Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[stephenterry]

If you are going to correct people at least try to have a passing acquaintance with the facts. The "all DNA evidence is used up" disinformation has already been disproved for weeks. The defense was allowed to retest all the DNA evidence, including the one from inside the body of the rape victim:

“The court said that lawyers are free to request all the DNA samples for independent DNA testing at any time,”

The defence team in the Koh Tao murder trial has dramatically reversed its demands to retest the DNA found on the body of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge, and said they “don’t need it any more.”

Besides that, you just made up the "fact" that the defense has a non-match of the DNA, didn't you? If not provide a cite for that claim. Also those other pieces of evidence that you say there's no need to retest, they have already been sent to retest:

"Mr Chomphuchat said that the alleged murder weapon, a garden hoe, which had never been properly forensically examined by police, and some clothing found at the scene, had already been retested by government forensic officers but no results had yet been forwarded to the defence lawyers."

Funnily enough, I am the one being accused of telling "porkies".

That's incorrect. the DNA samples had been used up or lost. That's factual. What was remaining was the profiles. I think you need to be aquainted with the facts. If you read the reports from court it is made quite clear that the defence counsel doesn't need any more re-testing on what's left. He has enough to prove the B2's innocence. That's also a factual statement.

And yes, you may not be telling porkies, but you don't have any grasp on factuality.

I noticed something distinctly lacking on your response, citations; that being third party account that supports your claims; you know, like I did to disprove your claims.

Even your own post disproves your claims, this "the DNA samples had been used up or lost" directly contradicts this "the defence counsel doesn't need any more re-testing on what's left", which one is it? all gone or something left?

So go on then, where is your source that there are no DNA samples left to test and that the defense has already obtained a negative match... presumably as compared with those DNA samples that don't exist, nice feat that.

I see that in a subsequent post you complain about people posting misinformation... so once again, you claimed the defense already has DNA results that clear the men on trial, source?

It's all on record if you care to trawl back through the court disclosures. I'm not going to, and I do not have to justify myself to you or anyone. On a point of accuracy your assertions are false.

[phuketandsee]

Exactly, they didn't like what they found on it.

Edited August 27, 2015 by phuketandsee

[stephenterry]

Top ten hits. Look, I'm no police detective but common sense would tell me:

1.Secure the crime scene.

2. Do NOT allow ANYONE access.

3. Call BKK and request immediate forensic police.

4. Confiscate all CCTV

5 Close down the island. Prevent any one from leaving.

6. Repeat 1 & 2 until arrival.

7. Start investigation of possible suspects.

8. Examine ALL cctv.

9. Ask for witnesses

10. Follow all leads

So what did they do?

Ignored all of the above.

Edited August 27, 2015 by stephenterry

[stephenterry]

Top ten hits. Look, I'm no police detective but common sense would tell me:

1.Secure the crime scene.

2. Do NOT allow ANYONE access.

3. Call BKK and request immediate forensic police.

4. Confiscate all CCTV

5 Close down the island. Prevent any one from leaving.

6. Repeat 1 & 2 until arrival.

7. Start investigation of possible suspects.

8. Examine ALL cctv.

9. Ask for witnesses

10. Follow all leads

Back home that is the procedure, but here..........

yeah, someone provides enough money to ignore anything that could implicate the perps. If that sounds cynical, it is also what happens here...

[AleG]

I noticed something distinctly lacking on your response, citations; that being third party account that supports your claims; you know, like I did to disprove your claims.

Even your own post disproves your claims, this "the DNA samples had been used up or lost" directly contradicts this "the defence counsel doesn't need any more re-testing on what's left", which one is it? all gone or something left?

So go on then, where is your source that there are no DNA samples left to test and that the defense has already obtained a negative match... presumably as compared with those DNA samples that don't exist, nice feat that.

I see that in a subsequent post you complain about people posting misinformation... so once again, you claimed the defense already has DNA results that clear the men on trial, source?

Yell AleG can you explain this

Mr Chomphuchat said that the alleged murder weapon, a garden hoe, which had never been properly forensically examined by police, and some clothing found at the scene

Why in nearly a year have the police failed to forensically examine the murder weapon FF Sake Why????? Can you in all your days tell me why???

