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

[Lancashireman]

You guys arguing the toss, your filling the thread up with bullshit, its 80% of pointless toing and afroing, its repetative and making it nigh on impossible for people who just want to keep up with the case, quote after quote after quote.

Please give it a rest..

Hi I understand what your saying and for my part if my posts you consider bullshit I'm sorry you feel like that.

The problem so many of us have is if we left it to JLT ,GB and the like you wouldn't get a true reflection on what's actually happening. It's a difficult I know and for my part in it I apologise for it. But some on here feel quite strongly that people aren't getting a fair deal from authorities so hence the input. Sorry again

You're not going to change their mind, and its at a point where it seems as if its you're entire lifes goal to do as much.

You're as bad as JTJ and the gang and are trying to make this case about you as opposed to the actual victims ... like being one of those people who have to connect themselves in some way to tragedy.

I'm sorry you think that of me. I'm not trying to make this case about anything but for justice for Hannah and David. Also at the moment from what's become apparent there could be 2 more victims and that can't be right. I do accept that it easy to get caught up in the case but to say I'm as bad as JTJ etc is not fair. I've tried very hard to be objective and stay balanced and not speculate and I think I've done that. It is a forum however and invites opinion . However I understand what your saying. Thank you

Nigeone, agree you remain objective. Interesting point in psychology that human beings associate themselves with other people's tradgedies etc. There are certainly several members on this site who fall into this category, and are now so absorbed with the case they lose a sense of reality, and will not climb down from their position.

[Lancashireman]

Why does someone who has a different opinion then yours have to have an agenda? Why can't we just have an opinion based on what we have learned by ourselves? An opinion that is based on what we have read about this case in the Media, which is our only source of information, and therefore not written in stone?

But you say "Us" and "Them" like some new Marshal in Town here to clean up this site and restore law and order here. Being a participating member here from the very start do you really want to know the difference between "Us" and "Them"?

"Us" (We) base our own opinion on what we read from a credible media report. We don't want to see anyone who is innocent be tried guilty, but at the same time we do not want to release 2 possible murders and rapist free to commit this crime someplace else, Until it is proven in a court of law, as enough evidence has been collected to accuse them. If the DNA is re-tested proven there is no DNA Match to the accused, then we would reconsider our opinion and would consider them being innocence.

"Them" (You) on the other hand base your opinions on pure speculations and theory. You do not have one shred of evidence to conclude their innocents. You base your evidence on what you call the Prosecutors lack thereof, but yet the trial in in it's infancy. Perhaps worst of all is that if this DNA Re-testing comes back and doesn't go your way, and still proves it matches the 2 accused, you will not accept this. You will say it should have been tested in the UK , or Singapore, and not in Thailand, even though this was the request of the Defense Lawyers, You will add more people to some grand conspiracy and claim they were all bought off to.

The real big difference between "Us" and "Them" is that we can still be rational and use our judgement and logic, and be opened minded, to form our own opinions. Where you are all Brain Washed, and are no longer able or capable to think for yourselves. You wouldn't care to know the truth or justice for the 2 Victims even if it crept up behind you and hit you on the back of the head with a Garden Hoe. ,

Goldbuggy, regarding your description of "Us" and "Them", I would just like to clarify why I would be considered a "Them" because it is not included as an option in your post.

A huge amount of weight in this whole case is being placed upon the DNA evidence. I think it's fair to say that if there was no DNA match the RTP would still be looking for the perpetrators today. Once there was a match the "investigation" effectively ceased.

From the outset the RTP decided that it would be best if collection of all the forensic evidence was kept "in house", and this is when I sensed that something may be amiss with the investigations.The Central Institute of Forensic Science, now headed by Khunying Pornthip, was set up for precisely the purpose of avoiding such a scenario as this by providing forensic services under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice, and so independent of the RTP "in house" forensics division and I cannot think of one valid reason for the RTP failing to involve the CIFS in this case that benefits anyone other than the RTP themselves. So many question marks over this case would have been removed if Khunying Pornthip and her team had been able to take responsibility for this role.

Here is an analogy I used once before and I think it still offers an easy to understand explanation as to why I am what you would consider a conspiracy theorist.

If you have ever seen a sporting event where a relatively crucial decision is made by the toss of a coin (which team will kick first, which end a team chooses to play from etc.) you will have noticed that the typical procedure goes something like this:

The referee and captain(s) from both teams will gather in the middle of the pitch.

The referee will show both sides of the coin to both team captains.

The referee then tosses the coin high into the air in full view of the team captains, the TV cameras and onlookers.

A pre-determined team captain will call either heads or tails whilst the coin is in the air.

All those involved (the team captains and the referees) will stand back to allow the coin to land on the ground in plain view of everyone so their can be no doubt as to whether it's a head or a tail.

The referee will look at the coin where it lays on the ground, without touching it, and will announce whether it is a head or a tail.

They stage the coin toss like this because it is deemed to be fair, transparent and because it removes almost all possibilities of foul play.

What they do not do, and for very good reasons, is allow the home team players (who have called heads for example) to crowd around the coin as it lands so that neither the referees, the TV cameras nor the opposing team can see it and accept the result as final and fair when the home team captain says "Yeah, it was a head...", picks up the coin and returns it to the referee whilst his teammates all nod their heads in agreement, and the opposing team scratches theirs, which is basically what happened with everything regarding the collection and analysis of the forensic evidence in this case.

In the above sporting event scenario, if the away team were seen walking away from the coin toss appearing unconvinced of the fairness of the outcome and were heard muttering things like: "I never saw it land..." or "It coulda been a tail you know..." then you and your fellow "Us" contingent would be labeling the away team as conspiracy theorists and calling their mutterings "wild and baseless speculation". Meanwhile an impartial observer (or anyone with half a brain for that matter) would have noticed that the problem lies with the the coin toss procedure and its obvious lack of transparency and would be aiming their criticism at this rather than at the away team players.

