Koh Tao: Trial opens for 2 accused of killing British tourists

[boomerangutang]

been away for a few hours .... did TJT get a ban or something ?, coz i'm sure as hell he was going to post on Panya's immenent movenent to a pen pusher prior to the 15th Sept .

you know i feel some compasion for Panya . The case of a lifetime comes up , very high profile , but his time is up .... exit stage left to a desk job . Must have been hard to take !

Maybe, but RTP made sure, in the photo of him leaving, he had a smile on his face. Thailand, Land of Image Over Substance.

Similarly, when Kirsty Jones' parents came to Thailand from Wales, several years after the RTP in Chiang Mai had consistently botched and skewed evidence in their daughter's unsolved murder investigation, the RTP got the parents to smile in a group shot of them all together in the chief of police's office. The shot was taken minutes after the chief assured the parents that every possible was being done to find the killer. Of course it was a lie (also: one of the two who should have been a prime suspect was a cop).

In China, they force the families of executed criminals to pay for the final bullet. In Thailand, RTP compel the families they failed to get the group photo, with everyone smiling. I predict the same will happen with Hannah's and David's families, next time they show up in Thailand, regardless of how the RTP frame-up has unspooled by then.

[Nigeone]

Yes, the police said so and they have the physical evidence to back it up, which is going to be available to the defense to contest.

Whereas you only have your say so that it's all fake because someone paid someone else or something, not very convincing.

I think you'd better drop out of this one as at least JTJ and GB have a degree of intelligence while your answer above is a bit basic . The police said so. Haha that's a good one. The first rule of Thailand. Always believe what the police tell you!!

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

OMG My late father used to say I could try the patience of a saint! I think it now belongs to you. Oh I don't doubt they claimed it for one minute but they were only part of a chain and what they said they may believe but if other links in the chain are flawed it doesn't stand up. This is the last time I'm going to say this to you

As everyone else is laughing at you and I hate to see grown men cry! Up to NOW ! there is no evidence to link the B2 to this case. Please please for all the other people In here take a moment, maybe go and have a cup of tea and contemplate that statement. You'll feel better if you do.!

[AleG]

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

OMG My late father used to say I could try the patience of a saint! I think it now belongs to you. Oh I don't doubt they claimed it for one minute but they were only part of a chain and what they said they may believe but if other links in the chain are flawed it doesn't stand up. This is the last time I'm going to say this to you

As everyone else is laughing at you and I hate to see grown men cry! Up to NOW ! there is no evidence to link the B2 to this case. Please please for all the other people In here take a moment, maybe go and have a cup of tea and contemplate that statement. You'll feel better if you do.!

Don't flatter yourself, I'm cool as a cucumber.

If the chain of evidence is under question then the onus is on those making the claim to produce the evidence for it; and no, just saying that someone, somewhere got paid to tamper with it doesn't cut it.

[boomerangutang]

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

Well, based on your nifty little definition of what's credible in a court of law: Thus far, everything the RTP have put forth in this trial is not open to scrutiny. Where does that place your buddies, in the scheme of things?

If this were a baseball game, the first team at bat got three strike outs in a row. Not even a 'walk.' They get another chance at bat in one month's time (the rules are different than a regular baseball game), and then another break, and it's the defense's time at bat. Should be interesting, unless the judges call the game off, and don't allow the other team to show what they've got. That's my prediction, because RTP, prosecution, heavies in Bkk, the men in black robes are all on the same team. They're all paid from taxpayer money, .....and whatever else they can finagle on the side.

[Linky]

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

OMG My late father used to say I could try the patience of a saint! I think it now belongs to you. Oh I don't doubt they claimed it for one minute but they were only part of a chain and what they said they may believe but if other links in the chain are flawed it doesn't stand up. This is the last time I'm going to say this to you

As everyone else is laughing at you and I hate to see grown men cry! Up to NOW ! there is no evidence to link the B2 to this case. Please please for all the other people In here take a moment, maybe go and have a cup of tea and contemplate that statement. You'll feel better if you do.!

Don't flatter yourself, I'm cool as a cucumber.

If the chain of evidence is under question then the onus is on those making the claim to produce the evidence for it; and no, just saying that someone, somewhere got paid to tamper with it doesn't cut it.

Well actually no the onus is not on the defense.

Chain of custody is an essential element in scientific evidence. It is incumbent on the proecution tp prove the samples are secure and the chain of custody is intact.

Defense do not have to prove anything.

[evadgib]

I recommend others block the following to stop encouraging them.

jtj.JPG

Smartphones still have to wade through the claptrap.

[Linky]

I always shake my head when I read something like "These Poor Boys!" "Take a look at them!" "They couldn't hurt a flea"!

Now let me point out a "Fact" to you all.

Myanmar, and where these so called "Innocent Boys" come from, has the Highest Murder Rate in all of Asia. All of Asia! The Myanmar Murder Rate is triple what it is in Thailand. Meaning by population for every 1 Murder in Thailand, there are 3 Murders in Myanmar. Thailand's Murder Rate is only slightly higher than the USA. But no small wonder they look at Myanmar Workers first when their is a murder committed nearby.

So could they commit murder? You bet your bottom dollar they could! And there own Government Statistics proves that and they can back that up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Might the different statistics be as a result of the Myanmar police being more capable of recognising a murder as such and not as a suicide or accident?

From what I read about Myanmar and crime, there are a far more murders and rapes that go on their then are being reported. Nobody here are claiming these murders and rape are suicides so I am not going to touch this subject as it is irrelevant.

The Links on Myanmar has recently been provided for you to read.

If those murders and rapes are unreported then how do you know about them?

[Nigeone]

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

Well, based on your nifty little definition of what's credible in a court of law: Thus far, everything the RTP have put forth in this trial is not open to scrutiny. Where does that place your buddies, in the scheme of things?

