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

[GOLDBUGGY]

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.

Who on earth do you think helps illegal immigrants come here. Perhaps their employers?

Actually I don't know if the B2 were illegal. I think I read at least one wasn't. Not that that makes much difference as with 500 baht a month they would get a pass from the local plod.

I am not saying that employing Illegal Aliens and paying them Chump Change is right and a good thing to do. I personally think it is wrong. In my country it is not legal to do this. I would think here as well. But to these employers I guess the rewards outweigh the risk? Middle Men are commonly used in these transactions for Illegal Mexican Men, and I don't see why it would be different here with people from Myanmar.As one man recently put it, I don't know because it is not my business to know.

But I did read from a media report that one of them, which I think was Win, paid someone money in Myanmar to do this. I also read both of the accused were arrested for Immigration Violation, then charged for these other crimes later. But really who knows which media report is true anymore? I read one the other day when one of the accused told his mom he would be home soon, and the same day another media report who said he was claiming he won't get a fair trial here? So???

[BritTim]

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.

The best coverage by the Thai media is probably khaosod's English website. It is important to realize that any coverage by the Thai media is subject to pressure, and even legal restrictions. On wading through the rubbish, I feel your pain.

[bunglebag]

The other thing that bothers me from the NS supporters is they like to say NS had a girlfriend at the time, so he wouldn't need to rape...... That's that Thai logic getting them screwed at every turn.

NS lives in Bangkok. He comes from a wealthy family. I am sure he could easily find many single girls at university, who would want to latch on some of his wealth, or he could easily pay for it.

But since you keep suggesting he is a rapist then why not do that in Bangkok, and were he lives? Why would he come out to an Island on a weekend, and where his Father, Uncle, and perhaps other family members have a vested interest in Tourism, to do this? That a crime like this would hurt tourism, and thus hurt his family. He is a university student so surely he would know this before hand.

You posted here what you think is Thai Logic and like you are some professional with this, and speaking for all Thai's, which I doubt you are Thai. So let me make it easy for you and give you some Good Old Fashioned American Logic.

"You don't bite the hand that is feeding you!"

I still have a somewhat open mind so not accusing anyone here

But in response to GB's asking why not do it in Bangkok...

- It would be much safer to do it somewhere you are very familiar with, where your family had the police in their pocket to cover things up if anything went bad, home ground where you had some backup if required, maybe even a cohort or two.

Girl gets attacked / raped. Girl reports to police. (in pocket) police say go away / no make trouble. What more can she do?

Could even be an MO of more than one person associated with the bar, easy to spike drinks on occasion (though allegedly no drugs found in Hannah's system)

- Plus probably easier to pick up more willing Western girls due to status on the island / in the bar.

- Plus I believe you said he had a girlfriend? Bangkok might be a bit close to home to play away.

Just some possibilities

Personally I don't think anyone woke up that day and planned to murder someone. Think it most likely to have been sparked by an incident and then a chain of events from there on (possibly some unexpected, maybe including David) led to a terrible conclusion and a cover up / fit up.

[bunglebag]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

[smedly]

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?

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.

as all of the smart educated experienced people on this forum have said repeatedly - nobody has an issue if the independent re-examination of DNA evidence still concludes that B2 were involved - then B2 need to start talking and telling what happened and who else was there - they were not alone, there is no way they did this just the two of them

[Nigeone]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

That's a good point and your right why didn't they challenge that. I can't imagine that the defense don't know about the scattered clothes pictures. Maybe there holding back and using it to prove the crime scene was compromised and bodies etc had been moved. Maybe in the Thai court system you can't challenge but they put questions to other witness for the prosecution. Maybe they haven't seen the pics !! Or of course they could have something that blows the whole case out of the water anyway and it isn't that relevant. All speculation but keeps us engaged

[BritTim]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

You must remember that the RTP has a very limited budget, and were unable to retain all the crime scene photos. The prosecution witness obviously just testified what he assumed based on the few crime scene photos the budget allowed to be saved. Anyway, the photos of the scattered clothing, and David's original location, are irrelevant because they are inconsistent with the prosecution case.

