Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[AleG]

Person A is asked if the saw the CCTV footage he says no, person B is asked if he saw the footage he says yes, therefore person A was lying?

Logic, it doesn't work that way.

I see AleG spreading more misinformation

On Wednesday, Police Colonel Cherdpong Chiewpreecha told the court that nobody examined CCTV footage of a boat leaving the island around an hour after the presumed time of the murders. “We have the footage, but we never checked it,” he said, according to Sky News.

http://time.com/3970699/thailand-koh-tao-murders-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-latest/

Does that "we" include the man who testified yesterday?

[frank83628]

and what am i looking at at 1.12? the hoe??, where it was under the tree..which is also in the enclosed garden..

[newcomer71]

Careful high tide! Troll waves!

[StealthEnergiser]

and what am i looking at at 1.12? the hoe??, where it was under the tree..which is also in the enclosed garden..

No its in a different location that's not the enclosed garden.

[thailandchilli]

Person A is asked if the saw the CCTV footage he says no, person B is asked if he saw the footage he says yes, therefore person A was lying?

Logic, it doesn't work that way.

I see AleG spreading more misinformation

On Wednesday, Police Colonel Cherdpong Chiewpreecha told the court that nobody examined CCTV footage of a boat leaving the island around an hour after the presumed time of the murders. “We have the footage, but we never checked it,” he said, according to Sky News.

http://time.com/3970699/thailand-koh-tao-murders-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-latest/

Does that "we" include the man who testified yesterday?

What does "nobody" mean to you, jesus get a life

[seahorse]

Please stop replying to AleG. He's just trying to deflect the debate. If one person says one thing, and another something else, it does not necessarily one of them is lying. One or both could just be plain wrong.

[Dogmatix]

The Burmese masseuse Ang Myo Thant testified that she went out at about 9pm ont he might of the murders and had 3 or 4 beers. While she was taking a leak by the beach she noticed 3 chaps singing a song in English with one playing guitar. She didn't identify the suspects or even say they were Burmese and the chronology is interesting too. She didn't say what time she took the pee but it is reasonable to assume that this occurred within no more than two hours of drinking the first beer and probably less. So did the suspects stay on the beach singing and playing for another 4 or 5 hours until the estimated time of murders around 3am. Possible but unlikely. If so, how much alcohol and cigarettes did they have to fuel them for this marathon session?

Edited August 28, 2015 by Dogmatix

[AleG]

Does that "we" include the man who testified yesterday?

What does "nobody" mean to you, jesus get a life

I have a life, you should known since in the past you took the time to dig out my personal information to share it with your friends.

As for "nobody", the article quotes the officer as saying “We have the footage, but we never checked it,”, the "nobody appears to be an addition by the writer; the same thing happened regarding the DNA evidence, some reporters mis-reported that all the evidence was gone and used up and that turned out to be false by subsequent information. Now subsequent information points out that someone else checked the footage and your reaction is of course not that the conflict of information is that again the press made a mistake, but that it's all lies (while testifying in court) by the police.

[AleG]

Please stop replying to AleG. He's just trying to deflect the debate. If one person says one thing, and another something else, it does not necessarily one of them is lying. One or both could just be plain wrong.

Ah yes, trying to deflect the debate by discussing events that emanated from the court session. How dastardly devious of me.

[smedly]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/koh_tao_murder_trial_defendents_did_not_have_representation_during_interrogations_court_hears_1_4211590

Good post, another glaring contradiction is that an RTP witness a few weeks back claimed to have not checked the pier CCTV whereas this other RTP witness yesterday claimed they did check it and it showed nothing.

This is outrageous, which one is it? Either one or both of them are lying, also I agree with some later posts about david's phone. Just a verbal claim that it was from a nameless person who can't be contacted to verify. Pathetic

Apparently Andy Hall does have the name of the person at the British Embassy in BKK who supplied the phone details. There seems to be a lot of collusion by the British Government in withholding any and all information to the Defence. First the High Court in London denies them access to the MPS report, now this.

The only reason I can think of, is that to help discredit another country's police force, is not a wise diplomatic move. In other words it's the bigger picture syndrome being played out here. However, right now, I'm not proud to be British, and I'll never return..

On a point of accuracy the high court judge offered an appeal to his verdict, but it wasn't taken up.