Now if the impartial observers were then advised that actually a more transparent coin toss system was widely available and had been brought into effect some 12 years earlier to prevent such suggestions of foul play and deception, and that the only reason this new system was not used for this particular coin toss was because the home team refused to implement it... Well, it should come as no surprise to find that no matter how loudly the home team players accuse the away team of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, the finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the home team and their very deliberate decision to use the old "crowd round the coin" coin toss procedure, with everyone except for the home team players and their most loyal of fans having serious doubts about their intentions and their integrity.

In the world of sports it is expected and accepted that fans will blindly support their team simply because it is Their Team and because they are loyal fans. There is no expectation of a logical thought process being behind the reason they give their support to their team. However, in the scientific world of criminal investigation and forensics, and in the very real world of the murder trial we are discussing here, one would expect that the majority of impartial observers would use logic, probability and rational thinking as a basis for making a decision as to whether they throw their support behind a guilty verdict or an innocent verdict, perhaps combined with a certain amount of "gut feeling". However, what I find puzzling about the "Us" contingent is that despite Goldbuggy's assertions to the contrary, their support of a guilty verdict appears to be based almost exclusively on a sports team style blind loyalty, perhaps coupled with some gut feeling, because how can anyone using logic and rational thinking support results that were achieved as a direct result of the highly prejudicial "coin toss" their team insisted on using?

And so that is why I am a "Them". I thought there was something very fishy about the coin toss...

Well, let me ask you something since you compare this to, lets say a Football Game. You mention this coin toss and being able to see the truth. A Referee and 2 Captains see the coin being tossed and land on the ground, then the call is made. So here is my question to you.

How many times as a Fan or Spectator have you actually seen with your own eyes which way the coin has landed, and if it was Heads or Tails? Would Zero be close? So you put your faith in 2 Captains and the Referee to tell you the truth. Could not 3 people be bribed to lie about this?

In a Murder and Rape Investigation, Arrest, and Trial, and as a Spectator, you don't have any rights to know all the Evidence any more then you have the right as a Fan to walk out onto the field and see the coin toss in your own country. With the exception of attending the Trial, which in my country on big profile cases you would never find a seat in the Court Room. So it is up to the 2 Captains (Prosecution and Defense Lawyers) and the Referee (Judges) to tell you how it ends up.

As to all this other stuff about DNA Testing and who should do it, that could become endless trail (got it right this time) of Speculation. You say a different branch in Thailand, some with say Singapore, some FBI, some Scotland Yard, and so on. It is pretty obvious from knowing were the 2 accused are now, that this DNA Testing that took place, was good enough to keep them their until this Trial at least. .

Oh Dear!

It was no great leap to foresee that the meaning of Jimmy's excellent analogy would go right over your head. I suspect that to you, analogy is something you'd take anti histamines for.

End result the same, you, as usual, end up with a red face, a runny nose and are crying all the time.

The point of his post was to demonstrate, in a manner that even the simplest and blindest on this forum would understand, the principle of openness and transparency and why the lack of this has polarised this debate so badly!

That this was too much to grasp is no great surprise to most of us on here and more than demonstrates your inability to grasp simple, let alone slightly complex, issues.

I hear that there's still plenty of space left in the "Basic Playdough Shapes" forum! Go grab a space somewhere you can contribute in a meaningful fashion!

Saminoz, you are spot on with your response. GB has consistently 'missed' pertinent points made in unbiased and objective posts. Jimmy's post soundly offered his opinion, and I agree with it. GB et al. seemingly live in a make-believe world, hitherto referred to as La-la land. I expect the 'play dough' will be mistaken for lunch, because it doesn't have 'don't eat me' written on it.

[GOLDBUGGY]

It strikes me as a bit odd that the 2 Burmese commit what is turning out to be the crime of the century and having committed 2 gruesome murders go calmly off to bed.

In the meantime another local identity who had nothing to do with the crime flees the island in a speedboat in the wee dark hours.

Got me baffled. We employed a guy once who was in rehabilitation from being a fairly physical sort of criminal, he told me that when they do the big ones the adrenalin rush is through the roof. The crime is better than drugs were his words, And now we have two midgets who had no practice in the art of murder performing a really big one and calmly going off to bed.

Another poster raised the point about their comradeship and dignity since their arrest. It seems no other prisoner has over heard them quarrelling or telling each other they should not have gone so far etc. Its got me baffled. If Sean could get off the island why could the Burmese not get off the same way, they must have known the Thai authorities would punish them for the murders.

In addition to your first sentance may i add something i find very odd..

After the most dispicable crime, when they are confessing, they were sloshed drunk..

So, you might think under the horriffic circumstances they would forget certain insignificant details, but yet they thought it significant to mention their smoking and drinking wine.

and both these details fit snugly in with the 2 main pieces of evidence.

Now i dont about you, but to see poor Burmese on minimum wage drinking wine? (Also the friend was supposed to have gone back to the accomodation to get more beer)

So now, they've pulled of the crime of the century, while plastered, able to pull the whole thing off, got home safe and sound on bike, in bed by 5am.

then when confessing just happen to casually mention smoking and bottles of wine and..bingo!

And as for the running man in the cctv..well he is running quite effeciently for a 5"guy sloshed on beer and wine...doesnt look drunk at all to me

Bamulkloy you did not mention that there was Hannah's DNA all over one of the cigarettes the culprits were smoking. Now all previous reports indicate that Hannah was a non smoker. But it is easy to explain how her DNA got there, while the 2 midgets were taking turns to bash David with a rusty hoe, which was conveniently lying on the beach at the time, they would have asked Hannah to hold the cigarettes for them, therefore Hannah's DNA

is now on the cigarettes. You assume that the running man ( a drunken Burmese) was not drunk, not sure about that but I noticed something odd about the way he carried his left arm, am I seeing things or is it just all in the shadows?

Well,when the ciggy issue first came up the BiB claimed Hanna and the B2 shared a ciggy on the beach.

They even tried to make it fit by claiming there was red lipstick on the butt, but wrong again...

But they werent to know then that Hanna didnt smoke.

Its just one of many times they've had to change their story midstream after being caught out.