[GOLDBUGGY]

I recommend others block the following to stop encouraging them.

jtj.JPG

Please do! It is obvious that no matter what happens in court, or elsewhere, you are not going to believe it anyway.

But if everyone blocks us at least it will be peaceful here as then we might be able to voice our opinion, just like you guy, but not have to get attached or name called, every time we do.

In my book your post is for a change sensible. I do hope they all follow your good advice.

[StealthEnergiser]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

That's a good point and your right why didn't they challenge that. I can't imagine that the defense don't know about the scattered clothes pictures. Maybe there holding back and using it to prove the crime scene was compromised and bodies etc had been moved. Maybe in the Thai court system you can't challenge but they put questions to other witness for the prosecution. Maybe they haven't seen the pics !! Or of course they could have something that blows the whole case out of the water anyway and it isn't that relevant. All speculation but keeps us engaged

Here it is again maybe he missed it.

[GOLDBUGGY]

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.

So we can take this to mean you take the RTP at their word?

That is insane, unless you're RTP, or a suspect, or a schill.

Did you not at least read his reply to this. Does "testimony in a court of law" mean the same to you as taking the "RTP at their word"?

Man!

[ffaarraanngg]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

That's a good point and your right why didn't they challenge that. I can't imagine that the defense don't know about the scattered clothes pictures. Maybe there holding back and using it to prove the crime scene was compromised and bodies etc had been moved. Maybe in the Thai court system you can't challenge but they put questions to other witness for the prosecution. Maybe they haven't seen the pics !! Or of course they could have something that blows the whole case out of the water anyway and it isn't that relevant. All speculation but keeps us engaged

Here it is again maybe he missed it.

clothes2.jpg

Staggering. Wonder if other Burmese that have been fitted up for murders on these Islands will now stand a chance of getting out.

In any other nation such blatant incompetence and corruption would lead to uproar.

[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.

So we can take this to mean you take the RTP at their word?

That is insane, unless you're RTP, or a suspect, or a schill.

Did you not at least read his reply to this. Does "testimony in a court of law" mean the same to you as taking the "RTP at their word"?

Man!

Okay so here you go. And it's very topical around your post.

Does the police guy in court indicating that the clothes were found neatly piled on a rock mean that's is what happened. Remember he said this in a court of law and as you say it must be credible otherwise it would be perjury..I'm really interested in your answer. And I suggest before you do answer you take a look at the pictures of the crime scene posted above. Quote!

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.

[Linky]

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?

Because it is not the top forensic officer's job or responsibility to ensure chain of custody. It is usual for the arresting officer to ensure those details. The defense has asked for it. If it is not presented to the court then prosecution has failed to verify the sanctity of the specimens and the court has every chance to refuse to consider that evidence.

[GOLDBUGGY]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

My personal view is that these clothes were not piled up neatly when found. Just lately is the first time I ever saw them piled up neatly. First time I also heard the Prosecutor ever said this. Can you link that? Not to say I am calling you a Liar. I am just saying I would like to review that whole page.

I just got shocked to find out that a Media Report said Lin was their legally and had to bring in his passport to show the Prosecution that. So I am finding it difficult to believe anything that is written now. I does take the fun out of not being able to believe anything anymore. Ever what is being reported by the Court Media Reporters

Explanation from going from messy to neat? There are many which I am sure you know. Prevent the tide from washing them out to sea. Getting them ready to put in a bag and send to Forensics. Who knows. .

[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?

Because it is not the top forensic officer's job or responsibility to ensure chain of custody. It is usual for the arresting officer to ensure those details. The defense has asked for it. If it is not presented to the court then prosecution has failed to verify the sanctity of the specimens and the court has every chance to refuse to consider that evidence.