Cut your cr@p digging and tell me WHY oh WHY oh Why.......

You cant can you..... Nobody can....... Nobody knows...... The weapon that was handled by the KILLER NOT tested forensically.

"Never properly forensically examined" (as claimed by the defense lawyer) does not equal "NOT tested forensically".

The lawyer, with a vested interest in undermining the police investigation, is making a judgement on the appropriateness of the forensic examination, which surprise surprise undermines the police investigation. What he certainly didn't say was that the hoe was NOT tested forensically.

That's the thing with spin, it gets to a point everything is so blurred you can't tell anything apart.

[IslandLover]

We must all remember we only eat what we are fed through the news channels. However it does appear that way....... The fact that Sky News has bailed out since their translator was warned by the Mafia to do a runner.

Looks like Jonathan Samuels has lost his bottle and gone the same way. As well as the BBC Guy. This surprises me considering its by far the most high profile case involving British Citizens to come out of Thailand for years.

Strange in my honest opinion. Very Strange. they spend millions following Oscar case but cant afford a ticket to this one

I thought Sarah Yuen was still reporting on the trial for Sky News (as well as EDP)?

Edited August 27, 2015 by IslandLover

[stephenterry]

It's all on record if you care to trawl back through the court disclosures. I'm not going to, and I do not have to justify myself to you or anyone. On a point of accuracy your assertions are false.

You wrote a check you couldn't cash, got found out and now you run to the "I don't have to justify myself" escape door.

If you are going to call people dishonest and despicable for allegedly spreading misinformation, when you are caught doing what you accuse others of, yes, you have some justification to do; at the very least to yourself.

Okay, remind me what I need to justify with your alternative theories. Truth. The RTP said everything was available to the defence. Untrue - the key, critical Hannah DNA samples weren't. Been used up or (in the case of the blond hair found in her hand) was lost. Really? Only the profiles remained.

That is a matter of record. Do I need to go on?

The defence team issued a statement that they didn't need to check the crap that was left behind - hence their reliance on the B2 samples obtained in court. probably everyone and their brother would reason that any DNA samples freely given would indicate that the givers were innocent.

Using your phraseology, it is damning evidence.

[Darkknight666]

"The defence counsel stated he didn't need any more DNA evidence -so my reading is that he is in the know -so to speak. The results of the CofC samples provided by the B2 in court will be returned directly to the defence. We will find out later, the outcome".

I know the results will go directly to the defense. My concern is how secure is the chain from the court to whoever tested them. But, as you say, we will find out soon enough.

It went c/o ms porntip who is a defence witness. I would trust her. On 20 June 2014, media reports stated that Ponthip was recently ordered by Thailand's ruling junta to take over the Thai Forensics Institute and to "make a clean sweep" in reorganizing it.

Lucky for us these guys aren't used to having their stories questioned, but like my mother in law, bless her.

The RTP (well the majority) probably think what they have provided is sufficient, because it would be if the outside world wasn't being so nosey, pesky farangs thinking we deserve Justice when our own are killed. :

Only problem with this is the decision lies in the hands of three people who grew up in this system, Who also aren't used to being questioned. I will be shocked if the court dismissed the case, and I almost would have hope for future justice in Thailand, almost.

[stephenterry]

I'm going to harp on about DNA evidence. So far, the RTP have not provided any justification to the court that validates their assertion the B2 DNA matches that found on Hannah.

To me, that is critical - and unless it happens, the B2 have no case to answer. Especially when the defence show a 'no-match' which is implied by their revelations to date.

Everything else is immaterial to the accusation that the B2 raped Hannah. And went on to brutally kill her.

[loonodingle]

It's all on record if you care to trawl back through the court disclosures. I'm not going to, and I do not have to justify myself to you or anyone. On a point of accuracy your assertions are false.

You wrote a check you couldn't cash, got found out and now you run to the "I don't have to justify myself" escape door.

If you are going to call people dishonest and despicable for allegedly spreading misinformation, when you are caught doing what you accuse others of, yes, you have some justification to do; at the very least to yourself.