If this were a baseball game, the first team at bat got three strike outs in a row. Not even a 'walk.' They get another chance at bat in one month's time (the rules are different than a regular baseball game), and then another break, and it's the defense's time at bat. Should be interesting, unless the judges call the game off, and don't allow the other team to show what they've got. That's my prediction, because RTP, prosecution, heavies in Bkk, the men in black robes are all on the same team. They're all paid from taxpayer money, .....and whatever else they can finagle on the side.

Actually I'm with you on this one as the more I think of it the longer this goes on the hole gets deeper and the more they've got to lose. It's quite a break now which I don't know is normal or not but to be sure if I was in the situation they are in I would be looking for damage limitation. Do the defense have to declare there evidence already as regards the Information they have from the UK coroner or can they play hard ball and wait till nearer the time? I'm dam sure there's going to be some discussion going on on the prosecution side as would be normal of course in any court case but I'm sure it's going to have a bit more intensity than is comfortable as there not used to this scrutiny. I think it might just get pulled just before the resumption. They will not want there own forensic expert to act against them either as that's the ultimate insult.

[PaPiPuPePo]

Breaking news. The judge in the case has requested 5 more court days so that the 191 (so far) pages of 4762 comments from Thai Visa be read aloud into the court record.

Now there are people joining this thread and commenting or complaining that it's too long, too much speculation, that the people on here are obsessed, and so on.

If you don't like it, there are literally billions of other web pages easily accessible to you right now, so go have fun! No one's forcing you to read this thread, and no one who's interested in this important case and possible legal and moral travesty really gives two sh*ts whether you like it or not. Either contribute something useful and/or meaningful or go whine in your coffee.

[loonodingle]

Goldbuggy

How can one respond to someone who after nearly one year doesn't even know who is on trial here? The RPT are not on trial here, nor is Thailand, the people on trial here are 2 Migrant Workers accused of a double Murder, Rape, and Robbery. They are the ones who need defending, and not the RTP. I have no connection to any police force in the world or anyone on this Island, that I did not even know existed a year ago. My opinions are strictly opinions which I try to base mostly on fact and not social media gossip, and my agenda is to shed some light on some twisted facts.

Your very wrong with this statement. While sure the B2 are on trial so is the RTP and the Thai justice system. Everybody and I mean everybody has a story about extortion and cover ups and graft in these areas. So are you denying that extortion isn't carried out by RTP on a hourly basis and that these same authorities aren't responsible or turn a blind eye to most of the criminal activity in Thailand.

And as for for the poor workers in Kao Tao and other Islands do you really thing that the powers that be care about them one bit.

No to them it's just cheap labour from a compromised race who even after employment get deductions and have to pay for so many things that should be taken for granted. You didn't see the Sky reporter live interviewing a Burmese worker on KT. Saying everyone there has to pay to the mafia just to have the right to be there. No, the people running KT don't care one bit about Burmese workers.

Which makes me ask why would the same powers that be lean so heavily on translators and such like if it was Burmese involved.

That's illogical in every way.

This Extortion started in Myanmar, and not in Thailand, when the 2 accused paid good money to someone to be smuggled here and become Illegal Aliens in Thailand in the first place. You can scream and shout at the top of your lungs about Workers Rights,but the reality of it all is they don't have a right to be here in the first place, and thus are not entitled to have Workers Rights. The same as in your country.

When you start out with shady people in the first place, call them mafia if you like, you are stuck with them until the end. Trafficking in Women, Trafficking with Illegal Alien Workers, is almost the same same my friend. How many women and girls get smuggled over the border for the sex trade in different parts of the world? But the big money always starts in their own country.

But this is not on trial here. That goes to the World Court. This case is about a Double Murder and Rape of 2 innocent victims and trying to determine without reason doubt who did this.

Lets see what this retesting of this DNA brings.

Actually YOU are Wrong.

One of the accused had papers to work as was not an illegal

Well actually I can't argue a point based on something I did not see saying he had legal papers, or you not posting a Link to prove it.

I can tell you from one media report, who I think it was Win, who said he paid good money to come here. I think it was around $500. But I am not going to go back and find it for you.

I do know that if I jumped in and said to someone that he was wrong I would want and try to prove it with a Link. That is of course if this hadn't been posted here many times before.

LOL like u post link to back up the sheet you post as well....

[sambum]

"I have 10 million pounds in the bank. Does that mean I have?"

If you are claiming that while providing testimony in a court of law you would be committing perjury and be liable to prosecution.

Here's some advice, may it serve you well.

So that would explain why the police the other day consistently said in answer to defense questions..I don't know, I don't know, he didn't want to lie and commit perjury! It's his case and he didn't know anything and I'm not in court in case you hadn't noticed. The police officer the other day said the DNA was used up but now it's not. So he committed perjury then! As I said I've all night and I'm not letting you guys away with anything. And you could do with with reading some of these links your making regarding honesty

Again I need to spell it out . Up to now there is NO evidence to link the B2 to the case.

You almost get it, if you don't know the answer to a question, the intellectually honest answer is "I don't know", not to create some fictional account to fit in a particular narrative, i.e. that the witnesses testified what they did because they were paid to do so.

As for what the investigator said the previous hearing, he was answering questions on the whereabouts of physical evidence that his team collected at the crime scene, that had been sent to Bangkok for analysis, that's why the answer was that the evidence was used up, he didn't have it anymore.

Of course that didn't stop 100 pages of noise over the missing evidence, that then proved to be wrong.

Then why didn't he say that he didn't have it anymore because it had been sent to Bangkok, instead of deliberately misleading the court by saying that it was "used up"?

[BritTim]

Yes, the police said so and they have the physical evidence to back it up, which is going to be available to the defense to contest.

