Koh Tao murders: 2 DNA profiles from alleged murder weapon do not match defendants' DNA

[GOLDBUGGY]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

3) A Claimed DNA Match with yet no confirmation of whether it in fact matches the sperm?

The Claimed DNA found inside of Hannah is alleged to be sperm and matches the 2 Accused DNA. The has been written several places for a year now. But since sperm was mentioned lets talk about that only.

Hannah was Raped and Sodomized! This came out in the investigation very early on. You don't need a sperm sample to prove that. Wearing a Condom does not clear you of rape charges. There are many other ways to tell this, including torn tissue. This has never been and issue of argument up to this point by anyone on either the Prosecutor or Defense Teams. .

Proof seems to be a very popular word here that people like to use a lot. How many times have we heard that the DNA presented by the Prosecution is only backed by their word and no other documented proof. Then the next line they write how Dr. Pornthip is saying the that change of custody was incomplete on the Prosecutors DNA Evidence and that these documents were edited as the dates are not right.

Now how in the hell can you have no documents as proof but at the same time having the defense team and witness questioning that documented proof?

The DNA Evidence presented by the Prosecution and Forensic Witnesses came with Documents such as change of custody. Whether this was incomplete or not remains to be seen

Oh! I never did see in the Testimony from Dr. Pornthip where she claimed the DNA found inside Hannah was not sperm. Did you? I never even saw where she suggested it could be something else. So I am not sure where you got this information from to begin your statement..

[loonodingle]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

3) A Claimed DNA Match with yet no confirmation of whether it in fact matches the sperm?

The Claimed DNA found inside of Hannah is alleged to be sperm and matches the 2 Accused DNA. The has been written several places for a year now. But since sperm was mentioned lets talk about that only.

Hannah was Raped and Sodomized! This came out in the investigation very early on. You don't need a sperm sample to prove that. Wearing a Condom does not clear you of rape charges. There are many other ways to tell this, including torn tissue. This has never been and issue of argument up to this point by anyone on either the Prosecutor or Defense Teams. .

Proof seems to be a very popular word here that people like to use a lot. How many times have we heard that the DNA presented by the Prosecution is only backed by their word and no other documented proof. Then the next line they write how Dr. Pornthip is saying the that change of custody was incomplete on the Prosecutors DNA Evidence and that these documents were edited as the dates are not right.

Now how in the hell can you have no documents as proof but at the same time having the defense team and witness questioning that documented proof?

The DNA Evidence presented by the Prosecution and Forensic Witnesses came with Documents such as change of custody. Whether this was incomplete or not remains to be seen

Oh! I never did see in the Testimony from Dr. Pornthip where she claimed the DNA found inside Hannah was not sperm. Did you? I never even saw where she suggested it could be something else. So I am not sure where you got this information from to begin your statement..

Thats alot of bold statements GB.

You may well have to eat your words on some of it when the UK autopsy is disclosed. To much reliance on old news.

As for Pornthip well she never examined Hannah Or David which is why she cant comment precisely on the findings however the uk experts will.... you watch.

Perhaps a Ohh I apologise I was wrong will be in order.

[Darkknight666]

GB is straight trolling now.. Just don't feed him. The guy is talking about evidence that hasn't even been introduced in court yet as its concrete... If the DNA in Hannah was from the B2 many many people would know by now, news, locals etc.

Until the defense can verify that the "match" from Hannah is trustworthy there's no point in even discussing it further.

[rockingrobin]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

3) A Claimed DNA Match with yet no confirmation of whether it in fact matches the sperm?

The Claimed DNA found inside of Hannah is alleged to be sperm and matches the 2 Accused DNA. The has been written several places for a year now. But since sperm was mentioned lets talk about that only.

Hannah was Raped and Sodomized! This came out in the investigation very early on. You don't need a sperm sample to prove that. Wearing a Condom does not clear you of rape charges. There are many other ways to tell this, including torn tissue. This has never been and issue of argument up to this point by anyone on either the Prosecutor or Defense Teams. .

Proof seems to be a very popular word here that people like to use a lot. How many times have we heard that the DNA presented by the Prosecution is only backed by their word and no other documented proof. Then the next line they write how Dr. Pornthip is saying the that change of custody was incomplete on the Prosecutors DNA Evidence and that these documents were edited as the dates are not right.