The whole theory is absurd anyway, as the butt could have been discarded at the scene any time, hours or even a day before the crime..and then collected a spray of blood..or for that matter even around that rock or area where the blood stains were noted

but yeah, i get your sarcasm..im suprised we havent heard the burmese guy was deliberately holding his hand like that in the video to throw suspicion off himself and looking like someone else

To my knowledge, I have never seen a Media Report that stated the RTP claimed that Hanna shared a cigarette with the 2 accused, or anyone else for that matter. To my knowledge Hannah did not even smoke either, making your case more unrealistic. But if you can post a Link to a Credible Media Report that proves otherwise, I always stand to be correct and appreciate learning more.

Considering that there is a Daily Tide their, (someone quoted 7:30 am Low Tide and 3:00 pm High Tide) then any Cigarette Butt would be washed away. Ever try to flush a Cigarette Butt down a toilet? So your statement that this Cigarette Butt could be there for days is not plausible.

[GOLDBUGGY]

The police testimony re the CCTV, he states Hannah seen entering AC bar with 3 friends, and there the trail ends not seen again so must have left via the back door.

What of her friends she enetered with, surely they had something to say but as far as i can read nothing from the prosecution about interviewing them etc.

This is very strange that there hasnt been anything either thorugh the court, or the press absolutely zip.

David entered on his own, fair enough but Hannah with 3 freinds.

Have i missed something, is there any statments from them about how they left her?

All these people who were with David and Hannah that night have remained totally silent in public, except for Tom Wood (see attached). It was reported in the U.K. press that the travelling companions of H&D had given statements to the U.K. police and that these had been sent on to the Thai authorities by Interpol, which was rightfully criticised as this is a death penalty case and against U.K. government policy.

Many thanks for the reply, its took me ages wading through the pssing contests gong on and obscenely long quotes but i got it.

What with Hannahs freinds being in the bar im sure any agro would have been witnessed, looks probable they left of their own accord, but odd nothing read out in court, of either cctv or the freinds statements.

Both you guys bring up a very interesting point. Hannah arrives at the Bar at 1:00 am, with friends. David shows up by himself at 2:00 am. Yet from what I have read nobody has mentioned an exact time in which they left. That seems odd to me. I mean even if Hannah's Friends left earlier, and she was alone with David, Hannah strikes me as the kind of person who would stand out in a crowd.

Surely someone who was sitting their and drinking, or staff, would have noticed the time she left.To be honest all that I recall seeing is estimated times. Perhaps they know the exact time, and are not saying yet. Perhaps they don't know. But this part just strikes me as being odd.

[smedly]

I also recall NS refusing to give his DNA because it's against his "human rights"..... So what happened that made him submit? There are videos from Thai news with all this info.. It's hard to find actual articles with these details but not Thai news video coverage.

That is one of the points, I made really early on, in the case!

What baffles me more: why is he the only one, with human rights in this case?

what made him submit was that the DNA was fixed not to match his

I can't remember exactly whose but one DNA sample was taken and the result was done in hrs.. completely impossible!

Why the Defence havent made anything of that I just don't know...

there is no verifiable evidence that his dna was tested just a sudden declaration that it was and didn't match and the police when questioned on the matter in court said "I don't know we have no record of that" which is not unusual as they don't seem to have a record of anything that can be verified

[boomerangutang]

What I said was NS was cleared of all wrong doing over 10 months ago, and for many good proven reasons you refuse to accept.

NS is not Guilty! It is only the Media Spin Doctors out their, who Brain Washed you, to make it appear this way.

For the Umpteen Time NS is not on Trail here for many good reasons. Perry Mason is not going to walk into this court room and free the accused by finding the real person on the stand. That was all TV made up and fictional, and like many of the posts here.

You can build a railroad bridge with chopsticks and scotch tape, with a foundation of playdough, but it ain't gonna be dependable.

[boomerangutang]

To my knowledge, I have never seen a Media Report that stated the RTP claimed that Hanna shared a cigarette with the 2 accused, or anyone else for that matter. To my knowledge Hannah did not even smoke either, making your case more unrealistic. But if you can post a Link to a Credible Media Report that proves otherwise, I always stand to be correct and appreciate learning more.

Considering that there is a Daily Tide their, (someone quoted 7:30 am Low Tide and 3:00 pm High Tide) then any Cigarette Butt would be washed away. Ever try to flush a Cigarette Butt down a toilet? So your statement that this Cigarette Butt could be there for days is not plausible.

GB, even the police/headman/prosecution have given up on the cig butt (DNA 'used up' and/or 'can't find it'). Even they've realized it's a non-issue, yet you can't let it go.

On your gravestone, there will be inscribed, "Here lies the person who could not stop talking about a discarded cigarette butt that had no significance to anything. RIP"

[Lozza]

kotao.jpg

noms7.jpg

My zoom is not good- could the the small axes they are using have been used used on David.

I also went through Hannahs' photo's and she isn't wearing red lipstick that was said to be on the cigarette butt with her dna?

[Linky]

The defense team and their supporters here and elsewhere have made it perfectly clear that they want to turn this case into a case against Thai society in general, Thailand's justice system and the RTP in particular.

Yesterday the OJ Simpson case came up in a debate forum I frequent and the similarities were apparent, that case was fought in the "court of public opinion" exploiting resentment over the police conduct and racial issues; thanks to that, and a sympathetic jury, OJ Simpson walked away free... at least for some years until it was proven in a civil case that he, indeed, had brutally murdered two people.

The morality of the story is that people that want to make this case anything else than the murders of Hannah Witheridge and David Miller and whether the men on trial guilty or innocent have lost the plot.

Oh dear, please stop lying.

OJ was not proved to have committed the murders. A civil case does not prove anyone committed a crime, it is a different standard of proof, lesser.

Civil case is preponderence of evidence which just means one side has more evidence than the other, it is not a standard used in criminal law. As such it does not prove he did it, thats why he was acquitted on the murder charges.

So I think you owe an apology to OJ, who I dont care for, and this forum for a deliberate lie.

If your post is the indication of how you think it is little wonder members on here ridicule you and perhaps a good look at yourself in the mirror is warranted.

He was found to be responsible for the deaths of the murder victims, you may want to cling to the finely split straw that verdict doesn't amount to being found guilty of the murders to justify a miscarriage of justice, but I don't place much validity on that sort of specious arguments.

