Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[Gweiloman]

The phone was dumped there by a friend of the defendants, they gave it to him to throw it away; I suppose giving an expensive phone to someone and saying "dump it in the sea" would sound a little suspicious.

Bullpoo! How do you know that it was dumped there by a "friend" of the defendants? Some friend to dump a piece of incriminating evidence in the garden of the person who had given it to you to dispose of! And in any case, as I have said already, would they not have been more inclined to dispose of it themselves rather than involve a third (or fourth) party?

Because the men on trial already testified that was what happened, in court, on October 14th of last year; a fact that seems remarkably impervious to absorption by some people.

This comes from the defense team:

"14 th Oct: Koh Samui Court holds a preliminary witness hearing for 3 Myanmar prosecution witnesses at risk of disappearing. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo attend and are represented by lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT). The witnesses testify: (1) Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were on Sairee Beach on 14 th Sept. night close to the place where the bodies of Hannah and David were found; (2) Wai Phyo came across a mobile phone he said he found that may have belonged to David but passed it onto his friend."

That friend was the one that dumped it.

Since you are so obsessed with the phone, care to share with us what significance you feel it has?

[thailandchilli]

The phone was dumped there by a friend of the defendants, they gave it to him to throw it away; I suppose giving an expensive phone to someone and saying "dump it in the sea" would sound a little suspicious.

Bullpoo! How do you know that it was dumped there by a "friend" of the defendants? Some friend to dump a piece of incriminating evidence in the garden of the person who had given it to you to dispose of! And in any case, as I have said already, would they not have been more inclined to dispose of it themselves rather than involve a third (or fourth) party?

Because the men on trial already testified that was what happened, in court, on October 14th of last year; a fact that seems remarkably impervious to absorption by some people.

This comes from the defense team:

"14 th Oct: Koh Samui Court holds a preliminary witness hearing for 3 Myanmar prosecution witnesses at risk of disappearing. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo attend and are represented by lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT). The witnesses testify: (1) Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were on Sairee Beach on 14 th Sept. night close to the place where the bodies of Hannah and David were found; (2) Wai Phyo came across a mobile phone he said he found that may have belonged to David but passed it onto his friend."

That friend was the one that dumped it.

The men on trial the B2 did not testify this in court, as you say in your statement which you claim to be "fact". The witnesses did. Unfortunately those witnesses are now back in Burma and cannot be cross examined again.

[AleG]

From a different perspective, if the B2 are guilty of raping and mudering two young tourists why is the Koh Tao mafia helping them get away with it?

Surely in a place like Koh Tao where just a few powerful families control everything ou would expect thay they would do everything they could to make sure that a couple of Burmese guys get punished for defaming them and their island internationally.

So why are these families shielding the B2 by witholding CCTV footage? Why did they wreck the crime scene before it could be properly investigated? Why have no local witnesses been forthcoming? And about a million other ways in which the local's could assist with the case against the B2 but haven't since the might of the crime.

I mean this literally happened in the headman's back garden but he is helping the B2 get away with murder. Are these two young Burmese guys so well connected with the Koh Tao mafia??

The problem with your argument is that you are begging the questions:

"So why are these families shielding the B2 by witholding CCTV footage?"

What makes you think they are doing so? that's what some of the chit-chat on Internet has speculated about, it doesn't make it true.

"Why did they wreck the crime scene before it could be properly investigated?"

This is an example of begging the question, it assumes deliberate and malicious intention by the people that arrived at the scene. Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found, that's not the actions of someone wrecking the scene, that's the actions of someone trying to preserve it.

"Why have no local witnesses been forthcoming?"

Local witnesses were forthcoming, that's why the men on trial became suspects in the first place, someone heard three men singing in an Arakhan dialect near the scene of the crime and that eventually led to the arrest of Wai Phyo, Zaw Lin.

You may want to consider that things don't appear to make sense because you are trying to force a conclusion out of facts and assumptions that don't warrant it.

Asking someone to wash the alleged murder weapon is destroying the evidence

Yes, that would had been the case if that would had been the case...

"CORRECTION: The beach cleaner who removed the garden hoe from the crime scene did not tell the court he also washed the tool, as was originally reported."

... which it wasn't, so it wasn't.

[StealthEnergiser]

We have lost some really good posters on these threads including some that have had personal involvements to see justice for Hannah & David and the B2.