Now how in the hell can you have no documents as proof but at the same time having the defense team and witness questioning that documented proof?

The DNA Evidence presented by the Prosecution and Forensic Witnesses came with Documents such as change of custody. Whether this was incomplete or not remains to be seen

Oh! I never did see in the Testimony from Dr. Pornthip where she claimed the DNA found inside Hannah was not sperm. Did you? I never even saw where she suggested it could be something else. So I am not sure where you got this information from to begin your statement..

GB the alleged rape ha been challenged in court, the sperm dna has been challenged in court

With regards to chain of custody , if it is incomplete then there is no chain of custody , you once again fail to acknowledge the prosecution witness statement , forensic taking accused dna did not sign and could not account for a mark on the evidence bag.

With regards to an earlier post about The Phone, all we have is a verbal statement , untill this i verified then that is al it is.

Also you wish now to go back on media reports which you earlier regard a not being accurate, so in which case I will again respond the media Knew about the missing phone during the first week, there were numerous iphones found , one allegedly with a blonde hair snagged , where this was found is uncertain, was it in davids luggage (when the previous police group decided to pack his luggage ) or during the raid on the migrants accomadation where bloodied jeans a gun and hand grenade were discovered.

[fish fingers]

I don't want to even think about this but was she raped before she was killed? Because I'm trying to work out if David was with her, or did he catch the rapists/killers in the act etc.

Not something I really want to think about tho..

[Fat Haggis]

GB is baiting and trolling to get this thread locked too. Don't feed him.

The other bloke who's been steadfast in his stance has yet to answer a single question directed at him, nor has he accepted the glaring errors by the RTP he's no more interested in seeing justice, than I am of seeing Susan Boyle butt naked!!!

[berybert]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

Well let me try although I am not a defender of anyone. I just try to look at what is presented and use Common Sense.

1) Retracted Confession Obtained Under Torture?

What evidence has been presented by the Defense except from the word of mouth of an accused Murderer and Rapist who already confessed but now wants to change his mind? A fellow prisoner who testified (or at least I think he did) that he saw bruising on one of the accused but made no claims as to the accused telling him how he got those. Yet a doctor who first examined both accused shortly after their confessions claims he didn't see any. So did they obtain these bruises right after their interrogations or days after from some fellow inmates, who in most countries hate rapists in prison?

Even LIn's own testimony he recently stated he had a bag over his head but was also beaten, including to the side of his head. Yet a day or two after the confessions when the accused did a reenactment of the crime did anyone see a bruise on his face or anywhere else on his body? Or Wins? You have got to be a pretty good shot to hit a guy on the side of the head several times, when he has a bag over his head and is struggling, yet not hit the jaw or cheek bone once, causing bruising. Even hit on the side of the head can cause some bruising on the face.

Lin also testified he talked to Win on the telephone, which suggest Win was interrogated on the Main Land. Either way he was not in the same room as Lin. So what you have is 2 different people being interrogated in 2 different locations, involving 2 different sets of people, but both now claiming torture.

On the other hand you have a slew of police officers including a high ranking one, and Interpreter, regardless of his qualifications, who all sat through the entire interrogations claiming no torture was used. At no time did the accused tell the prison doctors, or even a fellow Migrant Worker how they got these bruises. So I won't go into whether they were tortured or not as none of us where their. I will simply ask a question.

Who do you think carries more weight in a court of law? The 2 Accused charged with murder and rape? Or a whole slew of police officials and interpreter who would have to perjury themselves to lie?

I will share my opinion on the other 2 points shortly as well. .

Please don't. Better to be thought of as stupid than to removal all doubt.

[balo]

The problem i have with it is if he had made the trip from Koh Tao surely he would be too tired to being going to classes first thing?

That's only an slight issue if you believe that the CCTV, which was provided weeks later by him, has not had the time stamp doctored.

It holds no water just like the staged DNA testing. If anything, the way both of these were handled just adds more suspicion onto him.

The DNA testing circus was farcical. The CCTV not so much. They gave access to all the footage from all cameras to Thai PBS for the period from 2:00 am until he was seen leaving (on at least 3 cameras) around 9:30 am. The CCTV does not show him entering during that time period. It has been suggested that he might have used the fire escape to enter, but there is a camera in the corridor outside his room that was also checked. The CCTV might have been faked but, if so, either someone very senior at Thai PBS is involved in the cover up, or the falsification was very well done.