Whereas you only have your say so that it's all fake because someone paid someone else or something, not very convincing.

I think you'd better drop out of this one as at least JTJ and GB have a degree of intelligence while your answer above is a bit basic . The police said so. Haha that's a good one. The first rule of Thailand. Always believe what the police tell you!!

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

In Western countries, perjury is a serious business. In Thailand, it is routine. It is very difficult for the defense (and in 90+% of cases, there is no proper legal defense for the accused) to get access to the materials that allegedly prove the testimony of prosecution witnesses.

Look at this case where, unusually, the Burmese have first class legal assistance. The defense has been trying for months to get access to key DNA samples. The court said OK. Then they had to wait until July 8. Then the police said the samples were "used up" or "lost". Then, no they are not lost. Then, a prosecution witness says samples should still be available. Then (from the investigating officer) he does not know how they were collected, and whether any samples were sent to Singapore. Then (July 23) the court says the defense can have the DNA samples retested, but it is still not clear what is available. We very likely will not know until the trial resumes in August.

The defense has also been trying to get photos from the autopsies, and documentation of the chain of custody of the DNA samples, reasonable requests one would think. These have not been forthcoming.

Normally in Thailand, the prosecution lies with impunity, and are probably shocked that, this time, they are being expected to back up their claims with solid evidence.

[Chetzee]

"I have 10 million pounds in the bank. Does that mean I have?"

If you are claiming that while providing testimony in a court of law you would be committing perjury and be liable to prosecution.

Here's some advice, may it serve you well.

So that would explain why the police the other day consistently said in answer to defense questions..I don't know, I don't know, he didn't want to lie and commit perjury! It's his case and he didn't know anything and I'm not in court in case you hadn't noticed. The police officer the other day said the DNA was used up but now it's not. So he committed perjury then! As I said I've all night and I'm not letting you guys away with anything. And you could do with with reading some of these links your making regarding honesty

Again I need to spell it out . Up to now there is NO evidence to link the B2 to the case.

You almost get it, if you don't know the answer to a question, the intellectually honest answer is "I don't know", not to create some fictional account to fit in a particular narrative, i.e. that the witnesses testified what they did because they were paid to do so.

As for what the investigator said the previous hearing, he was answering questions on the whereabouts of physical evidence that his team collected at the crime scene, that had been sent to Bangkok for analysis, that's why the answer was that the evidence was used up, he didn't have it anymore.

Of course that didn't stop 100 pages of noise over the missing evidence, that then proved to be wrong.

Ali G . the intellectually honest answer is "I don't know", not to create some fictional account to fit in a particular narrative .

fits in nice with JTJ's way of dreaming things up !

[beammeup]

I just waisted an hr or more of my life wading through the garbage on the last 20 pages looking for facts and rational discussion. If you think you are going to get anything like that her you are in for a disapointment. Most of these #@*+s just want spew the same crap over and over again, its like a broken record. They are unaware that they look like 3 year olds. This case means a lot to most ex pats who live here and I am sure to the freinds and families of the victims. It would be nice if they kept their silly opinons and speculations to themselves.

Like with porn: if you don't want to look at a pretty tit with a nipple, don't look at it.

Here's one of the prime reasons there are so many posts: We, the 99% of posters who clearly see a frame-up, are not going to fade away in to the silent shadows, as RTP + Headman's people want (expected) us to do.

If we see a blatant frame-up coupled with shielding (albeit bungled) of the rich kid who likely did the crime, we're going to speak up, and keep speaking up, louder and louder as the RTP + prosecution dig themselves deeper in the muck of their own nefarious plans. Should we feel sorry for the RTP, now that their frame-up / cover-up is unraveling? ....while the real criminals are prancing around, free as hornets.

Well believe it or not many people would like to make up their own minds

[whaleboneman]

Could those of you who were brave enough to view the pictures of Hannah and particularly David confirm that the injuries to him could have been made by the blunt end of a hoe!! From everything I have seen and taken in his injuries were not consistent with a implement like that. I'm sure somebody will confirm or deny the possibility. Thanks

There was no wound to the back of David's head. There were a couple of wounds on the side of the head, but most of the wounds (similar looking) are on the front.

To my eyes, the pattern of David's wounds are consistent only with a protracted fight. The wounds do not look consistent with a blunt instrument.

The only possible explanation I can concoct (and concoct is the word) is that the single blow from behind that incapacitated David and left him to drown in the sea left no mark (being a blow in an area covered by hair from a blunt instrument) and the visible wounds were inflicted by sharp shells or other objects after he fell. Realistically, the RTP story is a load of round objects.

I'm not sure what the blunt end of a hoe means but I am sure that if you hit someone with either corner of the working end of a hoe it could leave wounds consistent with what I unfortunately viewed in the photos.

[bunglebag]

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

OMG My late father used to say I could try the patience of a saint! I think it now belongs to you. Oh I don't doubt they claimed it for one minute but they were only part of a chain and what they said they may believe but if other links in the chain are flawed it doesn't stand up. This is the last time I'm going to say this to you

As everyone else is laughing at you and I hate to see grown men cry! Up to NOW ! there is no evidence to link the B2 to this case. Please please for all the other people In here take a moment, maybe go and have a cup of tea and contemplate that statement. You'll feel better if you do.!

Don't flatter yourself, I'm cool as a cucumber.

If the chain of evidence is under question then the onus is on those making the claim to produce the evidence for it; and no, just saying that someone, somewhere got paid to tamper with it doesn't cut it.

Well actually no the onus is not on the defense.

Chain of custody is an essential element in scientific evidence. It is incumbent on the proecution tp prove the samples are secure and the chain of custody is intact.

Defense do not have to prove anything.

And if the onus were on the defence would you agree AleG that they should at least be able to see the chain of custody documents?