What part of NOT GUILTY do you not understand.

[boomerangutang]

If GB and AleG and JTJ were leading the investigation, it would be easy peazy. Top bananas in Bangkok (after conferring with Headman by phone) would tell inspectors what they want, and the 3 amigos would dutifully come up with those results, and not even bother looking at or pursuing any leads which point elsewhere. Indeed, they could just go to the beach and sip energy drinks and gauk at the pretty farang gals walking by in bikinis, and they'd get their jobs done. Check's in the mail, thanks guys.

Q from Bkk: "what did you do today?"

A from inspectors: "We didn't look at video from the beach, the pier and from the AC bar"

Q: "Good, keep up the good work. Oh, and what do you plan to do tomorrow?"

A: "We plan to make sure that 2/3 of the CCTV cameras don't have any footage. We decided we'll tell the court that they're all broken."

Q. "Very good plan. You each get a raise and a promotion for your exemplary work. And, when the Burmese are found guilty, there's a bonus prize for each of you, courtesy of a donor who will remain anonymous. ha ha, chuckle, chortle, ha ha. Sorry, I just spilled my Red Bull on my lap."

[smedly]

I also recall NS refusing to give his DNA because it's against his "human rights"..... So what happened that made him submit? There are videos from Thai news with all this info.. It's hard to find actual articles with these details but not Thai news video coverage.

That is one of the points, I made really early on, in the case!

What baffles me more: why is he the only one, with human rights in this case?

what made him submit was that the DNA was fixed not to match his

I can't remember exactly whose but one DNA sample was taken and the result was done in hrs.. completely impossible!

Why the Defence havent made anything of that I just don't know...

I'm not a expert on legal matters but rightly or wrongly NS is not on trial here so it's not relevant. However someone has posted that the Prosecution brought him up in there case so I think that changes the situation but I stand corrected by persons with more knowledge of how court procedure works.

In order to exclude a suspect from an investigation you would do with them exactly what you would do with the accused to include them, the difference being as you rightly said - those excluded are not on trail but the evidence gathered to exclude them must be sound, properly logged and stand up to the same scrutiny as that of the accused.

In saying that, in the west if the prosecution introduce during trial testimony or evidence of someone that was excluded during the police investigation then that person or evidence must be made available to defence and stand up to the same scrutiny as all other submitted evidence and testimony, simply put - if you make a claim to something in court during trial you must then be able to prove it

But in Thailand I think it all depends on wind direction on the day

[Rykbanlor]

And your qualifications and experience are? Mine was in law enforcement for 30 years, and when I left I held the rank of Detective Sergeant, was a qualified crash, crime scene, fraud and homicide investigator, after having undertaken the necessary specialist courses. I was also the lead investigator in many, many cases. So I think I have a bit of an idea about what I have stated. If I may, I'd suggest you read my post and understand what the following means.

"Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there. Investigators can even compromise and contaminate the scene with their own footprints." Also this, "the crime scene has been contaminated thus compromising the investigation given what is now known to have occurred there. As such, one could reasonably state that any evidence collected there and possibly elsewhere, has been compromised.

Now I have no problem with someone, who has the experience, knowledge and qualifications critiquing what I have written but when someone, who clearly has no idea of what they are on about, then I suggest you do not enter the debate in relation to crime scene investigation unless you know what you are talking about, which quite clearly, you do not.

As for your examples and the questions asked, I have no intention of fuelling the fire by even contemplating providing an answer to such childish and irrelevant requests. I'd suggest you learn and understand legal definitions and maybe then you won't engage in such written foolishness.

You may or may not be who you say but this does not mean you know this case. How long have you been an Investigator in this case?

To back your statement just show me one Media Report who says this Crime Scene has been Contaminated!

I'm waiting!

Your wait is over GB - I have JUST ONE:

<<<<26) The Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post or Phuketwan publications will be deleted from the forum.>>>>

This media report says the crime scene was contaminated. Also, that CONTRARY to media reports, the island was never locked down.

Where do you think the media got the idea the island was locked down? The Police.

You guys keep going on about the media getting the story wrong etc - YES, because the RTP keep feeding them lies and Misinformation.

But I am sure you guys will be able to discredit Phuketwan because they are being sued by the military at the moment, ergo they must be a pack of liars.

Edited July 30, 2015 by metisdead

[smedly]

I have always felt from day one when I followed Seans Facebook site about how they were out to get him indicated he had a involvement in something. He certainly looked very scared amongst other things and with what has come out since leaves me thinking he has questions to answer. The blood on the guitar I'm not sure about but the injuries to him which look to much like David's injuries and possibly the same weapon used to have inflicted them. It's sad that regardless of fear etc that he can't find a way of coming clean with what he knows. I surely understand the fear of threats towards him but what about the fear of the B2 if they haven't done anything and could be sentenced to death. I still have faith in the UK Sunday papers in finding out some stories that wouldn't normally be heard. Even the Daily Mail which has been very active in reports etc.

Nige,

Forgive my ignorance but as I do not do Face Book, I am a bit in the dark about this character. I have seen a number of references to him, some for, some against but in so far as the wounds, I have never seen them, not that it would make any difference, seeing them and actually seeing them is quite different and to make any comparison, would be difficult. But I understand that one can note similarities in shape and size but to come to a finite conclusion would be unwise.

Given what this character has alleged, put on Face Book and in other quotes, some of which have been referred to on the forum, then it would be reasonably expected for him to be interviewed in depth, if only to dimiss him as being a person of interest. Maybe he was interviewed, do you or some others have this information and maybe shred some light on this aspect? Also, what is it with the blood on his guitar, why is he proudly displaying it for the world to see? Even though I do not know a lot about this character, if I was one of the investigators, then I would certainly look at lot closer at him. Might prove fruitless but at least no stone would be left unturned in an effort to get to the bottom of this heinous crime.

he made Ko Tao his home and was living and working there then suddenly left a day or so after the murders in a hurry, he claimed he was threatened by local thugs but denies any involvement, he was a so called friend of David and was very familiar with all the people locations bars and suspects connected with this crime, he was apparently told to leave the island under threat of death - someone obviously didn't want him involved in the investigation possibly because apart from playing a role himself he may have been in a position to implicate others, he had earlier pre-arranged to meet David that night but claims he never made it and was in bed sleeping

[GOLDBUGGY]

To my knowledge, I have never seen a Media Report that stated the RTP claimed that Hanna shared a cigarette with the 2 accused, or anyone else for that matter. To my knowledge Hannah did not even smoke either, making your case more unrealistic. But if you can post a Link to a Credible Media Report that proves otherwise, I always stand to be correct and appreciate learning more.