I can imagine many reasons Nomsod would not have wanted to publicize the footage of him entering his room. My guess, if the CCTV is genuine, is that he entered his room with a girl, and neither this girl, nor his steady girlfriend, would have been impressed.

I'm 50 - 50 on NS. I would like to have seen a verified DNA to reassure me rather than the circus in Bangkok, but regards the CCTV that was analysed by Thai PBS. As far as I'm concerned this carries no weight or proof whatsoever.

CCTV evidence can only be credible if the actual source has been verified from where it was taken and that the time stamp is the original one. There are plenty of UK police guidance documents on this do a Google for "uk police cctv evidence collection and authentication" and you'll find numerous official documents and guidance on the use of cctv as evidence in court and the authentication process it needs to go through first.

Its been demonstrated just how easy it is to change the time stamp for the whole stored cctv recording in situ of the hard drive on another site on that particular model of cctv, it then just needs to be handed to whoever wants it and it appears genuine but in fact has been changed to whatever dates or time were wanted.

So this means we cant trust anything the Thai police in Bangkok shows us as CCTV evidence, who else is going to verify they did their job ? I agree with the theory that there could be other reasons for NS not want to publizie the footage of him entering his room, maybe because of a love affair. But thats just more speculations of course.

So what it boils down to is that NS has been cleared but still it's not possible to clear him because of the reputation of the police .

[berybert]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

I asked you not to prove just how stupid you are, but you just had to do it.

[berybert]

So the defense strategy is to nitpick the procedures of forensic analysis that led to the DNA match, the problem with that is that it's not possible to go "oopsie, false positive!" with a DNA analysis, no mistake is going to produce a DNA match for not just one, but two persons.

The only thing that would give a false match is deliberately faking the results, since A ) they don't seem to have any evidence of that and B ) they refused to do a retest of those results it all amounts to insinuations; let's see how the judge weights those insinuations against the actual results from the analysis

Exactly that I think. If the defence takes us every day a particular object on which no dna 2B, we are not out of the woods. The only tangible deduction is that the police did not disguised these parts to conviction contrary to what one says loudly here.

We can easily bet that they will now do the same with clothing non-presented by the prosecution. Then they will challenge the process of DNA levies that match and it will be judges to decide.

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty. Let us now see if this trial reserve us a surprise ...

We can also accept that they use so weak arguments because they don't have more convincing and therefore that the two accused are guilty

Talk about weak arguments......

The prosecution's case is weak, extremely weak. The only "evidence" they seem to have is a retracted confession (undoubtedly obtained under torture), the presence of the suspects not far from the crime scene (willingly offered up by the defence, as it does not prove or even point to certain guilt), a handphone purportedly belonging to David found near the B2's residence (not on them or in their room) and a claimed DNA match (but as yet, no confirmation of whether this in fact matches the sperm). The prosecution's defenders on TV have also not put forward any compelling evidence as to the B2's guilt.

And yet, you seem certain of their guilt. Strange.

3) A Claimed DNA Match with yet no confirmation of whether it in fact matches the sperm?

The Claimed DNA found inside of Hannah is alleged to be sperm and matches the 2 Accused DNA. The has been written several places for a year now. But since sperm was mentioned lets talk about that only.

Hannah was Raped and Sodomized! This came out in the investigation very early on. You don't need a sperm sample to prove that. Wearing a Condom does not clear you of rape charges. There are many other ways to tell this, including torn tissue. This has never been and issue of argument up to this point by anyone on either the Prosecutor or Defense Teams. .

Proof seems to be a very popular word here that people like to use a lot. How many times have we heard that the DNA presented by the Prosecution is only backed by their word and no other documented proof. Then the next line they write how Dr. Pornthip is saying the that change of custody was incomplete on the Prosecutors DNA Evidence and that these documents were edited as the dates are not right.

Now how in the hell can you have no documents as proof but at the same time having the defense team and witness questioning that documented proof?

The DNA Evidence presented by the Prosecution and Forensic Witnesses came with Documents such as change of custody. Whether this was incomplete or not remains to be seen

Oh! I never did see in the Testimony from Dr. Pornthip where she claimed the DNA found inside Hannah was not sperm. Did you? I never even saw where she suggested it could be something else. So I am not sure where you got this information from to begin your statement..