Okay, remind me what I need to justify with your alternative theories. Truth. The RTP said everything was available to the defence. Untrue - the key, critical Hannah DNA samples weren't. Been used up or (in the case of the blond hair found in her hand) was lost. Really? Only the profiles remained.

That is a matter of record. Do I need to go on?

The defence team issued a statement that they didn't need to check the crap that was left behind - hence their reliance on the B2 samples obtained in court. probably everyone and their brother would reason that any DNA samples freely given would indicate that the givers were innocent.

Using your phraseology, it is damning evidence.

Here Here!!

Don't know why we are bother engaging this ~'#'@'#''~'##

[boomerangutang]

That phone in question being in their possession since the night of the murders is beyond any doubt by now, even the defense admits to it. The ownership is the only thing left to establish factually, and if it was in fact David Miller's phone it links the two Burmese directly to one of the victims; and considering the order of events the defense would have to come up with a darn good explanation over how that came to happen without the defendants looking suspicious.

If it's proven that the phone was David's and that it was not a 'plant' (two big 'IF's'), then the most it shows is that the phone was either stolen from David or given to them by David. If stolen, this becomes a case of whether one or two young men stole a phone from before or after a crime scene. I recall that very soon after the crime, a mobile phone allegedly belonging to David was found at the crime scene. Would RTP plant a phone in the hopes of framing two migrants? If you ask me, the answer is 'YES.' Remember, this is the phone that was first announced as belonging to Hannah - until social media let out a scream soon after, and RTP realized their mistake, and switched their story, to say it was David's.

Notice how, now that the "irrefutable" DNA evidence has been shown to have more holes than Swiss cheese, that a damaged phone supposedly belonging to DM and purportedly found near the residence of the suspects have suddenly become very "damning" evidence. And yet you know who claims that others are grasping at straws

The defense was offered a retesting of all the DNA evidence, the one from inside the rape victim in particular, they refused. You call that a refutation?

I'll say it again: The defense doesn't trust DNA typed/handled by subjective entities. The judge appears to exact tight parameters on everything regarding the DNA. He specifies who or what samples can be tested, and who cannot be tested (anyone connected to the headman, for example). All DNA re-examined will be handled by Thai officials. Thai officials have proven they cannot be trusted with handling DNA. As for DNA in/on Hannah: it's not even sure whether any samples remain (all used up? lost?). The only remaining hope for reliable DNA typing is with Brit forensics.

[loonodingle]

That phone in question being in their possession since the night of the murders is beyond any doubt by now, even the defense admits to it. The ownership is the only thing left to establish factually, and if it was in fact David Miller's phone it links the two Burmese directly to one of the victims; and considering the order of events the defense would have to come up with a darn good explanation over how that came to happen without the defendants looking suspicious.

If it's proven that the phone was David's and that it was not a 'plant' (two big 'IF's'), then the most it shows is that the phone was either stolen from David or given to them by David. If stolen, this becomes a case of whether one or two young men stole a phone from before or after a crime scene. I recall that very soon after the crime, a mobile phone allegedly belonging to David was found at the crime scene. Would RTP plant a phone in the hopes of framing two migrants? If you ask me, the answer is 'YES.' Remember, this is the phone that was first announced as belonging to Hannah - until social media let out a scream soon after, and RTP realized their mistake, and switched their story, to say it was David's.

Notice how, now that the "irrefutable" DNA evidence has been shown to have more holes than Swiss cheese, that a damaged phone supposedly belonging to DM and purportedly found near the residence of the suspects have suddenly become very "damning" evidence. And yet you know who claims that others are grasping at straws

The defense was offered a retesting of all the DNA evidence, the one from inside the rape victim in particular, they refused. You call that a refutation?

I'll say it again: The defense doesn't trust DNA typed/handled by subjective entities. The judge appears to exact tight parameters on everything regarding the DNA. He specifies who or what samples can be tested, and who cannot be tested (anyone connected to the headman, for example). All DNA re-examined will be handled by Thai officials. Thai officials have proven they cannot be trusted with handling DNA. As for DNA in/on Hannah: it's not even sure whether any samples remain (all used up? lost?). The only remaining hope for reliable DNA typing is with Brit forensics.