If the Thai police requested the British police conduct interviews in the UK in connection with their murder investigation and those interviews were carried out and delivered to the Thai police, it would not be up to the UK to decide how that information is used, if however the defense council want to see the statements then it is up them to petition the court and request the information if the police are refusing to hand it over, there is no reason why that request should not be granted regardless of what the information contains

It has nothing to do with the UK

[thailandchilli]

Does that "we" include the man who testified yesterday?

What does "nobody" mean to you, jesus get a life

I have a life, you should known since in the past you took the time to dig out my personal information to share it with your friends.

As for "nobody", the article quotes the officer as saying “We have the footage, but we never checked it,”, the "nobody appears to be an addition by the writer; the same thing happened regarding the DNA evidence, some reporters mis-reported that all the evidence was gone and used up and that turned out to be false by subsequent information. Now subsequent information points out that someone else checked the footage and your reaction is of course not that the conflict of information is that again the press made a mistake, but that it's all lies (while testifying in court) by the police.

How things appear to you is in stark contrast to how they appear to everyone else apart from the RTP, enjoy your life

[fritzzz25]

Has anyone got information that the two accused "confessed in court". This is from the report Justice Green issued the other day

23.
With regard to the accused the Report describes the events leading up to their arrest and it records their interviews including their confessions. In particular the Report makes reference to the fact that confessions were made at more than one time. DCI Lyons points out that he cannot comment upon the allegations made later that the confessions were procured by torture “in an open statement” but he does say that the accused repeated their confessions in court before the judge in the presence of their own lawyers.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/hq_15X0311_final.pdf

[boomerangutang]

I get the feeling that the British Government is preventing the British Police from providing any information to the Defence. I presume the Norfolk Coroner is not subject to these restrictions though.

You are right.

There is a great conspiracy to convict the 2 B and British government is one.

I somewhat agree. However, in their defense, Brit authorities can't be expected to know the degree of deviousness which is endemic to Thai officialdom. Manipulation, obfuscation, telling lies while smiling broadly, falling on a sword to shield a higher up from losing face .....such things have been perfected to an art form. Brit experts are like the big guys from UK who show up, first day at the Thai beach resort, and get taken left and right by slick-talking manipulators. .....and then go an tell other newcomers "hey dude, I think they charged me too much for the jetski, but hey, maybe you should try it."

Does that "we" include the man who testified yesterday?

Give it a rest AleG. You're grasping a little wisps of tattered rye straw.

[bamukloy]

i do not know the owner of the hoe, i have not heard anything form dvb newsi was replying to the poster bamukloy...

i can assure you the hoe was there the whole time, covered in blood in a patch of garden under a tree 20m from the victims until the police removed the bodies.

No it wasn't. The hoe was found under a tree, then it was moved to the enclosed patch of garden, then it was moved back under the tree again. This was stated in court testimony. The owner of the hoe is variously "O", the gardener, or Mon, depending on which press report you read. Are you saying that the witness was lying in court?

watch the video at 1.12

That prooves nothing except for where the hoe was at the time of shooting the video.

The issue is what happened to it when the first people were on the scene.

I assume that the gardener/garbage man/whoever/ whom first found it, must have been some distance away from the bodies and not seen them, otherwise how could a person see such a horrific scene but be first concerned about putting the hoe back?

He didnt notice the blood on it (it was dark) but apparently Mon,amazingly, must have already deduced it was part of the crime scene and told him to put on gloves and take it back.

If the gardener was first to find it, and didnt notice the blood on it, he obviously didnt convey any importance of the hoe to Mon...

So how did Mon know the hoe was relevant as he wouldnt/shouldnt have known there was blood on it??

This is presuming the hoe was found 20 metres from the bodies

[JLCrab]

Redux: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/141958/mou-fco-acpo-coroners.pdf

[BritTim]

Thank goodness for the Eastern Daily Press. At least someone is reporting this farce.

This case should have been thrown out before coming to trial, yet it is now in full swing. The prosecution haven't produced any evidence whatsoever even though it's their last day today, yet the case still hasn't been thrown out. This does not bode well for these two Burmese guys.

I'm wondering why the defence team brought up the green towel.

The defence lawyers also pointed out that a green towel had been photographed on Miss Witheridge’s body but was not included in the prosecution’s evidence and had apparently not been tested for DNA.

Any ideas?

Yes, actually.

I think the green towel was added to the crime scene by someone upset by the gruesome appearance of Hannah's mutilated face. Of course, it will have added additional fresh DNA to Hannah's body. Protecting the crime scene and allowing professional forensic examination so the crime could be solved was secondary to someone's sensibilities.