And again !!!

[AleG]

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

As I said before, it beggars belief that the police would just happen to pick two scapegoats that just happened to had found that phone on that night.

It also seems very, shall we say, odd that the people clamoring for the truth don't seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of that issue.

[berybert]

The DNA testing circus was farcical. The CCTV not so much. They gave access to all the footage from all cameras to Thai PBS for the period from 2:00 am until he was seen leaving (on at least 3 cameras) around 9:30 am. The CCTV does not show him entering during that time period. It has been suggested that he might have used the fire escape to enter, but there is a camera in the corridor outside his room that was also checked. The CCTV might have been faked but, if so, either someone very senior at Thai PBS is involved in the cover up, or the falsification was very well done.

I can imagine many reasons Nomsod would not have wanted to publicize the footage of him entering his room. My guess, if the CCTV is genuine, is that he entered his room with a girl, and neither this girl, nor his steady girlfriend, would have been impressed.

I'm 50 - 50 on NS. I would like to have seen a verified DNA to reassure me rather than the circus in Bangkok, but regards the CCTV that was analysed by Thai PBS. As far as I'm concerned this carries no weight or proof whatsoever.

CCTV evidence can only be credible if the actual source has been verified from where it was taken and that the time stamp is the original one. There are plenty of UK police guidance documents on this do a Google for "uk police cctv evidence collection and authentication" and you'll find numerous official documents and guidance on the use of cctv as evidence in court and the authentication process it needs to go through first.

Its been demonstrated just how easy it is to change the time stamp for the whole stored cctv recording in situ of the hard drive on another site on that particular model of cctv, it then just needs to be handed to whoever wants it and it appears genuine but in fact has been changed to whatever dates or time were wanted.

So this means we cant trust anything the Thai police in Bangkok shows us as CCTV evidence, who else is going to verify they did their job ? I agree with the theory that there could be other reasons for NS not want to publizie the footage of him entering his room, maybe because of a love affair. But thats just more speculations of course.

So what it boils down to is that NS has been cleared but still it's not possible to clear him because of the reputation of the police .

Nomsod has been cleared ? Nomsods DNA has never been independently tested nor has the DNA found in on Hannah.

How can you claim Nomsod has been cleared ?

The Burmese will no doubt soon be cleared, but you along with a few others will still be saying they did it because the nice policeman said so.

[berybert]

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

As I said before, it beggars belief that the police would just happen to pick two scapegoats that just happened to had found that phone on that night.

It also seems very, shall we say, odd that the people clamoring for the truth don't seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of that issue.

Yeah and to prove this they said someone from Burma told them all about it but he now seems to have disappeared. But again the nice policeman said it so it must be true.

No one has stood up in court and testified that the phone was found behind the Burmese room or the phone belonged to David. If that is all the proof you need then the sooner you end up in jail for something you didn't do the better.

Actually karma must have something a lot worse in store than you being in jail.

[balo]

The DNA testing circus was farcical. The CCTV not so much. They gave access to all the footage from all cameras to Thai PBS for the period from 2:00 am until he was seen leaving (on at least 3 cameras) around 9:30 am. The CCTV does not show him entering during that time period. It has been suggested that he might have used the fire escape to enter, but there is a camera in the corridor outside his room that was also checked. The CCTV might have been faked but, if so, either someone very senior at Thai PBS is involved in the cover up, or the falsification was very well done.

I can imagine many reasons Nomsod would not have wanted to publicize the footage of him entering his room. My guess, if the CCTV is genuine, is that he entered his room with a girl, and neither this girl, nor his steady girlfriend, would have been impressed.

I'm 50 - 50 on NS. I would like to have seen a verified DNA to reassure me rather than the circus in Bangkok, but regards the CCTV that was analysed by Thai PBS. As far as I'm concerned this carries no weight or proof whatsoever.

CCTV evidence can only be credible if the actual source has been verified from where it was taken and that the time stamp is the original one. There are plenty of UK police guidance documents on this do a Google for "uk police cctv evidence collection and authentication" and you'll find numerous official documents and guidance on the use of cctv as evidence in court and the authentication process it needs to go through first.