Sorry. Let me restate this.

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

[StealthEnergiser]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

My personal view is that these clothes were not piled up neatly when found. Just lately is the first time I ever saw them piled up neatly. First time I also heard the Prosecutor ever said this. Can you link that? Not to say I am calling you a Liar. I am just saying I would like to review that whole page.

I just got shocked to find out that a Media Report said Lin was their legally and had to bring in his passport to show the Prosecution that. So I am finding it difficult to believe anything that is written now. I does take the fun out of not being able to believe anything anymore. Ever what is being reported by the Court Media Reporters

Explanation from going from messy to neat? There are many which I am sure you know. Prevent the tide from washing them out to sea. Getting them ready to put in a bag and send to Forensics. Who knows. .

use google

Koh Tao policeman challenged over killings

[Nigeone]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

My personal view is that these clothes were not piled up neatly when found. Just lately is the first time I ever saw them piled up neatly. First time I also heard the Prosecutor ever said this. Can you link that? Not to say I am calling you a Liar. I am just saying I would like to review that whole page.

I just got shocked to find out that a Media Report said Lin was their legally and had to bring in his passport to show the Prosecution that. So I am finding it difficult to believe anything that is written now. I does take the fun out of not being able to believe anything anymore. Ever what is being reported by the Court Media Reporters

Explanation from going from messy to neat? There are many which I am sure you know. Prevent the tide from washing them out to sea. Getting them ready to put in a bag and send to Forensics. Who knows. .

The tide was no where near the clothes as the pictures show. Also,the tide was on the way out I believe it was reported and third but not least goes back to the DNA compromised. On finding of the crime scene it should have been cordoned off and a meticulous examination and carefull recording and removal in a sterile environment of all items and anything related to the crime.Nobody should have entered the crime scene apart from forensic and the investigating officer. This should have been carried out by trained and qualified personal and be the bare minimum staff required to collect the necessary evidence. Once the clothes were collected and bunched together contamination will have taken place by at least the coming together of various garments and at worse by unqualified personal clearly packing the items together. No remotely qualified and trained persons would group items of evidence together like that. This is another issue that strengthens the many people on here's doubts of the validity of this case. They will be people on here with law enforcement experience and I'm sure they will back this account up and probably add to it. Thank you again

One further issue is I stand corrected but I think the picture of the scattered clothes was posted on police facebook pages before the cover up started. Somebody I know on here will confirm or deny this. It certainly didn't come from official police sources.

[GOLDBUGGY]

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.

So we can take this to mean you take the RTP at their word?

That is insane, unless you're RTP, or a suspect, or a schill.

Did you not at least read his reply to this. Does "testimony in a court of law" mean the same to you as taking the "RTP at their word"?

Man!

Okay so here you go. And it's very topical around your post.

Does the police guy in court indicating that the clothes were found neatly piled on a rock mean that's is what happened. Remember he said this in a court of law and as you say it must be credible otherwise it would be perjury..I'm really interested in your answer. And I suggest before you do answer you take a look at the pictures of the crime scene posted above. Quote!

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 first off it is not a topic around my post as I never raised it as a topic. I did not start this link or even mention it here once. Please check again who posted this.

I was however asked this question before which I again have no idea why he asked me. Or again why you asked me. He said it was the Prosecutor who said the clothes were stacked neatly, and you said it was the Police Officer. I said I never heard that before from anyone of them and asked for a link So that 2 different people, like you and him, would not get it wrong and now say it was the Prosecutor who said this or now the Investigator Police Officer.

I personally thought the clothes would be messy. You said they said it was neat. Then I say that is what happens when you have poor reporting who seem to be getting a lot of things mixed up lately. I can't tell you for sure as I was not at the crime scene or in court.