The more we reply to certain posters that we don’t agree with the higher chance there is of posting rights beings stopped.

It really makes more sense not to reply .

This is only my opinion but seeing good people sitting on the sideline is disappointing .

Please everyone that want’s the truth and justice Ignore the ones that don’t.

Feel free to bump this forward at anytime.

Edited September 1, 2015 by StealthEnergiser

[Mooner]

Cause apart from "the confession" the phone is the only thing the prosecution have.

[BritTim]

Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found

This is one of the weirdest aspects of all in the case. How on earth did Mon know where the alleged murder weapon was originally? Are we supposed to believe that Mon and the local police found the hoe under the tree, the gardener/beach cleaner was allowed unhindered to move it, then Mon had it moved back?

Oh I don't know, someone saw the bloody hoe on it's original location before it was moved? It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination, at least not as much as some vague but nefarious maneuver to move it somewhere else and then bringing it back.

Did this someone see the hoe in its original location before or after the police arrived? When did this someone tell Mon? Did this someone give evidence in court? I am not saying you are wrong, but (to me) a more likely scenario is that Mon arranged the original crime scene and did not like it being altered.

[Gweiloman]

The problem with your argument is that you are begging the questions:

"So why are these families shielding the B2 by witholding CCTV footage?"

What makes you think they are doing so? that's what some of the chit-chat on Internet has speculated about, it doesn't make it true.

"Why did they wreck the crime scene before it could be properly investigated?"

This is an example of begging the question, it assumes deliberate and malicious intention by the people that arrived at the scene. Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found, that's not the actions of someone wrecking the scene, that's the actions of someone trying to preserve it.

"Why have no local witnesses been forthcoming?"

Local witnesses were forthcoming, that's why the men on trial became suspects in the first place, someone heard three men singing in an Arakhan dialect near the scene of the crime and that eventually led to the arrest of Wai Phyo, Zaw Lin.

You may want to consider that things don't appear to make sense because you are trying to force a conclusion out of facts and assumptions that don't warrant it.

Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found

This is one of the weirdest aspects of all in the case. How on earth did Mon know where the alleged murder weapon was originally? Are we supposed to believe that Mon and the local police found the hoe under the tree, the gardener/beach cleaner was allowed unhindered to move it, then Mon had it moved back?

Oh I don't know, someone saw the bloody hoe on it's original location before it was moved? It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination, at least not as much as some vague but nefarious maneuver to move it somewhere else and then bringing it back.

You wrote:

Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found, that's not the actions of someone wrecking the scene, that's the actions of someone trying to preserve it

How does this person know that the hoe was the murder weapon? Unless this person personally wielded it or was witness to it being used on one or more of the victims? I can just imagine the scenario. Perpetrator arrives to the beach early in the morning, swaggering along, confident in the knowledge that the inept RTP cannot possibly miss the murder weapon which was conveniently left close by. But wait!! The hoe's gone!!?? What the heck?!? That darn blind gardener had moved it from where it was strategically placed! No, we can't be having that. Where the hell is the gardener?? Hey you, what did you do with the hoe? What? Go and get it and bring it back to where you found it, pronto. After all, don't you know that it's stupid to disturb a murder scene??

[Gweiloman]

Because the men on trial already testified that was what happened, in court, on October 14th of last year; a fact that seems remarkably impervious to absorption by some people.

This comes from the defense team:

"14 th Oct: Koh Samui Court holds a preliminary witness hearing for 3 Myanmar prosecution witnesses at risk of disappearing. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo attend and are represented by lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT). The witnesses testify: (1) Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were on Sairee Beach on 14 th Sept. night close to the place where the bodies of Hannah and David were found; (2) Wai Phyo came across a mobile phone he said he found that may have belonged to David but passed it onto his friend."

That friend was the one that dumped it.

The men on trial the B2 did not testify this in court, as you say in your statement which you claim to be "fact". The witnesses did. Unfortunately those witnesses are now back in Burma and cannot be cross examined again.

Seriously, is this true?????? Are you 100% sure that it were the "witnesses" that testified and not the suspects? If so, then AleG is really the lowest of the low

[AleG]

Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found

This is one of the weirdest aspects of all in the case. How on earth did Mon know where the alleged murder weapon was originally? Are we supposed to believe that Mon and the local police found the hoe under the tree, the gardener/beach cleaner was allowed unhindered to move it, then Mon had it moved back?