"The defense lawyers have expressed concern about their inability to access ‘chains of custody’ from the investigation, which are documents tracking the collection, movement, processing, and current location of all physical evidence. The lawyers, who have requested the documents but not recieved them, said they want to confirm that no evidence was tampered with in the process.

The prosecutor said he could not comment on the case while the trial is ongoing. "

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437793064&section=12

[Chetzee]

Could those of you who were brave enough to view the pictures of Hannah and particularly David confirm that the injuries to him could have been made by the blunt end of a hoe!! From everything I have seen and taken in his injuries were not consistent with a implement like that. I'm sure somebody will confirm or deny the possibility. Thanks

There was no wound to the back of David's head. There were a couple of wounds on the side of the head, but most of the wounds (similar looking) are on the front.

To my eyes, the pattern of David's wounds are consistent only with a protracted fight. The wounds do not look consistent with a blunt instrument.

The only possible explanation I can concoct (and concoct is the word) is that the single blow from behind that incapacitated David and left him to drown in the sea left no mark (being a blow in an area covered by hair from a blunt instrument) and the visible wounds were inflicted by sharp shells or other objects after he fell. Realistically, the RTP story is a load of round objects.

I'm not sure what the blunt end of a hoe means but I am sure that if you hit someone with either corner of the working end of a hoe it could leave wounds consistent with what I unfortunately viewed in the photos.

so , how are we going to go here ...?

1 . david gets a clout over the back of the head ,enough to incapacitate him , then the attacker has a little go at his face and neck because he didn't like the look of it .... and he had time on his hand while his mate raped Hannah

or

2 . attacker with a hoe skillfully manages to use the sharpe egde to cut david's face and neck , using just enough force to puncture his skin , but not enough to bludgeon him to death ....

using just enough force to puncture the skin but slow enough not to cause serious trauma , but fast enough that David 190 cm + could not fend off

get a grip on things ! you can not seriously believe either of these options ...

[IslandLover]

This Extortion started in Myanmar, and not in Thailand, when the 2 accused paid good money to someone to be smuggled here and become Illegal Aliens in Thailand in the first place. You can scream and shout at the top of your lungs about Workers Rights,but the reality of it all is they don't have a right to be here in the first place, and thus are not entitled to have Workers Rights. The same as in your country.

When you start out with shady people in the first place, call them mafia if you like, you are stuck with them until the end. Trafficking in Women, Trafficking with Illegal Alien Workers, is almost the same same my friend. How many women and girls get smuggled over the border for the sex trade in different parts of the world? But the big money always starts in their own country.

But this is not on trial here. That goes to the World Court. This case is about a Double Murder and Rape of 2 innocent victims and trying to determine without reason doubt who did this.

Lets see what this retesting of this DNA brings.

Actually YOU are Wrong.

One of the accused had papers to work as was not an illegal

Well actually I can't argue a point based on something I did not see saying he had legal papers, or you not posting a Link to prove it.

I can tell you from one media report, who I think it was Win, who said he paid good money to come here. I think it was around $500. But I am not going to go back and find it for you.

I do know that if I jumped in and said to someone that he was wrong I would want and try to prove it with a Link. That is of course if this hadn't been posted here many times before.

LOL like u post link to back up the sheet you post as well....

For the benefit of GB here is a link showing that Zaw Lin produced his passport in court at a pre-trial hearing:

http://www.samuitimes.com/koh-tao-murders-trial-underway-samui-provincial-court/

Zaw Lin’s produced his passport in response to the prosecutors charge of illegal stay in Thailand, he was lawfully residing in Thailand at time of his arrest.

There is even a photograph of said passport which I have somewhere but I couldn't be bothered to look for it at the moment .

[BritTim]

Could those of you who were brave enough to view the pictures of Hannah and particularly David confirm that the injuries to him could have been made by the blunt end of a hoe!! From everything I have seen and taken in his injuries were not consistent with a implement like that. I'm sure somebody will confirm or deny the possibility. Thanks

There was no wound to the back of David's head. There were a couple of wounds on the side of the head, but most of the wounds (similar looking) are on the front.

To my eyes, the pattern of David's wounds are consistent only with a protracted fight. The wounds do not look consistent with a blunt instrument.

The only possible explanation I can concoct (and concoct is the word) is that the single blow from behind that incapacitated David and left him to drown in the sea left no mark (being a blow in an area covered by hair from a blunt instrument) and the visible wounds were inflicted by sharp shells or other objects after he fell. Realistically, the RTP story is a load of round objects.

I'm not sure what the blunt end of a hoe means but I am sure that if you hit someone with either corner of the working end of a hoe it could leave wounds consistent with what I unfortunately viewed in the photos.

It is unfortunate that the English translation for the alleged murder weapon is "hoe", because this gives a misleading impression to those who have not seen the Thai version of this tool. If you are expecting

you are not going to appreciate the kinds of wounds that would be inflicted by

[beammeup]

I dont know if these guys did it or not, if they didn't do it I hope they catch whoever did it, but if they did do it I hope justice is served. It is appears that the Thai police have not done a very good job and they have made a lot of mistakes. Many posters keep saying there is no evidence for this and that. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt the trial still ongoing? Isnt the evidence yet to be presented? Its very difficult to follow events here with all the static and mud slinging.

[GOLDBUGGY]

This Extortion started in Myanmar, and not in Thailand, when the 2 accused paid good money to someone to be smuggled here and become Illegal Aliens in Thailand in the first place. You can scream and shout at the top of your lungs about Workers Rights,but the reality of it all is they don't have a right to be here in the first place, and thus are not entitled to have Workers Rights. The same as in your country.