Its been demonstrated just how easy it is to change the time stamp for the whole stored cctv recording in situ of the hard drive on another site on that particular model of cctv, it then just needs to be handed to whoever wants it and it appears genuine but in fact has been changed to whatever dates or time were wanted.

So this means we cant trust anything the Thai police in Bangkok shows us as CCTV evidence, who else is going to verify they did their job ? I agree with the theory that there could be other reasons for NS not want to publizie the footage of him entering his room, maybe because of a love affair. But thats just more speculations of course.

So what it boils down to is that NS has been cleared but still it's not possible to clear him because of the reputation of the police .

Nomsod has been cleared ? Nomsods DNA has never been independently tested nor has the DNA found in on Hannah.

How can you claim Nomsod has been cleared ?

The Burmese will no doubt soon be cleared, but you along with a few others will still be saying they did it because the nice policeman said so.

Did you read my last sentence?

Which means he has not been cleared because of the reputation of the police. And then its anyones guess if they showed us the original CCTV footage or not. I choose to believe they did show us the correct CCTV footage.

.

.

Edited September 13, 2015 by balo

[silverado]

Big Week For the Defense!

13 Sep 2015 — Hello everyone. I have been waiting for significant news to pop up before I bombarded all of your email addresses with an update. This week has been VERY good for the defense.

Dr. Pornthip, who is a sort of forensics celebrity in Thailand, has testified that there was NO DNA from Win and Zaw found on the murder weapon. She did state however that there was the DNA of two other males on the weapon. She also pointed out a number of other irregularities and falsehoods in regards to the way the alleged police investigation was carried out.

https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-independently-investigate-the-horrific-murders-of-hannah-witheridge-and-david-miller/u/13374060?tk=0iFzBsZhdnA5HCgKS2TiVXDDxbNwTsROs72ecvOZXKs&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

https://twitter.com/atomicalandy

[Madaussie]

Thumbs up for Dr Pornthip, looks like a typical loony scientist but proved her honesty, technical skills, knowledge and impartiality at the trial for the sake of real justice.

Golden Rule in Life..

"Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover"

Some of the worlds Genius's don't look like it..

[silverado]

Two simple boys, gumagon boys from Burma trying to esacpe the horrible dirt floor persecuted poverty they live in and trying to get a quid to help mummy and daddy.

Thats my take on it after having visited and stayed in Burma a few times.

I'm talking about their real lives, not an idealized notion of what or who they may be.

I'm sure if RTP could dig up any disparaging tidbits on the B2, the Thai press would be shouting it from the street corners. RTP told the public for weeks that they were illegal, and then documentation shown to the judge in December proved there weren't. You got any other dirt to try to get to stick to them AleG?

On the other hand, Mon and his tough-guy buddies, regulars at the beach party bars, have sordid reputations. Data-rapes, rapes with bruises, and fights are as common at those places/beaches as brown colored beer bottles. Would a pretty young farang lady have any luck/support reporting a date-rape by a Thai - to the local Thai police? Answer: No. And not only because local cops are bosom buddies with Mon and other weapon-toting mafia-wannabes who go to the bars every night.

[Madaussie]

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

As I said before, it beggars belief that the police would just happen to pick two scapegoats that just happened to had found that phone on that night.

It also seems very, shall we say, odd that the people clamoring for the truth don't seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of that issue.

If my memory serves me correctly the RTP first claimed it was your buddys further down the beach.

Then it was Gay love twist between David and Chris Ware.

Then it was a football team.

Then a boat driver found in a cave somewhere.

Then they found some cctv of a 3 young men who had been in the 7-11 and brought some smokes.

People clamouring includes the RTP as well doesn't it???????

[Wifflewaffle]

KOH TAO: -- Tip-off from Myanmar workers on Koh Tao played key role in arrests over the killings of Britons; police say DNA evidence will prove they are not scapegoats

Another police source said the three men had been monitored secretly after police detected signs of suspicious behaviour after interviewing staff at AC Pub and all shops and restaurants. One of the men, who police did name, had dyed his hair from gold to black after the crime took place.