Oh I don't know, someone saw the bloody hoe on it's original location before it was moved? It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination, at least not as much as some vague but nefarious maneuver to move it somewhere else and then bringing it back.

Did this someone see the hoe in its original location before or after the police arrived? When did this someone tell Mon? Did this someone give evidence in court? I am not saying you are wrong, but (to me) a more likely scenario is that Mon arranged the original crime scene and did not like it being altered.

Your "more likely scenario" is that he arranged a murder scene practically at the doorsteps of his or his family's business? Really? No, seriously, really?

[Gweiloman]

Oh I don't know, someone saw the bloody hoe on it's original location before it was moved? It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination, at least not as much as some vague but nefarious maneuver to move it somewhere else and then bringing it back.

Did this someone see the hoe in its original location before or after the police arrived? When did this someone tell Mon? Did this someone give evidence in court? I am not saying you are wrong, but (to me) a more likely scenario is that Mon arranged the original crime scene and did not like it being altered.

You posted while I was still drafting my post but basically, I said exactly the same thing

[thailandchilli]

Asking someone to wash the alleged murder weapon is destroying the evidence

Yes, that would had been the case if that would had been the case...

"CORRECTION: The beach cleaner who removed the garden hoe from the crime scene did not tell the court he also washed the tool, as was originally reported."

... which it wasn't, so it wasn't.

I'm afraid the police gave contradictory statements (again) to the court about this.

A police officer had earlier testified that the hoe was used to murder the victims, then the blood-stained tool was placed under a bag and discarded on the beach.

But U Oh testified that the hoe was in the same place he left it the night before, the lawyer said.

Also, police cajoled him to say he washed off the blood from the hoe. However, that is not what he told the judge. He said that he had not paid any attention to the hoe and was not aware of whether there was any blood on it or not. https://www.dvb.no/news/police-tried-to-manipulate-koh-tao-witness-court-told/54664

Who would you like to believe, the police or the owner of the Hoe?

[AleG]

The problem with your argument is that you are begging the questions:

"So why are these families shielding the B2 by witholding CCTV footage?"

What makes you think they are doing so? that's what some of the chit-chat on Internet has speculated about, it doesn't make it true.

"Why did they wreck the crime scene before it could be properly investigated?"

This is an example of begging the question, it assumes deliberate and malicious intention by the people that arrived at the scene. Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found, that's not the actions of someone wrecking the scene, that's the actions of someone trying to preserve it.

"Why have no local witnesses been forthcoming?"

Local witnesses were forthcoming, that's why the men on trial became suspects in the first place, someone heard three men singing in an Arakhan dialect near the scene of the crime and that eventually led to the arrest of Wai Phyo, Zaw Lin.

You may want to consider that things don't appear to make sense because you are trying to force a conclusion out of facts and assumptions that don't warrant it.

Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found

This is one of the weirdest aspects of all in the case. How on earth did Mon know where the alleged murder weapon was originally? Are we supposed to believe that Mon and the local police found the hoe under the tree, the gardener/beach cleaner was allowed unhindered to move it, then Mon had it moved back?

Oh I don't know, someone saw the bloody hoe on it's original location before it was moved? It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination, at least not as much as some vague but nefarious maneuver to move it somewhere else and then bringing it back.

You wrote:

Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found, that's not the actions of someone wrecking the scene, that's the actions of someone trying to preserve it

How does this person know that the hoe was the murder weapon? Unless this person personally wielded it or was witness to it being used on one or more of the victims? I can just imagine the scenario. Perpetrator arrives to the beach early in the morning, swaggering along, confident in the knowledge that the inept RTP cannot possibly miss the murder weapon which was conveniently left close by. But wait!! The hoe's gone!!?? What the heck?!? That darn blind gardener had moved it from where it was strategically placed! No, we can't be having that. Where the hell is the gardener?? Hey you, what did you do with the hoe? What? Go and get it and bring it back to where you found it, pronto. After all, don't you know that it's stupid to disturb a murder scene??

"How does this person know that the hoe was the murder weapon?"

Just a guess, maybe it was all that blood encrusted on the business end.

As for scenario, see previous answer to BritTim.