First you denigrate their country as being murderous (it's not, and the # of tourists killed in Thailand compared to Burma is about 1,000 to 1). Then you try to kick 'em while they're down. At the first arraignment in December, it was established they were legally in Thailand. However, accusations of them being illegal were spouted by RTP (and now GOLDBUGGY) when the B2 first got to the 'safe house' and the torture began - as a way to further spook them to admitting to a crime they didn't do.

Well first off I showed the crime rates for both countries. It is not my fault that Myanmar has 3 times the crime rate than in Thailand, But I believe it was you who got me looking as you are the one who wanted to paint Thailand as a dangerous country and even draw a map to show it. When 25 Million Tourist come to Thailand, and hardly any close to that goes to Myanmar, that is a pretty far fetched comparison. That is like me saying more tourist die in Myanmar compared to Eskimo"s who died in Thailand.

Both Accused were not charged for these crimes right away. As this evidence report went back and forth between the Police and Prosecutor, which you liked to talk about so much here to so there incompetence. So how do you think they were able to hold them so long if they weren't charged for murder or rape?

They held them so long on Immigration Law Violations! This is not what you do when people are here legally. The 2 accused are presently charged with Rape, Murder, Robbery, and Immigration Violations. The 2 accused where here illegally. It was also Win you said he paid someone $500 to get him work in Thailand illegally.

The 2 accused did not go to the safe house. Win was not even on the Island when he was arrested. He was the first one to confess after 5 hours. Shortly after that confession this when Lin and Muang where picked up and brought in and taken to the safe house. I don't know if Win joined them later but hardly a need since he confessed already.

There is much written here about the alleged torture, which has not been proven or anyone charged for it. I do not know for sure as I wasn't there. But there is a lot of information on how they confessed on there own free will. I am sorry it does not fit into your Theory, but it is what it is. I will also not go and Link everything again which most has just been said recently, only because you refuse to read it the first time.

[Nigeone]

Could those of you who were brave enough to view the pictures of Hannah and particularly David confirm that the injuries to him could have been made by the blunt end of a hoe!! From everything I have seen and taken in his injuries were not consistent with a implement like that. I'm sure somebody will confirm or deny the possibility. Thanks

There was no wound to the back of David's head. There were a couple of wounds on the side of the head, but most of the wounds (similar looking) are on the front.

To my eyes, the pattern of David's wounds are consistent only with a protracted fight. The wounds do not look consistent with a blunt instrument.

The only possible explanation I can concoct (and concoct is the word) is that the single blow from behind that incapacitated David and left him to drown in the sea left no mark (being a blow in an area covered by hair from a blunt instrument) and the visible wounds were inflicted by sharp shells or other objects after he fell. Realistically, the RTP story is a load of round objects.

I'm not sure what the blunt end of a hoe means but I am sure that if you hit someone with either corner of the working end of a hoe it could leave wounds consistent with what I unfortunately viewed in the photos.

I take the blunt end of a hoe to mean the opposite side as in 180% from the active spade like digging end. Which from what I owned previously in my country is basically a casting which fits around the wooden handle.

So as somebody earlier said it would be like getting hit with say a lump hammer without the weight behind it. There could be possible breaking of skin etc but not deep incisions. From what I have had explained on here not wanting to see the pics David's wounds would not be received by the back of a hoe. And obviously if hit with the other end the wounds could be very deep but also quite extensive. Almost like a blunt axe type injury. Not sure if that's a good explanation or not. Incidently as the poster has quite rightly pointed out and provided a picture of a English style hoe the hoe I had was very very similar to the one in the crime pictures with the blood/not blood on it. Just to clarify .

[BritTim]

I dont know if these guys did it or not, if they didn't do it I hope they catch whoever did it, but if they did do it I hope justice is served. It is appears that the Thai police have not done a very good job and they have made a lot of mistakes. Many posters keep saying there is no evidence for this and that. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt the trial still ongoing? Isnt the evidence yet to be presented? Its very difficult to follow events here with all the static and mud slinging.

If you just want a general rundown on the trial, minus comment, just read something like the Daily Mail coverage. That will give you 80% in no time. Reading all the posts here is for hardcore followers of the case, who want to minutely examine every detail. As is usually true on Internet forums, most of the posts are inaccurate in some respects, and full of speculation, bias, abuse and trolls. Unless you read every post, it is hard to separate truth from speculation from fiction. I have been clear since October that I believe the Burmese kids are scapegoats, but I recognize that many of the posts from those who agree with this are speculative or plain wrong or just unadorned abuse. The same goes for that small number of posters who believe (or claim to) that the RTP arrested the real killers, based on solid evidence. If you are looking for reasoned debate, you will need to delete 95% of the thread and then read what is left.

[GOLDBUGGY]

This Extortion started in Myanmar, and not in Thailand, when the 2 accused paid good money to someone to be smuggled here and become Illegal Aliens in Thailand in the first place. You can scream and shout at the top of your lungs about Workers Rights,but the reality of it all is they don't have a right to be here in the first place, and thus are not entitled to have Workers Rights. The same as in your country.

First you denigrate their country as being murderous (it's not, and the # of tourists killed in Thailand compared to Burma is about 1,000 to 1). Then you try to kick 'em while they're down. At the first arraignment in December, it was established they were legally in Thailand. However, accusations of them being illegal were spouted by RTP (and now GOLDBUGGY) when the B2 first got to the 'safe house' and the torture began - as a way to further spook them to admitting to a crime they didn't do.

Well first off I showed the crime rates for both countries. It is not my fault that Myanmar has 3 times the crime rate than in Thailand, But I believe it was you who got me looking as you are the one who wanted to paint Thailand as a dangerous country and even draw a map to show it. When 25 Million Tourist come to Thailand, and hardly any close to that goes to Myanmar, that is a pretty far fetched comparison. That is like me saying more tourist die in Myanmar compared to Eskimo"s who died in Thailand.