[boomerangutang]

Has anyone got information that the two accused "confessed in court". This is from the report Justice Green issued the other day

23.

With regard to the accused the Report describes the events leading up to their arrest and it records their interviews including their confessions. In particular the Report makes reference to the fact that confessions were made at more than one time. DCI Lyons points out that he cannot comment upon the allegations made later that the confessions were procured by torture “in an open statement” but he does say that the accused repeated their confessions in court before the judge in the presence of their own lawyers.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/hq_15X0311_final.pdf

I had pointed that out earlier. Justice Green based his ruling on data, some of which was flat-out false - like the assertion (passed on to him from Brit officials who got it earlier from a Thai minder) - that the "accused repeated their confessions in court before the judge in the presence of their own lawyers."

That's probably not the only false data Brit officials are dealing with. If Brit officials want to get a better idea of what's going on with this case, they should confer with the people who have been following it closely AND who are more familiar with Thailand than they are. An analogy: If I bought a big sailboat and was looking for a captain and crew to man it - where would be the smarter place to look:

>>> a library with intellectuals who had never been to sea, but who had read books on sailing? or....

>>> a dock-side cafe with old salts and guys who had been out at sea, sailing for the past 20 years?

[WHITEROCKGIRL]

Seems we have had a lot of one sided information on this thread,

The defense have said that Roti seller was no good at translating as he and the B2 have different dialects, but the Burmese Embassy had no problem using him as a translator when they spoke to Maung Maung who is from the same villageas the B2.

[WHITEROCKGIRL]

Seems we have had a lot of one sided information on this thread,

The defense have said that Roti seller was no good at translating as he and the B2 have different dialects, but the Burmese Embassy had no problem using him as a translator when they spoke to Maung Maung who is from the same villageas the B2.

The Burmese Embassy have no need for a Burmese translator.

Now I suggest you go back to some gaming forum or where ever it is that little girls post, its certainly not appropriate for you to be posting on adult subject matter that is contained on this thread. How many new profiles will it take for you to create and realise that.

Yes he did. google Maung Maung Koh Tao then click in Images what do you think he is there for to make them pancakes.

[boomerangutang]

Seems we have had a lot of one sided information on this thread,

The defense have said that Roti seller was no good at translating as he and the B2 have different dialects, but the Burmese Embassy had no problem using him as a translator when they spoke to Maung Maung who is from the same villageas the B2.

People who aren't fluent can still communicate. Even people who share no common language can communicate to some extent. Have you ever tried bargaining with hill tribers, for example?

The interrogation at the 'Safe House' involved more language skills than bargaining for trinkets at a sidewalk stall. There are a lot of nuances or language that a good translator would be apprised of, compared to skills of someone off the street.

I have Thai friends who speak English well (flattering farang would tell them they're fluent), but in reality, they don't speak well. Of the dozens of Thais I know who (one could venture to say) speak English fluently, none speak nearly as well as a Burmese friend of mine who is a sidewalk tout who has never been outside of Shan State Burma, has rotten teeth, is dark as tar, and dropped out of school at age 15.

Languages have a lot a nuances. The B2 are dealing with life and death issues. They deserve a decent translator. Another factor: A semi-adept translator should know to be objective - just translating things back and forth. From hearing about the roti-seller, he sounds the opposite of objective. We hear that he was threatening to the defendants and he likely introduced a line of questioning which even the RTP didn't introduce: namely: the broken bottle as a weapon idea, which has zero basis on evidence. Indeed, the broken bottle myth was introduced to try and explain David's stab wounds, while deflecting from the most likely weapon(s) which would explain such wounds: weaponized ring(s) worn by one or more of Mon's buddies.

Interesting that there's been nearly no mention of wounds on David or Hannah during the prosecution's days in court. All they've mentioned is the hoe as being used on both victims, and by their own admission, none of David's DNA was found on the hoe. It's a sad shame (among many other issues in this case) that Thai forensics did such an god-awful job regarding wounds and on weapons used in the crime. Hopefully Brit experts will shed some light on those issues.

Edited August 28, 2015 by boomerangutang

[Eirene]

I know this is serious but Oh my goodness....You guys have me in stitches on this page.