Considering that there is a Daily Tide their, (someone quoted 7:30 am Low Tide and 3:00 pm High Tide) then any Cigarette Butt would be washed away. Ever try to flush a Cigarette Butt down a toilet? So your statement that this Cigarette Butt could be there for days is not plausible.

GB, even the police/headman/prosecution have given up on the cig butt (DNA 'used up' and/or 'can't find it'). Even they've realized it's a non-issue, yet you can't let it go.

On your gravestone, there will be inscribed, "Here lies the person who could not stop talking about a discarded cigarette butt that had no significance to anything. RIP"

Well, as you know, I did not start the post. You only cut my part out to twist things, like you normally do. Why don't you try again but this time tell the person who started this.

Nobody has said that this Cigarette Butt is nor relevant. Unless of course you can prove that, which you never do. You just keep twisting things to avoid the truth.

[thailandchilli]

You may or may not be who you say but this does not mean you know this case. How long have you been an Investigator in this case?

To back your statement just show me one Media Report who says this Crime Scene has been Contaminated!

I'm waiting!

Your wait is over GB - I have JUST ONE:

<<<<26) The Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post or Phuketwan publications will be deleted from the forum.>>>>

This media report says the crime scene was contaminated. Also, that CONTRARY to media reports, the island was never locked down.

Where do you think the media got the idea the island was locked down? The Police.

You guys keep going on about the media getting the story wrong etc - YES, because the RTP keep feeding them lies and Misinformation.

But I am sure you guys will be able to discredit Phuketwan because they are being sued by the military at the moment, ergo they must be a pack of liars.

Heres a couple more for the mix

They did not seal the island, contaminated the crime scene http://www.dailymail...eak-scared.html

reports described how the crime scene was contaminated, how the police failed to cordon off the island http://thediplomat.c...land-of-smiles/

[StealthEnergiser]

kotao.jpg

noms7.jpg

My zoom is not good- could the the small axes they are using have been used used on David.

I also went through Hannahs' photo's and she isn't wearing red lipstick that was said to be on the cigarette butt with her dna?

Not sure about if those small picks could have been used i think they are used by rock climbers but I have never seen one close up in real life but i think the murder weapon used on david was a knife.

[happy Joe]

If GB and AleG and JTJ were leading the investigation, it would be easy peazy. Top bananas in Bangkok (after conferring with Headman by phone) would tell inspectors what they want, and the 3 amigos would dutifully come up with those results, and not even bother looking at or pursuing any leads which point elsewhere. Indeed, they could just go to the beach and sip energy drinks and gauk at the pretty farang gals walking by in bikinis, and they'd get their jobs done. Check's in the mail, thanks guys.

Q from Bkk: "what did you do today?"

A from inspectors: "We didn't look at video from the beach, the pier and from the AC bar"

Q: "Good, keep up the good work. Oh, and what do you plan to do tomorrow?"

A: "We plan to make sure that 2/3 of the CCTV cameras don't have any footage. We decided we'll tell the court that they're all broken."

Q. "Very good plan. You each get a raise and a promotion for your exemplary work. And, when the Burmese are found guilty, there's a bonus prize for each of you, courtesy of a donor who will remain anonymous. ha ha, chuckle, chortle, ha ha. Sorry, I just spilled my Red Bull on my lap."

And if you were in charge of this investigation the culprit would be the son of the chief under it is necessarily suspect to be born lucky ...

Recall that the police accused the two Burmese presenting formal evidence of their views. In these evidence there soliciting DNA correspondence, retracted confessions (confessions are always retracted after the advice of counsel) and a number of video images that we don't know.

The defense has rightly required verification of such evidence. I believe that any sure affirmation of guilt or inocence before knowing the results would fall within speculation and gossip.

[GOLDBUGGY]

And your qualifications and experience are? Mine was in law enforcement for 30 years, and when I left I held the rank of Detective Sergeant, was a qualified crash, crime scene, fraud and homicide investigator, after having undertaken the necessary specialist courses. I was also the lead investigator in many, many cases. So I think I have a bit of an idea about what I have stated. If I may, I'd suggest you read my post and understand what the following means.

"Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there. Investigators can even compromise and contaminate the scene with their own footprints." Also this, "the crime scene has been contaminated thus compromising the investigation given what is now known to have occurred there. As such, one could reasonably state that any evidence collected there and possibly elsewhere, has been compromised.

Now I have no problem with someone, who has the experience, knowledge and qualifications critiquing what I have written but when someone, who clearly has no idea of what they are on about, then I suggest you do not enter the debate in relation to crime scene investigation unless you know what you are talking about, which quite clearly, you do not.

As for your examples and the questions asked, I have no intention of fuelling the fire by even contemplating providing an answer to such childish and irrelevant requests. I'd suggest you learn and understand legal definitions and maybe then you won't engage in such written foolishness.

You may or may not be who you say but this does not mean you know this case. How long have you been an Investigator in this case?

To back your statement just show me one Media Report who says this Crime Scene has been Contaminated!

I'm waiting!

Your wait is over GB - I have JUST ONE:

<<<<26) The Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post or Phuketwan publications will be deleted from the forum.>>>>

This media report says the crime scene was contaminated. Also, that CONTRARY to media reports, the island was never locked down.

Where do you think the media got the idea the island was locked down? The Police.

You guys keep going on about the media getting the story wrong etc - YES, because the RTP keep feeding them lies and Misinformation.

But I am sure you guys will be able to discredit Phuketwan because they are being sued by the military at the moment, ergo they must be a pack of liars.