Both Accused were not charged for these crimes right away. As this evidence report went back and forth between the Police and Prosecutor, which you liked to talk about so much here to so there incompetence. So how do you think they were able to hold them so long if they weren't charged for murder or rape?

They held them so long on Immigration Law Violations! This is not what you do when people are here legally. The 2 accused are presently charged with Rape, Murder, Robbery, and Immigration Violations. The 2 accused where here illegally. It was also Win you said he paid someone $500 to get him work in Thailand illegally.

The 2 accused did not go to the safe house. Win was not even on the Island when he was arrested. He was the first one to confess after 5 hours. Shortly after that confession this when Lin and Muang where picked up and brought in and taken to the safe house. I don't know if Win joined them later but hardly a need since he confessed already.

There is much written here about the alleged torture, which has not been proven or anyone charged for it. I do not know for sure as I wasn't there. But there is a lot of information on how they confessed on there own free will. I am sorry it does not fit into your Theory, but it is what it is. I will also not go and Link everything again which most has just been said recently, only because you refuse to read it the first time.

Boomer I take back who went to the safe house as I see conflicting reports that are mixing the names up between 3 guys. Sort of like throwing in the new name do-do. Since I am not sure I give you the benefit of the doubt. All that hasn't changed is one was caught and questioned who implicated the other 2. But these names have been changed.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Reading through past post I can't but wonder what all this is about and some Victory Parade. I mean before the discovery that the DNA can be retested. So maybe better we start there to get that out of the way.

I have claimed from the start that I hoped that the courts would allow this DNA to be retested. I still feel the same today. I like everyone else was confused with reports saying it was lost, or used up, or eaten by a snake. But now that it can be retested I think that is fine. All I added to this was to be careful for what you ask for as you might get it.

If these test do come back negative, like the first ones, then the gig is up. It is game over. There is no turning back after this point, The accused chances of a successful victory at trial, and even appeal, I would think would be very little. So I will wait and see and see if these tests actually take place. If they are guilty it would be easier to try and poke holes in the Prosecutions DNA Evidence then to have you own which agrees with his.

Someone pointed out that if the defense discovered through DNA that they did do it, they wouldn't have to show this in court. Perhaps at the very beginning if they conducted there own DNA Independent Test he may be right. I am not sure. But since the Defense had to appeal to the court to allow this, and this was granted, then I would think the court would want to see the results regardless. But again I am not sure.

That's a rational and relevant post and your right it would be good to,get the results of DNA.

Unfortunately whatever side of the fence you sit on its plainly obvious that the DNA testing cannot be verified as being collected ,stored and examined properly as right from the start the crime scene was compromised. From not keeping it sterile to incorrect taking of samples. We don't know about all the other procedures including storage,correct testing and catalogue of the samples and a paper trail is said samples. This is not sitting on either fence just a fact and if the only evidence is DNA I don't think that's anyway enough for a correct judgement. As I've said DNA will not prove murder in this case just at worst an accessory or being there. The fact it's compromised would mean it wouldn't even be admissible in a civilised worlds court system.

I'm not having a go just pointing out this would still leave as many questions as answers

"Compromised" means to accept standards lower than is desirable, "Compromised" does not mean "Destroyed".

For example if you were investigating the Crime Scene you would expect to find the footprints in the sand of the 2 Victims, plus any others who could belong to the murders. But now that 6 others entered the Crime Scene, the Crime Scene has been compromised.

This doesn't mean these footprints of the victims and possible murders aren't there anymore. It just now means that you have to sift through everyone's footprints that were in there, and clear them all as suspects, which is not desired. Unless of course a herd of cattle went through and destroyed all the footprints, but judging from photos of the police measuring the footprints, I don't think this was the case.

Now if you think the sperm samples taken from Hannah at the Forensic Lab was compromised and planted, then I have no more to say to you on this subject as then we disagree,

Your not for real are you?? Compromised means what it says and in your analogy it's clear that if many people are allowed unchecked and not in a sterile environment some of those said footprints could have been compromised or even destroyed. You do know what happens to sand when it's walked don't you?? What about all the pics downloaded onto Facebook before the it came out that a murders had been carried out. Then there's the pictures of clothes in one place then scattered all around and a police guy stating he moved the body. How many of the people walking on that beach would have been wearing flip flop type shoes! Not easy to differentiate on sand wouldn't you agree. There was umpteen people walking over that crime scene including I will say again a possible suspect. How can that possible suspect be elimated from the case. Well we know the answer to that don't we! You haven't thought your reply out have you!. And are you telling me it's not possible to plant samples? and again we have only the RTP word up to now that they have any samples and they haven't been to clever at being forthcoming with anything up to now. The perfect case!!

Yes we do disagree and quite honestly this argument of yours is a joke. And as you've obviously not read previous post of mine and understood DNA taken from Hannah does not in any shape or form confirm that the DNA belonged to a murderer. Just that it belonged to someone there. Is that so hard to understand!!

Then send you vast knowledge on to the Defense Team and tell him to stop his DNA Request and wasting time then. Especially when you come on pretending you know more than him.

[beammeup]

I dont know if these guys did it or not, if they didn't do it I hope they catch whoever did it, but if they did do it I hope justice is served. It is appears that the Thai police have not done a very good job and they have made a lot of mistakes. Many posters keep saying there is no evidence for this and that. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt the trial still ongoing? Isnt the evidence yet to be presented? Its very difficult to follow events here with all the static and mud slinging.