Actually your wrong on one point. They can trust the DNA taken in court in front of the judge. They sealed it as per international standards and probably escorted it to bangkok with the Forensic specialist from Bangkok. They maintained a chain all the way. And now they have their results. A copy will go to tbe court I suggest. This is prove DNA. its not been wheeled around on a shopping trolley. Its how it should be. So I suggest it doesnt match what the prosecution submitted.

I maybe wrong. .. but then there again I'm perfect... lol... no seriously. .. this is why they shelved the rest of it. Its irrelevant now.

[IslandLover]

What about the sunglasses that Wai Phyo allegedly stole from David Miller, for which he has been officially charged? Any mention of these yet?

[AleG]

That phone in question being in their possession since the night of the murders is beyond any doubt by now, even the defense admits to it. The ownership is the only thing left to establish factually, and if it was in fact David Miller's phone it links the two Burmese directly to one of the victims; and considering the order of events the defense would have to come up with a darn good explanation over how that came to happen without the defendants looking suspicious.

If it's proven that the phone was David's and that it was not a 'plant' (two big 'IF's'), then the most it shows is that the phone was either stolen from David or given to them by David. If stolen, this becomes a case of whether one or two young men stole a phone from before or after a crime scene. I recall that very soon after the crime, a mobile phone allegedly belonging to David was found at the crime scene. Would RTP plant a phone in the hopes of framing two migrants? If you ask me, the answer is 'YES.' Remember, this is the phone that was first announced as belonging to Hannah - until social media let out a scream soon after, and RTP realized their mistake, and switched their story, to say it was David's.

Notice how, now that the "irrefutable" DNA evidence has been shown to have more holes than Swiss cheese, that a damaged phone supposedly belonging to DM and purportedly found near the residence of the suspects have suddenly become very "damning" evidence. And yet you know who claims that others are grasping at straws

The defense was offered a retesting of all the DNA evidence, the one from inside the rape victim in particular, they refused. You call that a refutation?

I'll say it again: The defense doesn't trust DNA typed/handled by subjective entities. The judge appears to exact tight parameters on everything regarding the DNA. He specifies who or what samples can be tested, and who cannot be tested (anyone connected to the headman, for example). All DNA re-examined will be handled by Thai officials. Thai officials have proven they cannot be trusted with handling DNA. As for DNA in/on Hannah: it's not even sure whether any samples remain (all used up? lost?). The only remaining hope for reliable DNA typing is with Brit forensics.

Today's "Boomerangutang comes up with an absurd rationalization" is: they stole the phone or David gave it to them.

And then they smashed their prize and tried to get rid of it.

And just by sheer, unthinkable, coincidence out of all the people on the island the police happened to pick up the two men that stole or were freely given the phone by Miller but had nothing to do with the murders as scapegoats.

Right

[boomerangutang]

I noticed something distinctly lacking on your response, citations; that being third party account that supports your claims; you know, like I did to disprove your claims. Even your own post disproves your claims, this "the DNA samples had been used up or lost" directly contradicts this "the defence counsel doesn't need any more re-testing on what's left", which one is it? all gone or something left?

It's hard to hit a moving target. On the fourth day of the trial, July 10, a primary RTP investigator and witness for the prosecution stated in court that many/most DNA samples were used-up or lost. He also stated the blond hair was lost. That evening, his boss Somyot stepped up to a microphone and claimed that nothing was lost. Which is it?

Then there's the prickly issue of what the judges will accept. Will they accept statements by Police re; DNA typing/matches? (processed in Thai labs overseen by RTP from samples which are lost or used-up?) OR will the judges give more credence to DNA findings submitted by Brit experts - if the two sets don't agree? Or, will the judges simply throw up their hands and say, because there are discrepancies, they'll disregard DNA findings altogether?

Perhaps the reason the prosecution is doing such a slovenly job is they're assured of a guilty verdict. Why act with alacrity (why sweat the little stuff?) when the outcome is assured? I hope that's not true, but it would explain why they're so off the ball.