[Les Quennevais]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

That's a good point and your right why didn't they challenge that. I can't imagine that the defense don't know about the scattered clothes pictures. Maybe there holding back and using it to prove the crime scene was compromised and bodies etc had been moved. Maybe in the Thai court system you can't challenge but they put questions to other witness for the prosecution. Maybe they haven't seen the pics !! Or of course they could have something that blows the whole case out of the water anyway and it isn't that relevant. All speculation but keeps us engaged

this ^^^^

[metisdead]

Off-topic, threatening, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters. Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension. Digging through other member's posts and bringing them up on the forum can be considered stalking and it is against the forum rules.

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

[GOLDBUGGY]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

My personal view is that these clothes were not piled up neatly when found. Just lately is the first time I ever saw them piled up neatly. First time I also heard the Prosecutor ever said this. Can you link that? Not to say I am calling you a Liar. I am just saying I would like to review that whole page.

I just got shocked to find out that a Media Report said Lin was their legally and had to bring in his passport to show the Prosecution that. So I am finding it difficult to believe anything that is written now. I does take the fun out of not being able to believe anything anymore. Ever what is being reported by the Court Media Reporters

Explanation from going from messy to neat? There are many which I am sure you know. Prevent the tide from washing them out to sea. Getting them ready to put in a bag and send to Forensics. Who knows. .

The tide was no where near the cloths as the pictures show. Also,the tide was on the way out I believe it was reported and third but not least goes back to the DNA compromised. On finding of the crime scene it should have been cordoned off and a meticulous examination and carefull recording and removal in a sterile environment of all items and anything related to the crime.Nobody should have entered the crime scene apart from forensic and the investigating officer. This should have been carried out by trained and qualified personal and be the bare minimum staff required to collect the necessary evidence. Once the clothes were collected and bunched together contamination will have taken place by at least the coming together of various garments and at worse by unqualified personal clearly packing the items together. No remotely qualified and trained persons would group items of evidence together like that. This is another issue that strengthens the many people on here's doubts of the validity of this case. They will be people on here with law enforcement experience and I'm sure they will back this account up and probably add to it. Thank you again

One further issue is I stand corrected but I think the picture of the scattered clothes was posted on police facebook pages before the cover up started. Somebody I know on here will confirm or deny this. It certainly didn't come from official police sources.

Excuse me! I said all this to you when all I said is I don't know? Man! Do you want me to actually think of a hundred different possibilities to why the clothes were neatly piled up? You are the one who brought this up and you have your reasons. So tell us what you think and not try to tell everyone what I am thinking.

No Crime should be compromised, and I have never said it should be. So I have no idea where you get your beliefs that I would think otherwise.

[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.

So we can take this to mean you take the RTP at their word?

That is insane, unless you're RTP, or a suspect, or a schill.

Did you not at least read his reply to this. Does "testimony in a court of law" mean the same to you as taking the "RTP at their word"?

Man!

Okay so here you go. And it's very topical around your post.

Does the police guy in court indicating that the clothes were found neatly piled on a rock mean that's is what happened. Remember he said this in a court of law and as you say it must be credible otherwise it would be perjury..I'm really interested in your answer. And I suggest before you do answer you take a look at the pictures of the crime scene posted above. Quote!

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 first off it is not a topic around my post as I never raised it as a topic. I did not start this link or even mention it here once. Please check again who posted this.

I was however asked this question before which I again have no idea why he asked me. Or again why you asked me. He said it was the Prosecutor who said the clothes were stacked neatly, and you said it was the Police Officer. I said I never heard that before from anyone of them and asked for a link So that 2 different people, like you and him, would not get it wrong and now say it was the Prosecutor who said this or now the Investigator Police Officer.

I personally thought the clothes would be messy. You said they said it was neat. Then I say that is what happens when you have poor reporting who seem to be getting a lot of things mixed up lately. I can't tell you for sure as I was not at the crime scene or in court.