Yes you do have a Media Report that says "Contaminated Crime Scene": I will give you that as I have never seen it written that way before.

But as an experience Detective, or as you claim at least, did you notice him quoting some Official or Police Man involved in this case when he made this statement and claim? Because I did not!

So his saying that the Crime Scene was Contaminate was just his own opinion, which we have many here from all different shapes and sizes.

I am surprise as a Trained Investigative Profession of 30 years you never notice something as simple as that.

[smedly]

Sean McAnna never said he knew who carried out the murders; again, the same pattern of taking misinformation as true and deriving conclusions from it.

It's appalling how he keeps being stalked (and by the looks of it by some of the people posting in this thread) because he refuses to say what the conspiracy theorists want him to say. Here's a clue, maybe what he says is the truth and you are all wrong.

He was there, you are just weaving theories which, as shown above, are more often than not based on things that never happened.

The same thing, as far as I know, happened with Warot AKA Nomsod, he dared defend his uncle at CSI-LA and next thing he knew the police was tipped off by social media that he was the man on the "Running Man" video; it stinks of a hatchet job, the most egregious of them but not the only one related the social media "investigation" of the crime.

What was Sean referring to when he stated "owner of ac bar did it" then?

Hang on a minute, isn't the guy on the left in the picture part of the police investigation team seen in numerous pictures and video entering and walking all over the crime scene ?

[scorecard]

If GB and AleG and JTJ were leading the investigation, it would be easy peazy. Top bananas in Bangkok (after conferring with Headman by phone) would tell inspectors what they want, and the 3 amigos would dutifully come up with those results, and not even bother looking at or pursuing any leads which point elsewhere. Indeed, they could just go to the beach and sip energy drinks and gauk at the pretty farang gals walking by in bikinis, and they'd get their jobs done. Check's in the mail, thanks guys.

Q from Bkk: "what did you do today?"

A from inspectors: "We didn't look at video from the beach, the pier and from the AC bar"

Q: "Good, keep up the good work. Oh, and what do you plan to do tomorrow?"

A: "We plan to make sure that 2/3 of the CCTV cameras don't have any footage. We decided we'll tell the court that they're all broken."

Q. "Very good plan. You each get a raise and a promotion for your exemplary work. And, when the Burmese are found guilty, there's a bonus prize for each of you, courtesy of a donor who will remain anonymous. ha ha, chuckle, chortle, ha ha. Sorry, I just spilled my Red Bull on my lap."

And if you were in charge of this investigation the culprit would be the son of the chief under it is necessarily suspect to be born lucky ...

Recall that the police accused the two Burmese presenting formal evidence of their views. In these evidence there soliciting DNA correspondence, retracted confessions (confessions are always retracted after the advice of counsel) and a number of video images that we don't know.

The defense has rightly required verification of such evidence. I believe that any sure affirmation of guilt or inocence before knowing the results would fall within speculation and gossip.

Well your using speculation when you say "...(confessions are always retracted after the advice of counsel)..."

[Lancashireman]

If GB and AleG and JTJ were leading the investigation, it would be easy peazy. Top bananas in Bangkok (after conferring with Headman by phone) would tell inspectors what they want, and the 3 amigos would dutifully come up with those results, and not even bother looking at or pursuing any leads which point elsewhere. Indeed, they could just go to the beach and sip energy drinks and gauk at the pretty farang gals walking by in bikinis, and they'd get their jobs done. Check's in the mail, thanks guys.

Q from Bkk: "what did you do today?"

A from inspectors: "We didn't look at video from the beach, the pier and from the AC bar"

Q: "Good, keep up the good work. Oh, and what do you plan to do tomorrow?"

A: "We plan to make sure that 2/3 of the CCTV cameras don't have any footage. We decided we'll tell the court that they're all broken."

Q. "Very good plan. You each get a raise and a promotion for your exemplary work. And, when the Burmese are found guilty, there's a bonus prize for each of you, courtesy of a donor who will remain anonymous. ha ha, chuckle, chortle, ha ha. Sorry, I just spilled my Red Bull on my lap."

Lovely satire...good post...

[stephenterry]

Both you guys bring up a very interesting point. Hannah arrives at the Bar at 1:00 am, with friends. David shows up by himself at 2:00 am. Yet from what I have read nobody has mentioned an exact time in which they left. That seems odd to me. I mean even if Hannah's Friends left earlier, and she was alone with David, Hannah strikes me as the kind of person who would stand out in a crowd.

Surely someone who was sitting their and drinking, or staff, would have noticed the time she left.To be honest all that I recall seeing is estimated times. Perhaps they know the exact time, and are not saying yet. Perhaps they don't know. But this part just strikes me as being odd.

About a thousand posts ago there is a report that states Hannah's friends said she left the bar with David between 3-4 am. Not sure it has been verified, independently.

If factual, you have a time line of c.3.30 until 5 am when the B2 were found asleep by their housemate. That's if they spent c.3 hours just sitting on the beach from 1 am.

What is interesting is the B2 are reported to have said that they went for a swim near the AC bar and had their clothes and guitar stolen. That report has not been followed up. If factual, it could be reasoned that the B2 left the crime scene beach possibly well before H&D left the AC bar.

Most probably, outside DNA verification, key circumstantial evidence would be timelines and motivational behaviour. What I am seeing from these posts are several instances of unusual behaviour by locals that do not accord with the B2 being in the frame. For example, why would Sean be threatened and chased off the island PDQ, if a couple of Burmese were the culprits? I'm sure if you wade through all of the posts like I have, you'll find others that just don't add up to the culprits being the B2.

If and when the DNA evidence is either substantiated or otherwise, maybe more clarity would emerge.

[Rykbanlor]

Now I have no problem with someone, who has the experience, knowledge and qualifications critiquing what I have written but when someone, who clearly has no idea of what they are on about, then I suggest you do not enter the debate in relation to crime scene investigation unless you know what you are talking about, which quite clearly, you do not.

As for your examples and the questions asked, I have no intention of fuelling the fire by even contemplating providing an answer to such childish and irrelevant requests. I'd suggest you learn and understand legal definitions and maybe then you won't engage in such written foolishness.