[sweatalot]

I have stayed out of this subject post for a while due to several reasons. My total respect goes out to those of you that have persevered in fighting for justice in this case. So many posters on here have continuously put forward there thoughts and opinions on what's happened in this tragic and brutal case. There's also been the very few posters for what ever reason feel they have to derail the forum whenever possible. It's sad that justice in this case for Hannah and David has been obstructed by other agendas and the possible wrongfully sentence of the B2 and the anguish of them and there families. And as for Hannah and David's parents and family I despair for how they must feel especially as the trial has taken its course. From allegedly saying they were hopefull that justice would be done must be totally confused and feel badly let down by the Thai police and authorities. I can say this , and before any of the RTP defenders come at me, as many have said and I have myself stated previously up this date still NO evidence has been produced or offered into the case that remotely would suggest any involvement by the B2. All the pages on this topic and pouring out of opinions and thoughts on what might have happened and failings in procedures have come to nothing apart from making many of us feel we are helping in solving this crime and the possible further one of innocents found guilty. People on here really do care, I know that for sure, and the injustices that abound in the Thai police and justice system have for many been a cause of so much incredulation and amazement. And yes even criminality by the powers that be. Will it ever change? .For those you have fought so hard and long I feel it will and this trial is a watershed I hope that shows up all that's wrong in policing and courts in this country. The RTP have been shown up in lacking even the basic skill set and ability to even muster a half decent case when the questions have been asked and it's clear to me it hasn't happened very often if at all where they have been taken to task and actually had to justify there procedures and decisions. It's very very clear that they haven't a clue how to correctly investigate a crime of this magnitude and seriousness and have been found wanting in every aspect. The cover up daily continues but the good people who have fought this case in here and the likes of Andy Hall I salute you all. Do you, and have you ,made a difference. Dam right you have ! I'm sure of that. It's not going to happen over night but the awareness in the failures of the RTP is there for all to see !! It's no longer enough to say it's like this because we say so ! No evidence ! Up to now, how many days in court, how many witnesses,? What happened to the 65 alleged witness for the prosecution ! The finest defense in this case has been the prosecution. What will happen. The defense will present there case in a professional way as would be expected. And it will go to appeal! Saving face and all that. In any civilized society it would have never made it to trial. And if it did in any civilised society it would have been thrown out in the first weeks.! It's a hot potato and nobody knows what to do least of all the RTP with there 'perfect case'. So hang in there guys, you have made a difference and I know the majority just want justice for Hannah and David regardless of what that means but just don't feel the B2 represents that justice. Bring on the defense !

It has been a horrible case for the prosecution and even more horrible for the victim's families. To be told the prosecution has solid damning evidence against the B2 and then sit in court and find discomfort with confusion and the reality the B2 are not the killers is devastating. The mountain of evidence... a mirage. The really sad part is the real killers will go on to kill again and we will be right back here again mourning, speculating, theorizing, debating, defending and accusing.

the real killers .... possible they will kill again

BUT then we probably will NOT be right back here again, because they and rtp probably have learnt to better keep it hidden form the public.

[AleG]

Because the men on trial already testified that was what happened, in court, on October 14th of last year; a fact that seems remarkably impervious to absorption by some people.

This comes from the defense team:

"14 th Oct: Koh Samui Court holds a preliminary witness hearing for 3 Myanmar prosecution witnesses at risk of disappearing. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo attend and are represented by lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT). The witnesses testify: (1) Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were on Sairee Beach on 14 th Sept. night close to the place where the bodies of Hannah and David were found; (2) Wai Phyo came across a mobile phone he said he found that may have belonged to David but passed it onto his friend."

That friend was the one that dumped it.

The men on trial the B2 did not testify this in court, as you say in your statement which you claim to be "fact". The witnesses did. Unfortunately those witnesses are now back in Burma and cannot be cross examined again.

Seriously, is this true?????? Are you 100% sure that it were the "witnesses" that testified and not the suspects? If so, then AleG is really the lowest of the low

I provided the entire quote, why don't you try to figure out the meaning between you two?

[Gweiloman]

Did this someone see the hoe in its original location before or after the police arrived? When did this someone tell Mon? Did this someone give evidence in court? I am not saying you are wrong, but (to me) a more likely scenario is that Mon arranged the original crime scene and did not like it being altered.