...and the whole while he is making pancakes BritTim.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Eirene

[WHITEROCKGIRL]

Also why is it on the funding page it clearly says that the B2 had been in Thailand for several years, Yet when Charlie Campbell interviewed the B2 for time.com

they said 2 years ?

[StealthEnergiser]

Also why is it on the funding page it clearly says that the B2 had been in Thailand for several years, Yet when Charlie Campbell interviewed the B2 for time.com

they said 2 years ?

If it's 2 years or 3 years why is it relevant ?

[grumpyoldman]

Also why is it on the funding page it clearly says that the B2 had been in Thailand for several years, Yet when Charlie Campbell interviewed the B2 for time.com

they said 2 years ?

If it's 2 years or 3 years why is it relevant ?

Maybe there was a translation problem?

[thailandchilli]

Also why is it on the funding page it clearly says that the B2 had been in Thailand for several years, Yet when Charlie Campbell interviewed the B2 for time.com

they said 2 years ?

If it's 2 years or 3 years why is it relevant ?

Maybe there was a translation problem?

Damn wheres that roti seller when you need him!

[happy Joe]

I get the feeling that the British Government is preventing the British Police from providing any information to the Defence. I presume the Norfolk Coroner is not subject to these restrictions though.

You are right.

There is a great conspiracy to convict the 2 B and British government is one.

I somewhat agree. However, in their defense, Brit authorities can't be expected to know the degree of deviousness which is endemic to Thai officialdom. Manipulation, obfuscation, telling lies while smiling broadly, falling on a sword to shield a higher up from losing face .....such things have been perfected to an art form. Brit experts are like the big guys from UK who show up, first day at the Thai beach resort, and get taken left and right by slick-talking manipulators. .....and then go an tell other newcomers "hey dude, I think they charged me too much for the jetski, but hey, maybe you should try it."

Hmm Boomerang, I tried a poorly trait of humor in this dark matter.

I absolutely do not believe in a conspiracy. My opinion is that British police have concluded that the evidence against the two Burmese were convincing.

I think but I'm not 100% sure. Now I wait here like all the findings of the trial or an element that could justify doubt. So far, despite the many theories to discredit the investigation I have not read here some convincing hypothesis.

[Darkknight666]

Also why is it on the funding page it clearly says that the B2 had been in Thailand for several years, Yet when Charlie Campbell interviewed the B2 for time.com

they said 2 years ?

If it's 2 years or 3 years why is it relevant ?

Because this is what these posters try to do here, create doubt and look for anything they can to damage the B2's credibility. It's always funny, though.. How bad they are at it. I mean, really? You're drawing some kind of conclusion from a discrepancy in how long the B2 have lived in Thailand.... Look, what they did before doesn't much matter, what matters is what they were doing when David and Hannah were taken away.

I bet there are all kinds of things in Campbell's article you don't want to talk about, eh WRG? What was your last nic? Ninjagirl?

[thailandchilli]

I somewhat agree. However, in their defense, Brit authorities can't be expected to know the degree of deviousness which is endemic to Thai officialdom. Manipulation, obfuscation, telling lies while smiling broadly, falling on a sword to shield a higher up from losing face .....such things have been perfected to an art form. Brit experts are like the big guys from UK who show up, first day at the Thai beach resort, and get taken left and right by slick-talking manipulators. .....and then go an tell other newcomers "hey dude, I think they charged me too much for the jetski, but hey, maybe you should try it."

Hmm Boomerang, I tried a poorly trait of humor in this dark matter.

I absolutely do not believe in a conspiracy. My opinion is that British police have concluded that the evidence against the two Burmese were convincing.

I think but I'm not 100% sure. Now I wait here like all the findings of the trial or an element that could justify doubt. So far, despite the many theories to discredit the investigation I have not read here some convincing hypothesis.

Actually the British police are not convinced, listen to the report broadcast on the 21st Dec made after they returned to the UK and observed the RTP fiasco

[Darkknight666]

I wonder if TheNicky TP reads this thread.... Hmm.

[grumpyoldman]

For those of us who have lived here a long time, we've learned "might is right". How many dozens and dozens of cases have we seen where the rich and connected get a fine or slap on the wrist (son of red bull guy, girl who crashed into van and killed half a dozen etc.,etc.,etc.) whilst poor or non connected get full extent of the law.

British government for political reasons, will steer clear, make a little noise (?) sure, but in the end these boys, no matter all the keyboard warriors, are railroaded, wrong place at the wrong time, no money, not connected.