Yes you do have a Media Report that says "Contaminated Crime Scene": I will give you that as I have never seen it written that way before.

But as an experience Detective, or as you claim at least, did you notice him quoting some Official or Police Man involved in this case when he made this statement and claim? Because I did not!

So his saying that the Crime Scene was Contaminate was just his own opinion, which we have many here from all different shapes and sizes.

I am surprise as a Trained Investigative Profession of 30 years you never notice something as simple as that.

I have never claimed to be a detective of 30 years, I'm only 37, you may have me confused with someone. Also, do you think the Police would voluntarily admit to letting their crime scene get contaminated. You do understand that not all news comes verbatim from a cops mouth. How do you think investigative reporters would get by, if they could only print news that had been spoken by an official. Think GB, before you give daft answers.

[happy Joe]

Well your using speculation when you say "...(confessions are always retracted after the advice of counsel)..."

No.

I do not believe in conspiracy and in my opinion confessions refuted after consulting a lawyer remain confessions.

But so far I find normal and healthy that the defense can verify the evidence adduced. After they will choose to plead guilty or not

And so I expect the result of the expertise against to have a final opinion.

[AleG]

Oh Dear!

It was no great leap to foresee that the meaning of Jimmy's excellent analogy would go right over your head. I suspect that to you, analogy is something you'd take anti histamines for.

End result the same, you, as usual, end up with a red face, a runny nose and are crying all the time.

The point of his post was to demonstrate, in a manner that even the simplest and blindest on this forum would understand, the principle of openness and transparency and why the lack of this has polarised this debate so badly!

That this was too much to grasp is no great surprise to most of us on here and more than demonstrates your inability to grasp simple, let alone slightly complex, issues.

I hear that there's still plenty of space left in the "Basic Playdough Shapes" forum! Go grab a space somewhere you can contribute in a meaningful fashion!

No, that´s not it; what polarizes this debate is that some people try their damnedest to make it an Us vs. Them issue, were "Us" are righteous and just and anyone that doesn't play along is evil, like here.

John Cleese explained that attitude brilliantly:

[sartoric]

Both you guys bring up a very interesting point. Hannah arrives at the Bar at 1:00 am, with friends. David shows up by himself at 2:00 am. Yet from what I have read nobody has mentioned an exact time in which they left. That seems odd to me. I mean even if Hannah's Friends left earlier, and she was alone with David, Hannah strikes me as the kind of person who would stand out in a crowd.

Surely someone who was sitting their and drinking, or staff, would have noticed the time she left.To be honest all that I recall seeing is estimated times. Perhaps they know the exact time, and are not saying yet. Perhaps they don't know. But this part just strikes me as being odd.

About a thousand posts ago there is a report that states Hannah's friends said she left the bar with David between 3-4 am. Not sure it has been verified, independently.

If factual, you have a time line of c.3.30 until 5 am when the B2 were found asleep by their housemate. That's if they spent c.3 hours just sitting on the beach from 1 am.

What is interesting is the B2 are reported to have said that they went for a swim near the AC bar and had their clothes and guitar stolen. That report has not been followed up. If factual, it could be reasoned that the B2 left the crime scene beach possibly well before H&D left the AC bar.

Most probably, outside DNA verification, key circumstantial evidence would be timelines and motivational behaviour. What I am seeing from these posts are several instances of unusual behaviour by locals that do not accord with the B2 being in the frame. For example, why would Sean be threatened and chased off the island PDQ, if a couple of Burmese were the culprits? I'm sure if you wade through all of the posts like I have, you'll find others that just don't add up to the culprits being the B2.

If and when the DNA evidence is either substantiated or otherwise, maybe more clarity would emerge.

Just my opinion, but I think a hanged Sean would have been a much more convenient scapegoat, and much quicker than finding evidence to implicate 2 Burmese men

[sartoric]

Well your using speculation when you say "...(confessions are always retracted after the advice of counsel)..."

No.

I do not believe in conspiracy and in my opinion confessions refuted after consulting a lawyer remain confessions.

But so far I find normal and healthy that the defense can verify the evidence adduced. After they will choose to plead guilty or not

And so I expect the result of the expertise against to have a final opinion.

Confessions retracted when obtained by threats of death and torture should stand ?

Perhaps the B2 were intimidated enough to maintain the confession until they felt comfortable about exactly who they were talking to.

The defence has been able to question selected CCTV footage, some photos and police testimony. IMO there is a lot of evidence either not collected, used up, not checked, or conveniently overlooked. That's not normal and healthy to me.

Good that Khun Pornthip will check DNA samples and testify for the defence. I believe the chain of custody for those samples is weak though, and she can only work with what she's given.

[saminoz]

Oh Dear!

It was no great leap to foresee that the meaning of Jimmy's excellent analogy would go right over your head. I suspect that to you, analogy is something you'd take anti histamines for.

End result the same, you, as usual, end up with a red face, a runny nose and are crying all the time.

The point of his post was to demonstrate, in a manner that even the simplest and blindest on this forum would understand, the principle of openness and transparency and why the lack of this has polarised this debate so badly!

That this was too much to grasp is no great surprise to most of us on here and more than demonstrates your inability to grasp simple, let alone slightly complex, issues.

I hear that there's still plenty of space left in the "Basic Playdough Shapes" forum! Go grab a space somewhere you can contribute in a meaningful fashion!

No, that´s not it; what polarizes this debate is that some people try their damnedest to make it an Us vs. Them issue, were "Us" are righteous and just and anyone that doesn't play along is evil, like here.

John Cleese explained that attitude brilliantly:

Bp9sLP0IcAAAV79.jpg

I think you slightly missed the point of my post too Aleg, but thank you for telling me what I am thinking!

I won't read anything into the fact that you chose to quote, instead of a subject matter expert, a comedian (albeit a very good comedian)!

I don't see any real signs of anyone being called evil on here (OK, I also felt uncomfortable with DarkNight666's RTP/Killer tag, (but look at his handle for dog's sake! ) which I felt was borne out of frustration) and polarisation inevitably leads to an Us vs. Them scenario IMHO.