Your "more likely scenario" is that he arranged a murder scene practically at the doorsteps of his or his family's business? Really? No, seriously, really?

How dense can some people get.....

Let me type slowly so some posters won't get confused. The murder happened at that place. The murderer wished that it could have happened somewhere else but sadly, the victims (and nature, as it was starting to get light) wouldn't cooperate. Therefore, the murderer could not relocate the murder scene.

There! What would normally have taken me 5 seconds to type took almost 20 seconds. Hope it's clear now.

[thailandchilli]

Because the men on trial already testified that was what happened, in court, on October 14th of last year; a fact that seems remarkably impervious to absorption by some people.

This comes from the defense team:

"14 th Oct: Koh Samui Court holds a preliminary witness hearing for 3 Myanmar prosecution witnesses at risk of disappearing. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo attend and are represented by lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT). The witnesses testify: (1) Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were on Sairee Beach on 14 th Sept. night close to the place where the bodies of Hannah and David were found; (2) Wai Phyo came across a mobile phone he said he found that may have belonged to David but passed it onto his friend."

That friend was the one that dumped it.

The men on trial the B2 did not testify this in court, as you say in your statement which you claim to be "fact". The witnesses did. Unfortunately those witnesses are now back in Burma and cannot be cross examined again.

Seriously, is this true?????? Are you 100% sure that it were the "witnesses" that testified and not the suspects? If so, then AleG is really the lowest of the low

Yes correct, it was the witnesses who testified in Oct on this. The B2 did not claim this in court on the 14th Oct. More misinformation from AleG that he claims as fact

Edited September 1, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

Asking someone to wash the alleged murder weapon is destroying the evidence

Yes, that would had been the case if that would had been the case...

"CORRECTION: The beach cleaner who removed the garden hoe from the crime scene did not tell the court he also washed the tool, as was originally reported."

... which it wasn't, so it wasn't.

I'm afraid the police gave contradictory statements (again) to the court about this.

A police officer had earlier testified that the hoe was used to murder the victims, then the blood-stained tool was placed under a bag and discarded on the beach.

But U Oh testified that the hoe was in the same place he left it the night before, the lawyer said.

Also, police cajoled him to say he washed off the blood from the hoe. However, that is not what he told the judge. He said that he had not paid any attention to the hoe and was not aware of whether there was any blood on it or not. https://www.dvb.no/news/police-tried-to-manipulate-koh-tao-witness-court-told/54664

Who would you like to believe, the police or the owner of the Hoe?

I would believe the person actually giving testimony in court, who was also the person that actually handled the hoe; not the lawyer of the defendants, making claims about what the police allegedly did to the press.

Edited September 1, 2015 by AleG

[Gweiloman]

You wrote:

Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found, that's not the actions of someone wrecking the scene, that's the actions of someone trying to preserve it

How does this person know that the hoe was the murder weapon? Unless this person personally wielded it or was witness to it being used on one or more of the victims? I can just imagine the scenario. Perpetrator arrives to the beach early in the morning, swaggering along, confident in the knowledge that the inept RTP cannot possibly miss the murder weapon which was conveniently left close by. But wait!! The hoe's gone!!?? What the heck?!? That darn blind gardener had moved it from where it was strategically placed! No, we can't be having that. Where the hell is the gardener?? Hey you, what did you do with the hoe? What? Go and get it and bring it back to where you found it, pronto. After all, don't you know that it's stupid to disturb a murder scene??

"How does this person know that the hoe was the murder weapon?"

Just a guess, maybe it was all that blood encrusted on the business end.

As for scenario, see previous answer to BritTim.

Sorry fail. A better guess would be that the person knows it was the murder weapon.

As for scenario, see my slowly typed post.

[thailandchilli]

Asking someone to wash the alleged murder weapon is destroying the evidence

Yes, that would had been the case if that would had been the case...

"CORRECTION: The beach cleaner who removed the garden hoe from the crime scene did not tell the court he also washed the tool, as was originally reported."

... which it wasn't, so it wasn't.

I'm afraid the police gave contradictory statements (again) to the court about this.

A police officer had earlier testified that the hoe was used to murder the victims, then the blood-stained tool was placed under a bag and discarded on the beach.

But U Oh testified that the hoe was in the same place he left it the night before, the lawyer said.