Your right GB but I didn't say it was your topic did I. I was replying to your last remark as shown below

Did you not at least read his reply cto this. Does "testimony in a court of law" mean the same to you as taking the "RTP at their word"? That was your comment on said post that I replied to and as you supported the earlier poster its applicable to you too.

As for your mention of who said what I'm speaking as defence and prosecution and the prosecution stated that the clothes were in a neat pile as born out by the pictures.

[smedly]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

That's a good point and your right why didn't they challenge that. I can't imagine that the defense don't know about the scattered clothes pictures. Maybe there holding back and using it to prove the crime scene was compromised and bodies etc had been moved. Maybe in the Thai court system you can't challenge but they put questions to other witness for the prosecution. Maybe they haven't seen the pics !! Or of course they could have something that blows the whole case out of the water anyway and it isn't that relevant. All speculation but keeps us engaged

Here it is again maybe he missed it.

clothes2.jpg

maybe it was windy

but here's the thing - I thought all the cctv pictures were showing David earlier in a beige pair of shorts same as running man was seen wearing except by that time they appeared wet, could be wrong

[GOLDBUGGY]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

My personal view is that these clothes were not piled up neatly when found. Just lately is the first time I ever saw them piled up neatly. First time I also heard the Prosecutor ever said this. Can you link that? Not to say I am calling you a Liar. I am just saying I would like to review that whole page.

I just got shocked to find out that a Media Report said Lin was their legally and had to bring in his passport to show the Prosecution that. So I am finding it difficult to believe anything that is written now. I does take the fun out of not being able to believe anything anymore. Ever what is being reported by the Court Media Reporters

Explanation from going from messy to neat? There are many which I am sure you know. Prevent the tide from washing them out to sea. Getting them ready to put in a bag and send to Forensics. Who knows. .

The tide was no where near the clothes as the pictures show. Also,the tide was on the way out I believe it was reported and third but not least goes back to the DNA compromised. On finding of the crime scene it should have been cordoned off and a meticulous examination and carefull recording and removal in a sterile environment of all items and anything related to the crime.Nobody should have entered the crime scene apart from forensic and the investigating officer. This should have been carried out by trained and qualified personal and be the bare minimum staff required to collect the necessary evidence. Once the clothes were collected and bunched together contamination will have taken place by at least the coming together of various garments and at worse by unqualified personal clearly packing the items together. No remotely qualified and trained persons would group items of evidence together like that. This is another issue that strengthens the many people on here's doubts of the validity of this case. They will be people on here with law enforcement experience and I'm sure they will back this account up and probably add to it. Thank you again

One further issue is I stand corrected but I think the picture of the scattered clothes was posted on police facebook pages before the cover up started. Somebody I know on here will confirm or deny this. It certainly didn't come from official police sources.

Oh Yeah! It was reported that Low Tide was 7:30 am and High Tide was 3 pm. So pictures around Low Tide Maybe?

[Lozza]

Follow the trail- we know they were in the AC bar- what happened there? Was there an altercation or not? Then what happened next- timelines and witness interviews. This case is solvable. There is always a motive. The defense needs to do their own independent investigation. Someone will eventually crack. Why would 2 Burmese workers murder 2 foreign tourists? They would have had no motive.

Not only that, but we're to believe the victims were in AC bar and the owner has zero clues as to what may have happened? It's your bar, your a big boss, you don't know a single thing about what happened?

Mon's notorious face on the beach with the police that morning looks guilty. Adding to that, there is CCTV to show who came and went from that dump, Yet it's "missing"... No, it's a grande scheme at this point. Only thing left to learn is how much worse this can get for Thailand?

I think people in the UK and U.S. Just aren't surprised by this anymore, it's so hard to look at you kind of just say "well that's Thailand" and plan to never go there/never go again.

It's 2015, South Africa has a better judicial system for christs sake. And, fellas... If you haven't.. Consider finding Heidi Anna on Facebook and donate to the defense... 500 baht means much more than you think.