If you just want a general rundown on the trial, minus comment, just read something like the Daily Mail coverage. That will give you 80% in no time. Reading all the posts here is for hardcore followers of the case, who want to minutely examine every detail. As is usually true on Internet forums, most of the posts are inaccurate in some respects, and full of speculation, bias, abuse and trolls. Unless you read every post, it is hard to separate truth from speculation from fiction. I have been clear since October that I believe the Burmese kids are scapegoats, but I recognize that many of the posts from those who agree with this are speculative or plain wrong or just unadorned abuse. The same goes for that small number of posters who believe (or claim to) that the RTP arrested the real killers, based on solid evidence. If you are looking for reasoned debate, you will need to delete 95% of the thread and then read what is left.

I too want to examine every detail and would prefer to get news from within Thailand. I as do many others work for a living so dont have time to sort through the rubbish.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Reading through past post I can't but wonder what all this is about and some Victory Parade. I mean before the discovery that the DNA can be retested. So maybe better we start there to get that out of the way.

I have claimed from the start that I hoped that the courts would allow this DNA to be retested. I still feel the same today. I like everyone else was confused with reports saying it was lost, or used up, or eaten by a snake. But now that it can be retested I think that is fine. All I added to this was to be careful for what you ask for as you might get it.

If these test do come back negative, like the first ones, then the gig is up. It is game over. There is no turning back after this point, The accused chances of a successful victory at trial, and even appeal, I would think would be very little. So I will wait and see and see if these tests actually take place. If they are guilty it would be easier to try and poke holes in the Prosecutions DNA Evidence then to have you own which agrees with his.

Someone pointed out that if the defense discovered through DNA that they did do it, they wouldn't have to show this in court. Perhaps at the very beginning if they conducted there own DNA Independent Test he may be right. I am not sure. But since the Defense had to appeal to the court to allow this, and this was granted, then I would think the court would want to see the results regardless. But again I am not sure.

That's a rational and relevant post and your right it would be good to,get the results of DNA.

Unfortunately whatever side of the fence you sit on its plainly obvious that the DNA testing cannot be verified as being collected ,stored and examined properly as right from the start the crime scene was compromised. From not keeping it sterile to incorrect taking of samples. We don't know about all the other procedures including storage,correct testing and catalogue of the samples and a paper trail is said samples. This is not sitting on either fence just a fact and if the only evidence is DNA I don't think that's anyway enough for a correct judgement. As I've said DNA will not prove murder in this case just at worst an accessory or being there. The fact it's compromised would mean it wouldn't even be admissible in a civilised worlds court system.

I'm not having a go just pointing out this would still leave as many questions as answers

"Compromised" means to accept standards lower than is desirable, "Compromised" does not mean "Destroyed".

For example if you were investigating the Crime Scene you would expect to find the footprints in the sand of the 2 Victims, plus any others who could belong to the murders. But now that 6 others entered the Crime Scene, the Crime Scene has been compromised.

This doesn't mean these footprints of the victims and possible murders aren't there anymore. It just now means that you have to sift through everyone's footprints that were in there, and clear them all as suspects, which is not desired. Unless of course a herd of cattle went through and destroyed all the footprints, but judging from photos of the police measuring the footprints, I don't think this was the case.

Now if you think the sperm samples taken from Hannah at the Forensic Lab was compromised and planted, then I have no more to say to you on this subject as then we disagree,

So you consider keeping DNA samples from a brutal murder in a bar fridge as totally acceptable do you?

Odd the Defense Team did not raise that point in court when the Top Forensic Officer was on the stand. Could it be because it is Bull-shit I wonder?

[GOLDBUGGY]

Reading through past post I can't but wonder what all this is about and some Victory Parade. I mean before the discovery that the DNA can be retested. So maybe better we start there to get that out of the way.

I have claimed from the start that I hoped that the courts would allow this DNA to be retested. I still feel the same today. I like everyone else was confused with reports saying it was lost, or used up, or eaten by a snake. But now that it can be retested I think that is fine. All I added to this was to be careful for what you ask for as you might get it.

If these test do come back negative, like the first ones, then the gig is up. It is game over. There is no turning back after this point, The accused chances of a successful victory at trial, and even appeal, I would think would be very little. So I will wait and see and see if these tests actually take place. If they are guilty it would be easier to try and poke holes in the Prosecutions DNA Evidence then to have you own which agrees with his.

Someone pointed out that if the defense discovered through DNA that they did do it, they wouldn't have to show this in court. Perhaps at the very beginning if they conducted there own DNA Independent Test he may be right. I am not sure. But since the Defense had to appeal to the court to allow this, and this was granted, then I would think the court would want to see the results regardless. But again I am not sure.

That's a rational and relevant post and your right it would be good to,get the results of DNA.

Unfortunately whatever side of the fence you sit on its plainly obvious that the DNA testing cannot be verified as being collected ,stored and examined properly as right from the start the crime scene was compromised. From not keeping it sterile to incorrect taking of samples. We don't know about all the other procedures including storage,correct testing and catalogue of the samples and a paper trail is said samples. This is not sitting on either fence just a fact and if the only evidence is DNA I don't think that's anyway enough for a correct judgement. As I've said DNA will not prove murder in this case just at worst an accessory or being there. The fact it's compromised would mean it wouldn't even be admissible in a civilised worlds court system.

I'm not having a go just pointing out this would still leave as many questions as answers

"Compromised" means to accept standards lower than is desirable, "Compromised" does not mean "Destroyed".

For example if you were investigating the Crime Scene you would expect to find the footprints in the sand of the 2 Victims, plus any others who could belong to the murders. But now that 6 others entered the Crime Scene, the Crime Scene has been compromised.

This doesn't mean these footprints of the victims and possible murders aren't there anymore. It just now means that you have to sift through everyone's footprints that were in there, and clear them all as suspects, which is not desired. Unless of course a herd of cattle went through and destroyed all the footprints, but judging from photos of the police measuring the footprints, I don't think this was the case.