Also, police cajoled him to say he washed off the blood from the hoe. However, that is not what he told the judge. He said that he had not paid any attention to the hoe and was not aware of whether there was any blood on it or not. https://www.dvb.no/news/police-tried-to-manipulate-koh-tao-witness-court-told/54664

Who would you like to believe, the police or the owner of the Hoe?

I would believe the person actually giving testimony in court, who was also the person that actually handled the hoe; not the lawyer of the defendants, making claims about what the police allegedly did to the press.

Well if thats the case you would have to believe the police and the witness despite the statements where they contradicted themselves.

"A police officer had earlier testified that the hoe was used to murder the victims, then the blood-stained tool was placed under a bag and discarded on the beach."

[AleG]

Because the men on trial already testified that was what happened, in court, on October 14th of last year; a fact that seems remarkably impervious to absorption by some people.

This comes from the defense team:

"14 th Oct: Koh Samui Court holds a preliminary witness hearing for 3 Myanmar prosecution witnesses at risk of disappearing. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo attend and are represented by lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT). The witnesses testify: (1) Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were on Sairee Beach on 14 th Sept. night close to the place where the bodies of Hannah and David were found; (2) Wai Phyo came across a mobile phone he said he found that may have belonged to David but passed it onto his friend."

That friend was the one that dumped it.

The men on trial the B2 did not testify this in court, as you say in your statement which you claim to be "fact". The witnesses did. Unfortunately those witnesses are now back in Burma and cannot be cross examined again.

Why, you are almost right; they didn't testify that on that day, they did it on the 21st of October:

"21st Oct: Zaw Lin/Wai Phyo retract their confessions to lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT) at Koh Samui prison. Both allege beatings and torture in order to elicit the confessions and assert innocence against all charges. Both allege that on the night of the killings, they were merely playing their guitar, singing, drinking and relaxing on Sairee beach. Wai Phyo reported that he simply came across possessions allegedly belonging to the deceased"

That ties in with the testimony from the other witnesses that they received it from them.

This must be extremely damning evidence seen how much effort is going into wishing it away.

[Gweiloman]

The men on trial the B2 did not testify this in court, as you say in your statement which you claim to be "fact". The witnesses did. Unfortunately those witnesses are now back in Burma and cannot be cross examined again.

Seriously, is this true?????? Are you 100% sure that it were the "witnesses" that testified and not the suspects? If so, then AleG is really the lowest of the low

Yes correct, it was the witnesses who testified in Oct on this. The B2 did not claim this in court on the 14th Oct. More misinformation from AleG that he claims as fact

Misinformation bothering on outright lies.

In order not to get drawn in and suspended for bickering, I'm glad that our command and comprehension of the English language is such that we fully understand the semantics of the English language to draw the right conclusion. No need to confer, haha. In my travels around the world, I notice sometimes that Spanish speakers struggle with it.

[Gweiloman]

Because the men on trial already testified that was what happened, in court, on October 14th of last year; a fact that seems remarkably impervious to absorption by some people.

This comes from the defense team:

"14 th Oct: Koh Samui Court holds a preliminary witness hearing for 3 Myanmar prosecution witnesses at risk of disappearing. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo attend and are represented by lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT). The witnesses testify: (1) Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were on Sairee Beach on 14 th Sept. night close to the place where the bodies of Hannah and David were found; (2) Wai Phyo came across a mobile phone he said he found that may have belonged to David but passed it onto his friend."

That friend was the one that dumped it.

The men on trial the B2 did not testify this in court, as you say in your statement which you claim to be "fact". The witnesses did. Unfortunately those witnesses are now back in Burma and cannot be cross examined again.

Why, you are almost right; they didn't testify that on that day, they did it on the 21st of October:

"21st Oct: Zaw Lin/Wai Phyo retract their confessions to lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT) at Koh Samui prison. Both allege beatings and torture in order to elicit the confessions and assert innocence against all charges. Both allege that on the night of the killings, they were merely playing their guitar, singing, drinking and relaxing on Sairee beach. Wai Phyo reported that he simply came across possessions allegedly belonging to the deceased"

That ties in with the testimony from the other witnesses that they received it from them.

This must be extremely damning evidence seen how much effort is going into wishing it away.

"possessions allegedly"

Where in possessions is a phone mentioned? Also, do you understand the meaning of allegedly?