[StealthEnergiser]

[stephenterry]

What about the sunglasses that Wai Phyo allegedly stole from David Miller, for which he has been officially charged? Any mention of these yet?

as a leg would say it's damning evidence.

[AleG]

It's all on record if you care to trawl back through the court disclosures. I'm not going to, and I do not have to justify myself to you or anyone. On a point of accuracy your assertions are false.

You wrote a check you couldn't cash, got found out and now you run to the "I don't have to justify myself" escape door.

If you are going to call people dishonest and despicable for allegedly spreading misinformation, when you are caught doing what you accuse others of, yes, you have some justification to do; at the very least to yourself.

Okay, remind me what I need to justify with your alternative theories. Truth. The RTP said everything was available to the defence. Untrue - the key, critical Hannah DNA samples weren't. Been used up or (in the case of the blond hair found in her hand) was lost. Really? Only the profiles remained.

That is a matter of record. Do I need to go on?

The defence team issued a statement that they didn't need to check the crap that was left behind - hence their reliance on the B2 samples obtained in court. probably everyone and their brother would reason that any DNA samples freely given would indicate that the givers were innocent.

Using your phraseology, it is damning evidence.

You claimed there is no DNA available for retesting(1), you also claimed that the defense has already verified a no-match between the DNA from the two Burmese and the police evidence(2).

(1) "the defence had requested retesting of all DNA, the court eventually agreed, and the RTP responded by saying it had all been used up or lost - the critical DNA, that is."

(2) "they staged (yes they staged) B2 DNA samples by forensic pros to be taken inside the court, where chain of custody couldn't be contested.

Once they had the non-match..."

The second claim in particular I know, and I know you know, you made up; but when called on it you replied that both claims were factual.

After that you declared that people that post misinformation in this threads are dishonest and despicable; physician, heal thyself.

[thailandchilli]

Okay, remind me what I need to justify with your alternative theories. Truth. The RTP said everything was available to the defence. Untrue - the key, critical Hannah DNA samples weren't. Been used up or (in the case of the blond hair found in her hand) was lost. Really? Only the profiles remained.

That is a matter of record. Do I need to go on?

The defence team issued a statement that they didn't need to check the crap that was left behind - hence their reliance on the B2 samples obtained in court. probably everyone and their brother would reason that any DNA samples freely given would indicate that the givers were innocent.

Using your phraseology, it is damning evidence.

You claimed there is no DNA available for retesting(1), you also claimed that the defense has already verified a no-match between the DNA from the two Burmese and the police evidence(2).

(1) "the defence had requested retesting of all DNA, the court eventually agreed, and the RTP responded by saying it had all been used up or lost - the critical DNA, that is."

(2) "they staged (yes they staged) B2 DNA samples by forensic pros to be taken inside the court, where chain of custody couldn't be contested.

Once they had the non-match..."

The second claim in particular I know, and I know you know, you made up; but when called on it you replied that both claims were factual.

After that you declared that people that post misinformation in this threads are dishonest and despicable; physician, heal thyself.

You seem to be more clued up than the RTP witnesses AleG, why not ask them for a gig over at Samui there's still one day left, after all the current witnesses have been a shambles, one things for sure, you could do no worse

Edited August 27, 2015 by thailandchilli

[stephenterry]

It's all on record if you care to trawl back through the court disclosures. I'm not going to, and I do not have to justify myself to you or anyone. On a point of accuracy your assertions are false.

You wrote a check you couldn't cash, got found out and now you run to the "I don't have to justify myself" escape door.

If you are going to call people dishonest and despicable for allegedly spreading misinformation, when you are caught doing what you accuse others of, yes, you have some justification to do; at the very least to yourself.

Okay, remind me what I need to justify with your alternative theories. Truth. The RTP said everything was available to the defence. Untrue - the key, critical Hannah DNA samples weren't. Been used up or (in the case of the blond hair found in her hand) was lost. Really? Only the profiles remained.

That is a matter of record. Do I need to go on?

The defence team issued a statement that they didn't need to check the crap that was left behind - hence their reliance on the B2 samples obtained in court. probably everyone and their brother would reason that any DNA samples freely given would indicate that the givers were innocent.