Ditto...and notice how he avoids looking at David who is at his feet. Guilty

[Lozza]

The other thing that bothers me from the NS supporters is they like to say NS had a girlfriend at the time, so he wouldn't need to rape...... That's that Thai logic getting them screwed at every turn.

NS lives in Bangkok. He comes from a wealthy family. I am sure he could easily find many single girls at university, who would want to latch on some of his wealth, or he could easily pay for it.

But since you keep suggesting he is a rapist then why not do that in Bangkok, and were he lives? Why would he come out to an Island on a weekend, and where his Father, Uncle, and perhaps other family members have a vested interest in Tourism, to do this? That a crime like this would hurt tourism, and thus hurt his family. He is a university student so surely he would know this before hand.

You posted here what you think is Thai Logic and like you are some professional with this, and speaking for all Thai's, which I doubt you are Thai. So let me make it easy for you and give you some Good Old Fashioned American Logic.

"You don't bite the hand that is feeding you!"

Nope..no farang girl would be interested in him.

[berybert]

Double murder crime scene, photograph all items of evidence then bag into evidence bags.

Thai double murder crime scene, pile all items onto a rock and take a picture.

[kiwikeith]

The DNA evidence is totally irrelevant now. I'm sure there is no chain of evidence procedure in place to maintain its integrity. It could have been corrupted, doctored to give the result they want, or replaced with the local dog's! A pity, because if used correctly maybe there could have been a fair verdict in this case, with the guilty parties brought to justice.

The DNA evidence is far from irrelevant. Yesterday in court it was stated that the DNA from the 2 Burmese matched the semen found inside Hanna.

If a new sample of DNA from the Burmese matches the semen DNA then this would be pretty damning evidence imo.

If the samples do not match then they are off Scot free I'd guess.

/sarcasm

Pshaww! A specialist that examined the actual physical evidence testifying in court that the semen matches the DNA of the men on trial is not evidence!

Some guy saying he heard from some other guy on the Internet that his GF's friend told her that everyone knows you-know-who did it, now that is evidence.

/sarcasm

Does this mean that the B2 both had semmen on the outside of the condumb.

[Nigeone]

And GB everyone on here knows I have clearly stated my case based on incorrect procedures carried out and

what looks to most people as a stitch up. My opinions on the crime are that I want very much for the perpetrators

of this crime, whoever that is! to be found guilty and pay the price. My worry is that from what I have seen up to now

nothing stated by the prosecution case has shown one scrap of evidence to link the B2. Yes they might have still done it

or been present but up to now I don't see it. I don't have any agenda unlike some on here and am just a concerned observer

who wants to see justice for the terrible crimes. That's my only agenda . I will give you a break now however has your rattled

and are actually coming round and at least seeing the bigger picture which is good.. As I said there is Hannah and David and the parents and family to consider in this but also the possibility that 2 other families and two other young people could see there

lives wrongly affected. And it is the Thai RTP and justice systems on trial here as well, whether you like it or not.

[Linky]

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?

Because it is not the top forensic officer's job or responsibility to ensure chain of custody. It is usual for the arresting officer to ensure those details. The defense has asked for it. If it is not presented to the court then prosecution has failed to verify the sanctity of the specimens and the court has every chance to refuse to consider that evidence.

Sorry. Let me restate this.

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

Restate all you want, doesnt make what you say correct.

How do you know the defense didnt ask for it when he was on the stand?

In any event, it doesnt matter if the defense ask for it or not. The defense does not have to prove anything, it is up to the prosecution to prove the case and chain of custody is essential to dna evidence. Defense have requested the information and it has not been provided. At the end of the prosecution case they simply apply to the Judges to have dna evidence struck out as there is no chain of custody tomprove the verscity of the evidence.

In effect it becomes hearsay evidence.

One cannot have a situation where prosecution refuses to provide evidence to the court then blame defence for not refuting the evidence that was not provided.

In your world it may be acceptable but not in the real world.