[AleG]

You wrote:

Suffice to say that one of the persons being accused of disturbing the crime scene was responsible for retrieving the murder weapon back to where it was originally found, that's not the actions of someone wrecking the scene, that's the actions of someone trying to preserve it

How does this person know that the hoe was the murder weapon? Unless this person personally wielded it or was witness to it being used on one or more of the victims? I can just imagine the scenario. Perpetrator arrives to the beach early in the morning, swaggering along, confident in the knowledge that the inept RTP cannot possibly miss the murder weapon which was conveniently left close by. But wait!! The hoe's gone!!?? What the heck?!? That darn blind gardener had moved it from where it was strategically placed! No, we can't be having that. Where the hell is the gardener?? Hey you, what did you do with the hoe? What? Go and get it and bring it back to where you found it, pronto. After all, don't you know that it's stupid to disturb a murder scene??

"How does this person know that the hoe was the murder weapon?"

Just a guess, maybe it was all that blood encrusted on the business end.

As for scenario, see previous answer to BritTim.

Sorry fail. A better guess would be that the person knows it was the murder weapon.

As for scenario, see my slowly typed post.

I know you don't realize how absurd your "scenarios" are.

You are arguing that someone connected with the murder went out of his way to bring back the murder weapon to the crime scene.

We are way under the Dunning-Kruger effect threshold now.

[thailandchilli]

Because the men on trial already testified that was what happened, in court, on October 14th of last year; a fact that seems remarkably impervious to absorption by some people.

This comes from the defense team:

"14 th Oct: Koh Samui Court holds a preliminary witness hearing for 3 Myanmar prosecution witnesses at risk of disappearing. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo attend and are represented by lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT). The witnesses testify: (1) Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were on Sairee Beach on 14 th Sept. night close to the place where the bodies of Hannah and David were found; (2) Wai Phyo came across a mobile phone he said he found that may have belonged to David but passed it onto his friend."

That friend was the one that dumped it.

The men on trial the B2 did not testify this in court, as you say in your statement which you claim to be "fact". The witnesses did. Unfortunately those witnesses are now back in Burma and cannot be cross examined again.

Why, you are almost right; they didn't testify that on that day, they did it on the 21st of October:

"21st Oct: Zaw Lin/Wai Phyo retract their confessions to lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT) at Koh Samui prison. Both allege beatings and torture in order to elicit the confessions and assert innocence against all charges. Both allege that on the night of the killings, they were merely playing their guitar, singing, drinking and relaxing on Sairee beach. Wai Phyo reported that he simply came across possessions allegedly belonging to the deceased"

That ties in with the testimony from the other witnesses that they received it from them.

This must be extremely damning evidence seen how much effort is going into wishing it away.

No this is to do with the fact that you claimed they testified in court that they gave the phone to their friends, they did not testify this in court, please your deflection is poor at best and shows your desperation. End of my debate with you as I'd rather carry on having posting rights.

[AleG]

Why, you are almost right; they didn't testify that on that day, they did it on the 21st of October:

"21st Oct: Zaw Lin/Wai Phyo retract their confessions to lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT) at Koh Samui prison. Both allege beatings and torture in order to elicit the confessions and assert innocence against all charges. Both allege that on the night of the killings, they were merely playing their guitar, singing, drinking and relaxing on Sairee beach. Wai Phyo reported that he simply came across possessions allegedly belonging to the deceased"

That ties in with the testimony from the other witnesses that they received it from them.

This must be extremely damning evidence seen how much effort is going into wishing it away.

"possessions allegedly"

Where in possessions is a phone mentioned? Also, do you understand the meaning of allegedly?

Inductive reasoning is a beautiful thing, it lets you connect the reference to possessions from the victim to the possessions of the victim presented as evidence at the trial, namely the phone.

[AleG]

Seriously, is this true?????? Are you 100% sure that it were the "witnesses" that testified and not the suspects? If so, then AleG is really the lowest of the low

Yes correct, it was the witnesses who testified in Oct on this. The B2 did not claim this in court on the 14th Oct. More misinformation from AleG that he claims as fact

Misinformation bothering on outright lies.

In order not to get drawn in and suspended for bickering, I'm glad that our command and comprehension of the English language is such that we fully understand the semantics of the English language to draw the right conclusion. No need to confer, haha. In my travels around the world, I notice sometimes that Spanish speakers struggle with it.