Now if you think the sperm samples taken from Hannah at the Forensic Lab was compromised and planted, then I have no more to say to you on this subject as then we disagree,

Your not for real are you?? Compromised means what it says and in your analogy it's clear that if many people are allowed unchecked and not in a sterile environment some of those said footprints could have been compromised or even destroyed. You do know what happens to sand when it's walked don't you?? What about all the pics downloaded onto Facebook before the it came out that a murders had been carried out. Then there's the pictures of clothes in one place then scattered all around and a police guy stating he moved the body. How many of the people walking on that beach would have been wearing flip flop type shoes! Not easy to differentiate on sand wouldn't you agree. There was umpteen people walking over that crime scene including I will say again a possible suspect. How can that possible suspect be elimated from the case. Well we know the answer to that don't we! You haven't thought your reply out have you!. And are you telling me it's not possible to plant samples? and again we have only the RTP word up to now that they have any samples and they haven't been to clever at being forthcoming with anything up to now. The perfect case!!

Yes we do disagree and quite honestly this argument of yours is a joke. And as you've obviously not read previous post of mine and understood DNA taken from Hannah does not in any shape or form confirm that the DNA belonged to a murderer. Just that it belonged to someone there. Is that so hard to understand!!

Check the Dictionary for the word "Compromise". That is where I got this meaning from. Not sure where you got yours though.

[Nigeone]

Reading through past post I can't but wonder what all this is about and some Victory Parade. I mean before the discovery that the DNA can be retested. So maybe better we start there to get that out of the way.

I have claimed from the start that I hoped that the courts would allow this DNA to be retested. I still feel the same today. I like everyone else was confused with reports saying it was lost, or used up, or eaten by a snake. But now that it can be retested I think that is fine. All I added to this was to be careful for what you ask for as you might get it.

If these test do come back negative, like the first ones, then the gig is up. It is game over. There is no turning back after this point, The accused chances of a successful victory at trial, and even appeal, I would think would be very little. So I will wait and see and see if these tests actually take place. If they are guilty it would be easier to try and poke holes in the Prosecutions DNA Evidence then to have you own which agrees with his.

Someone pointed out that if the defense discovered through DNA that they did do it, they wouldn't have to show this in court. Perhaps at the very beginning if they conducted there own DNA Independent Test he may be right. I am not sure. But since the Defense had to appeal to the court to allow this, and this was granted, then I would think the court would want to see the results regardless. But again I am not sure.

That's a rational and relevant post and your right it would be good to,get the results of DNA.

Unfortunately whatever side of the fence you sit on its plainly obvious that the DNA testing cannot be verified as being collected ,stored and examined properly as right from the start the crime scene was compromised. From not keeping it sterile to incorrect taking of samples. We don't know about all the other procedures including storage,correct testing and catalogue of the samples and a paper trail is said samples. This is not sitting on either fence just a fact and if the only evidence is DNA I don't think that's anyway enough for a correct judgement. As I've said DNA will not prove murder in this case just at worst an accessory or being there. The fact it's compromised would mean it wouldn't even be admissible in a civilised worlds court system.

I'm not having a go just pointing out this would still leave as many questions as answers

"Compromised" means to accept standards lower than is desirable, "Compromised" does not mean "Destroyed".

For example if you were investigating the Crime Scene you would expect to find the footprints in the sand of the 2 Victims, plus any others who could belong to the murders. But now that 6 others entered the Crime Scene, the Crime Scene has been compromised.

This doesn't mean these footprints of the victims and possible murders aren't there anymore. It just now means that you have to sift through everyone's footprints that were in there, and clear them all as suspects, which is not desired. Unless of course a herd of cattle went through and destroyed all the footprints, but judging from photos of the police measuring the footprints, I don't think this was the case.

Now if you think the sperm samples taken from Hannah at the Forensic Lab was compromised and planted, then I have no more to say to you on this subject as then we disagree,

Your not for real are you?? Compromised means what it says and in your analogy it's clear that if many people are allowed unchecked and not in a sterile environment some of those said footprints could have been compromised or even destroyed. You do know what happens to sand when it's walked don't you?? What about all the pics downloaded onto Facebook before the it came out that a murders had been carried out. Then there's the pictures of clothes in one place then scattered all around and a police guy stating he moved the body. How many of the people walking on that beach would have been wearing flip flop type shoes! Not easy to differentiate on sand wouldn't you agree. There was umpteen people walking over that crime scene including I will say again a possible suspect. How can that possible suspect be elimated from the case. Well we know the answer to that don't we! You haven't thought your reply out have you!. And are you telling me it's not possible to plant samples? and again we have only the RTP word up to now that they have any samples and they haven't been to clever at being forthcoming with anything up to now. The perfect case!!

Yes we do disagree and quite honestly this argument of yours is a joke. And as you've obviously not read previous post of mine and understood DNA taken from Hannah does not in any shape or form confirm that the DNA belonged to a murderer. Just that it belonged to someone there. Is that so hard to understand!!

Then send you vast knowledge on to the Defense Team and tell him to stop his DNA Request and wasting time then. Especially when you come on pretending you know more than him.

I don't need to send anything to the defense as they are well aware of what I'm pointing out. You will not get DNA from a sandy beach footprints and certainly not from measuring the size of footprints and until the chain of DNA collection and testing is proven to be not compromised any DNA available is not admissible in a first world country.

Compromise(noun)

to pledge by some act or declaration; to endanger the life, reputation, etc., of, by some act which can not be recalled; to expose to suspicion

[smedly]

The only sure way of knowing anything in this country is to conduct your own investigation

Just going now to inspect that Hoe under the tree- Jesus you turn you back for a moment and .....well it was there a moment ago, ah there it is - the gardener has it turning over a few shrubs.....hey put that back so I can examine it, what you mean you washed it