Using your phraseology, it is damning evidence.

You claimed there is no DNA available for retesting(1), you also claimed that the defense has already verified a no-match between the DNA from the two Burmese and the police evidence(2).

(1) "the defence had requested retesting of all DNA, the court eventually agreed, and the RTP responded by saying it had all been used up or lost - the critical DNA, that is."

(2) "they staged (yes they staged) B2 DNA samples by forensic pros to be taken inside the court, where chain of custody couldn't be contested.

Once they had the non-match..."

The second claim in particular I know, and I know you know, you made up; but when called on it you replied that both claims were factual.

After that you declared that people that post misinformation in this threads are dishonest and despicable; physician, heal thyself.

never mind. All will be revealed when the defence present their case.

[boomerangutang]

Exactly, they didn't like what they found on it.

They Didn't Like What They Found On It

That should be the title of the book written about this flawed investigation. It could apply to a number of things: the passenger manifest for the early morning plane from near KT to Bkk. It could apply to the 200 of 300 CCTV cameras which police say were not operating that night. It could apply to Stingray Man's finger. It could apply to phone records or the CCTV at Nomsod's apartment which (police infer) doesn't show NS entering. It could apply to the hoe, to the clothes found at the crime scene and clothes possibly found in Mon's room or NS's apartment or any of Mon's tough-guys' dwellings ....oh sorry, I almost forgot, RTP didn't look at those things, similarly they didn't look at hundreds of other potential clues. However, they probably did look at a lot of CCTV which we nor the defense will never see, but again ....they didn't like what they found on it - because it didn't implicate the B2, or implicated people the police are obliged to shield from scrutiny.

Edited August 27, 2015 by boomerangutang

[AleG]

I noticed something distinctly lacking on your response, citations; that being third party account that supports your claims; you know, like I did to disprove your claims. Even your own post disproves your claims, this "the DNA samples had been used up or lost" directly contradicts this "the defence counsel doesn't need any more re-testing on what's left", which one is it? all gone or something left?

It's hard to hit a moving target. On the fourth day of the trial, July 10, a primary RTP investigator and witness for the prosecution stated in court that many/most DNA samples were used-up or lost. He also stated the blond hair was lost. That evening, his boss Somyot stepped up to a microphone and claimed that nothing was lost. Which is it?

Then there's the prickly issue of what the judges will accept. Will they accept statements by Police re; DNA typing/matches? (processed in Thai labs overseen by RTP from samples which are lost or used-up?) OR will the judges give more credence to DNA findings submitted by Brit experts - if the two sets don't agree? Or, will the judges simply throw up their hands and say, because there are discrepancies, they'll disregard DNA findings altogether?

Perhaps the reason the prosecution is doing such a slovenly job is they're assured of a guilty verdict. Why act with alacrity (why sweat the little stuff?) when the outcome is assured? I hope that's not true, but it would explain why they're so off the ball.

The truth is that the statements from the witness were taken out of context and given a life of their own. He was talking about what evidence they possessed at the provincial headquarters in Phang Nga; the answer that it was all used up was because those samples were sent to analysis to Bangkok, therefore they didn't have it anymore, gone, used up.

This order of events is supported by subsequent facts that show that, indeed, DNA samples were not lost or used up but are available for retesting at the forensic laboratory in Bangkok.

Not that actual facts and a complete account of events would get on the way of your tendentious cherrypicking.

[AleG]

You claimed there is no DNA available for retesting(1), you also claimed that the defense has already verified a no-match between the DNA from the two Burmese and the police evidence(2).

(1) "the defence had requested retesting of all DNA, the court eventually agreed, and the RTP responded by saying it had all been used up or lost - the critical DNA, that is."

(2) "they staged (yes they staged) B2 DNA samples by forensic pros to be taken inside the court, where chain of custody couldn't be contested.

Once they had the non-match..."

The second claim in particular I know, and I know you know, you made up; but when called on it you replied that both claims were factual.

After that you declared that people that post misinformation in this threads are dishonest and despicable; physician, heal thyself.

