be declared as having no relevance

[berybert]

"You have proved time and again that you have no interest in this crime being solved."

Says you.

"Now time you went back to your social media site to find some more facts about these murders."

I don't have a social media site.

So that's two more thing you made up. Is that enough?

You continue to contradict yourself. Where did you find the blood on the condom story ? oh that's right a social media site. Quite a lucky find being as you don't use it.

Now you will tell us you do use it but its not your site.

And yes says me that you have no interest in the crime being solved. And I am sure most other posters on here will agree with me.

There are plenty of articles that mention DNA from the female victim retrieved from outside the condom and not from inside, which is entirely consistent with the scenario of the condom being there and a blood drop falling on it.

Now, do you want to have another go at explaining were did you get this from: "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie." ?

Please, do keep in mind that is the two men on trial that said they had the phone since the day of the murders.

Crimes are solved by finding real evidence, not by dismissing evidence you don't like based on made up excuses, like the one you adamantly refuse to substantiate.

And with your first few words you do what you always do. Try to lead people astray. I know there are many articles that mention DNA from the female found on the condom, Yet it is only your social media site that mentions it was blood.

Now you are speculating that the DNA was from blood. Because you read it somewhere. How long was this condom on the beach for ? Why didn't it get washed out to sea ? Surely it would have been a used condom, so if it hadn't of been washed out to sea then it must have had DNA from the 2 people who had used it. Which we can also assume was from a 18 hours previous maximum time before the murders as the cleaners would have cleared it away.

Who said they had the phone from the day of the murder ? oh the police said they said it.

As for how I know the Burmese got paid to lie. He phoned me up and told me.

[AleG]

With refarance to the Condom , a couple of points

When blood is found on a piece of evidence or item then this is not usually described as dna , but as blood

If blood was indeed discovered on the condom then how can it be declared as having no relevance

If it was there before the crime it's not relevant to the murders, or if there is nothing else to link it to the murder than a drop of blood (there were blood splatters everywhere) then you can't establish that is relevant to the murder.

[cumgranosalum]

Cthere seems to be a plethora of people on this thread who see this crime as some kind of Agatha christie who dunnit. - and spend most of their energies postulating and speculating possible perpetrators....which has little or nothing to do with the OP anyhow.

I find this hard to understand and view this as a total waste of time; they appear to be ignoring the elephant in the room, and that is the failure of all facets of the Thai legal system to cope with this incident.

One can only hope that somewhere along the line either due to internal or international pressure they will come to their senses and behave as a proper and responsible legal system should....I'm not holding my breath though......

Edited June 10, 2015 by cumgranosalum