I know that you, Thailandchilli and the rest of the gang think they are clever with your games about my identity, but in doing so you are just showing the faults on your character and how desperate you are to silence people through bullying and intimidation.

[Gweiloman]

Because the men on trial already testified that was what happened, in court, on October 14th of last year; a fact that seems remarkably impervious to absorption by some people.

This comes from the defense team:

"14 th Oct: Koh Samui Court holds a preliminary witness hearing for 3 Myanmar prosecution witnesses at risk of disappearing. Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo attend and are represented by lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT). The witnesses testify: (1) Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were on Sairee Beach on 14 th Sept. night close to the place where the bodies of Hannah and David were found; (2) Wai Phyo came across a mobile phone he said he found that may have belonged to David but passed it onto his friend."

That friend was the one that dumped it.

The men on trial the B2 did not testify this in court, as you say in your statement which you claim to be "fact". The witnesses did. Unfortunately those witnesses are now back in Burma and cannot be cross examined again.

Why, you are almost right; they didn't testify that on that day, they did it on the 21st of October:

"21st Oct: Zaw Lin/Wai Phyo retract their confessions to lawyers from the Lawyers Council of Thailand (LCT) at Koh Samui prison. Both allege beatings and torture in order to elicit the confessions and assert innocence against all charges. Both allege that on the night of the killings, they were merely playing their guitar, singing, drinking and relaxing on Sairee beach. Wai Phyo reported that he simply came across possessions allegedly belonging to the deceased"

That ties in with the testimony from the other witnesses that they received it from them.

This must be extremely damning evidence seen how much effort is going into wishing it away.

No this is to do with the fact that you claimed they testified in court that they gave the phone to their friends, they did not testify this in court, please your deflection is poor at best and shows your desperation. End of my debate with you as I'd rather carry on having posting rights.

We must admit though, that it's impressive how quickly he was able to draw upon news reports to try and substantiate his deflections. It doesn't seem to me to be random, more like a pre-planned strategy concocted by a group of people.

I expect that we might shortly be seeing the likes of xxxx,xxx,xxxx (don't want to be sentenced due to bickering) coming along to provide further ammunition.

[newcomer71]

Guys, please stop the bickering... We risk the topic to be closed again and is not worth, really.

The bickering just let win who wants to derail the thread and have it closed.

Sorry to bother

[Fat Haggis]

I'm afraid the police gave contradictory statements (again) to the court about this.

A police officer had earlier testified that the hoe was used to murder the victims, then the blood-stained tool was placed under a bag and discarded on the beach.

But U Oh testified that the hoe was in the same place he left it the night before, the lawyer said.

Also, police cajoled him to say he washed off the blood from the hoe. However, that is not what he told the judge. He said that he had not paid any attention to the hoe and was not aware of whether there was any blood on it or not. https://www.dvb.no/news/police-tried-to-manipulate-koh-tao-witness-court-told/54664

Who would you like to believe, the police or the owner of the Hoe?

I would believe the person actually giving testimony in court, who was also the person that actually handled the hoe; not the lawyer of the defendants, making claims about what the police allegedly did to the press.

Well if thats the case you would have to believe the police and the witness despite the statements where they contradicted themselves.

"A police officer had earlier testified that the hoe was used to murder the victims, then the blood-stained tool was placed under a bag and discarded on the beach."

The hoe that was apparently not checked for any form of DNA from either the victims, or the alleged killers ? funny how they can get a DNA sample off a 20 baht note that's been handled by hundreds of people, and yet they didn't bother with the hoe.. Sterling police work indeed..

What about this Prosecution ace, did it ever manifest itself?

It appears that the phone is more relevant to some people than the hoe itself, what about the DNA from the glass bottle that was "allegedly" used to kill David? That must have been submitted as evidence too, as this is what the bogus translator also claimed when he was a bona fide credible witness!!!!

Edited September 1, 2015 by Fat Haggis

[thailandchilli]

Guys, please stop the bickering... We risk the topic to be closed again and is not worth, really.

The bickering just let win who wants to derail the thread and have it closed.

Sorry to bother

Agreed but its very difficult when people make incorrect statements and they are called on it, then they still come back and attempt to play with words in a dishonest debate to try and hide their inaccuracies then its very difficult to resist. But I am trying