You seem to be more clued up than the RTP witnesses AleG, why not ask them for a gig over at Samui there's still one day left, after all the current witnesses have been a shambles, one things for sure, you could do no worse

I could reduce myself to throwing gratuitous insults and accusations as a substitute for cogent argumentation; that would be worse, but I have standards.

[thailandchilli]

You claimed there is no DNA available for retesting(1), you also claimed that the defense has already verified a no-match between the DNA from the two Burmese and the police evidence(2).

(1) "the defence had requested retesting of all DNA, the court eventually agreed, and the RTP responded by saying it had all been used up or lost - the critical DNA, that is."

(2) "they staged (yes they staged) B2 DNA samples by forensic pros to be taken inside the court, where chain of custody couldn't be contested.

Once they had the non-match..."

The second claim in particular I know, and I know you know, you made up; but when called on it you replied that both claims were factual.

After that you declared that people that post misinformation in this threads are dishonest and despicable; physician, heal thyself.

You seem to be more clued up than the RTP witnesses AleG, why not ask them for a gig over at Samui there's still one day left, after all the current witnesses have been a shambles, one things for sure, you could do no worse

I could reduce myself to throwing gratuitous insults and accusations as a substitute for cogent argumentation; that would be worse, but I have standards.

Better look back at your posting history

[thailandchilli]

Andy Hall ‏@Atomicalandy 23m23 minutes ago

Day 11 Koh Tao trial just finished. Another 9am to 9pm hearing. Most days so far hearings not finished before 8/9pm.

[BigC]

Do I reckon they are guilty answer no

Do I care no

The RTP would agree with you. So would the prosecution. And all the way up the chain of command. Never mind the families of the victims and the accused. Nobody cares.

No I just don't care about Burmese

I care about the victims though

[Darkknight666]

Nope, Loon.. He'll slink of like GB who occasionally reads this thread but doesn't post. I think guys like Aleg and JL are just old guys, and they have much more trust in the system than anyone else I've met in my 7 years here.

I knew it would be nine more hours of monotony Intended to bore the world to death.

I bet the defense minds are exhausted from all of the crap they have to listen to and not scream about.

[Slip]

Gentlemen, please remain steadfast. Please don't fall prey to the trollish.

Meanwhile, I am intrigued at AleG's amalgamation of the English word/ phrase 'gone/ used up'. They are entirely different.

[BigC]

Gentlemen, please remain steadfast. Please don't fall prey to the trollish.

Meanwhile, I am intrigued at AleG's amalgamation of the English word/ phrase 'gone/ used up'. They are entirely different.

Are you Ali Gee?

[loonodingle]

This is one of the best lines so far. A statement and date you should all remember I think.

The defence team in the Koh Tao murder trial has dramatically reversed its demands to retest the DNA found on the body of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge, and said they “don’t need it any more.”

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/defence_team_reverse_demands_to_retest_dna_found_on_body_of_hannah_witheridge_1_4204183

http://www.edp24.co.uk/home/search?sort=publishedDate_descending&numberOfItemsPerPage=10&filterToDate=&longTo=NaN&submitted=true&freeText=hannah+witheridge&toDate=27%2F08%2F2015&excludeSiteIds=%5B%5D&longFrom=NaN&siteExternalID=yarmouthmercury.d&selectedCategories=%5B%5D&excludedCategories=%5B%5D&includeSiteIds=%5BYarmouthMercury.d%5D&distanceInMiles=0.0&fromDate=&siteId=2.970&latFrom=NaN&action=search&numberOfItemsToSearchPerPage=10&latTo=NaN&facetQueries=publishedDate%3A%5BNOW%2FDAY-7DAYS+TO+NOW%5D&facetQueries=publishedDate%3A%5BNOW%2FYEAR+TO+NOW%5D&facetQueries=publishedDate%3A%5BNOW%2FDAY-30DAYS+TO+NOW%5D&facetQueries=publishedDate%3A%5BNOW%2FDAY+TO+NOW%5D&longitude=NaN&latitude=NaN&filterFromDate=&facetFields=tree_department.categorydimension.archant&publishDateInterval=uk.co.polopoly.search.util.DateInterval%4013b7d71f

Edited August 27, 2015 by loonodingle