However, good post Sir and I certainly applaud your use of the reference material.

Now I shall look for a sub thread where I can legitimately call up the excellent Monty Python's Argument Sketch!

[Si Thea01]

GOLDBUGGY states:-

Quote>You may or may not be who you say but this does not mean you know this case. How long have you been an Investigator in this case?

To back your statement just show me one Media Report who says this Crime Scene has been Contaminated!

I'm waiting!< End quote

Sorry if I've kept you waiting.

Let me suggest that you sit down, take a deep breath and I will explain, as simply as I can, what you seem to have difficulty in understanding but firstly you must ensure you thoughts are not affected in any way by any substances that are mind altering. It doesn't matter one iota if you cannot accept my qualifications and experience, that is you prerogative but at least I know where I am coming from, it is quite evident that you do not, it appears you don't know if you're Arthur or Martha. If you don't understand that, it means confused ok.

No matter what is pointed out to you, you are not willing to learn or accept anything unless it follows you train of thought. Can't you think logically or outside the square? Have you ever heard the saying that humans never stop learning, we will learn something new everyday, it is only a fool who does not.

I know only what I have read, heard and seen, does this not apply to yourself, or have you been observing a different case? I would say that given your question, it appears you are, or at the least you have your head stuck in the sand (No pun intended). What is your reason for continually asking childish, irrelevant and inane questions? I told you before I won't answer these because you well know that you are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Now for your lesson. But don't worry, I will provide the answers, so you won't have to wrack your brain or look foolish if you fail.

1. The most important role when attending a crime scene is to protect the area. Why?

A. To keep the relevant evidence uncontaminated until it can be recorded and collected.

2. When does the protection of the scene begin and cease?

A. From the time of arrival of the first police officer and ends when police relinquish control of it.

3. Why is it necessary to protect the scene?

A. because a successful prosecution can hinge on the condition of the evidence at the time it is collected.

4. Provide the legal definition of contamination? A hint, do not refer to the dictionary definition.

A. Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there.

5. What did you see in the photographs of the crime scene at the time of Police initially attending and shortly thereafter?

A. Civilians, not involved in the investigation walking about the scene. later many, many spectators also roaming in and about the area.

6. Given what you have seen and learnt, would this be something introduced to the scene, which was previously not there? (multi choice answer, 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. maybe.)

A. 1, yes.

7. Was the clothing placed into a neat pile for photographic purposes, if this occurred what does this indicate?

A. it would indicate that someone has moved it, thus contamination arises and that the evidence was compromised.

8. Was the alleged murder weapon removed and then brought back to the scene?

A. According to police, yes, therefore again contaminated and compromised.

Hopefully this is sufficient for you to understand the situation but given your past responses, I doubt it. Now to answer you last question. I do not need a media report to adjudge that the crime scene was severely contaminated and comprised, I just have to fall back on my experience, see what has been presented by the media and use common sense, the latter unfortunately I can see is not very common.

If you still want to carry on in such an adverse manner, then feel free to do so but it will only highlight that you have no idea of what you are on about and that all you can do, instead of providing legitimate debate, is respond in a manner that shows you have little, if any knowledge of crime scene investigation or what the legal definitions of words are. it also highlights that you are unwilling to learn anything even when shown you still will not accept that someone else can be right,. I can be wrong, and have been on a number of occasions but I learn and try not to make the same mistakes again, something you should try to do.

Oh by the way, I sat and passed the detectives' exam in 1982 and was designated the same year. Can you tell me the year you sat for the TVF detectives' exam and if you were ever designated as a fully fledged armchair detective or did you fail? I think the latter, as you posts give a clear indication of this. Now off you go and if you have learnt something today, say thank you..

Edited July 30, 2015 by Si Thea01

[xylophone]

You may or may not be who you say but this does not mean you know this case. How long have you been an Investigator in this case?

And your qualifications and experience are? Mine was in law enforcement for 30 years, and when I left I held the rank of Detective Sergeant, was a qualified crash, crime scene, fraud and homicide investigator, after having undertaken the necessary specialist courses. I was also the lead investigator in many, many cases. So I think I have a bit of an idea about what I have stated. If I may, I'd suggest you read my post and understand what the following means.

"Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there. Investigators can even compromise and contaminate the scene with their own footprints." Also this, "the crime scene has been contaminated thus compromising the investigation given what is now known to have occurred there. As such, one could reasonably state that any evidence collected there and possibly elsewhere, has been compromised.

Now I have no problem with someone, who has the experience, knowledge and qualifications critiquing what I have written but when someone, who clearly has no idea of what they are on about, then I suggest you do not enter the debate in relation to crime scene investigation unless you know what you are talking about, which quite clearly, you do not.

As for your examples and the questions asked, I have no intention of fuelling the fire by even contemplating providing an answer to such childish and irrelevant requests. I'd suggest you learn and understand legal definitions and maybe then you won't engage in such written foolishness.

To back your statement just show me one Media Report who says this Crime Scene has been Contaminated!

I'm waiting!

Your wait is over GB - I have JUST ONE:

<<<<26) The Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post or Phuketwan publications will be deleted from the forum.>>>>

This media report says the crime scene was contaminated. Also, that CONTRARY to media reports, the island was never locked down.

Where do you think the media got the idea the island was locked down? The Police.

You guys keep going on about the media getting the story wrong etc - YES, because the RTP keep feeding them lies and Misinformation.

But I am sure you guys will be able to discredit Phuketwan because they are being sued by the military at the moment, ergo they must be a pack of liars.

Yes you do have a Media Report that says "Contaminated Crime Scene": I will give you that as I have never seen it written that way before.

But as an experience Detective, or as you claim at least, did you notice him quoting some Official or Police Man involved in this case when he made this statement and claim? Because I did not!

So his saying that the Crime Scene was Contaminate was just his own opinion, which we have many here from all different shapes and sizes.

I am surprise as a Trained Investigative Profession of 30 years you never notice something as simple as that.

It was also the opinion of the Chief Forensic Pathologist, Pornthip Rojanasunand, as posted way back when she criticised the way police had handled the case, especially as they had no one qualified to carry out crime scene examination.