A police source said that both Win and Saw were smuggled into Thailand via Ranong province by an agent who charged them Bt5,000 each. He said fellow Myanmar workers had also noticed suspicious behaviour from the two after the murders, and secretly tipped off a Myanmar worker chief, who later told the police, which led to their arrests, the source added.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/765630-murder-suspects-charged/

[Wifflewaffle]

Reports then emerged from the Burmese community that nine Burmese had been playing a ball game when they were approached by police, one member told reporters that the three suspects, who were working and residing illegally in the country should flea, which they did. The remaining six were apprehended , one went on to say that the police tortured them with boiling water, before apprehending the three that fled. Two of those three Saw and Wyn were the two Burmese who took part in the reconstruction and whose DNA has been said to match that at the crime scene,

The third man, Mau, is apparently still in custody but has denied any involvement in the case.

http://www.samuitimes.com/international-confusion-murder-reconstruction-koh-tao/

[Madaussie]

Reports then emerged from the Burmese community that nine Burmese had been playing a ball game when they were approached by police, one member told reporters that the three suspects, who were working and residing illegally in the country should flea, which they did. The remaining six were apprehended , one went on to say that the police tortured them with boiling water, before apprehending the three that fled. Two of those three Saw and Wyn were the two Burmese who took part in the reconstruction and whose DNA has been said to match that at the crime scene,

The third man, Mau, is apparently still in custody but has denied any involvement in the case.

http://www.samuitimes.com/international-confusion-murder-reconstruction-koh-tao/

Take your pick HEY!!!!

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

The police have arrested a suspect in the murder of two British tourists in Koh Tao and are still hunting for a second suspect who has escaped into Bangkok.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.

The southern police chief also assured the public that there was no arrest of scapegoats in this murder case as it now is a focal attention of the world.

He also dismissed any suggestion of local mafias or influential people that could twist the investigation with promise that local influence would pose no obstacle to the police investigation.

Instead the police will eliminate all these mafias, he said.

Meanwhile a police source said the police are also looking into the cooperation of those who helped to arrange the suspect to escape. They also will be arrested.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Madaussie

[fritzzz25]

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

As I said before, it beggars belief that the police would just happen to pick two scapegoats that just happened to had found that phone on that night.

It also seems very, shall we say, odd that the people clamoring for the truth don't seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of that issue.

Be glad it wasn't you they picked to become a scapegoat. Remember, you mean nothing to the locals either. And if you were here looking for truth, about 3000 of your posts wouldn't exist.

If I was there looking for the truth, I would start by following a certain fellow around with a gimpy walk and retrieve some DNA from him - which I suspect has already happened that will be compared with the RTP's DNA samples after the trial is over. You may have heard of the term "private investigator" before - often former police officers from countries with first world experience in major crimes.

[Madaussie]

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

As I said before, it beggars belief that the police would just happen to pick two scapegoats that just happened to had found that phone on that night.

It also seems very, shall we say, odd that the people clamoring for the truth don't seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of that issue.

Be glad it wasn't you they picked to become a scapegoat. Remember, you mean nothing to the locals either. And if you were here looking for truth, about 3000 of your posts wouldn't exist.

If I was there looking for the truth, I would start by following a certain fellow around with a gimpy walk and retrieve some DNA from him - which I suspect has already happened that will be compared with the RTP's DNA samples after the trial is over. You may have heard of the term "private investigator" before - often former police officers from countries with first world experience in major crimes.

I can vouch for that ref Private investigators.

I do wonder if his partner was the victim would he be happy with the RTP casework Just a thought as I cant say I would be.

[loonodingle]

2) The Mobile Phone purportedly belonging to David.

Every time I see this brought up I always see that the most important part of this is always missing. Let's go back down memory lane here at start at the beginning.

Police knew from talking to David's friends and family that David Mobile Phone was missing, but they chose not to disclose this to the public. Probably in hopes of catching the murderer with it red handed. That means that David did not tell his friends, including Chris, who last saw him that night around 1 am, that he lost his phone. So there is a very good likelihood he had it on him when he left and ended up at the AC bar at 1:30 am.

So why is it that since the Police knew the Mobile Phone was missing almost on the day of the murders that it was not discovered for 2 weeks later? How did they know where to look even?

It is because after the confessions (forced or otherwise) the accused were asked about David's Mobile Phone. It is then alleged that one of the accused (Win I think) told them he had given this to a friend. When this friend was approached by police he told them he discarded this smashed up phone as he became suspicious of it, but other reports say they did it because it didn't work on the Island. Either way he showed them where he discarded it and thus leading to the discovery of this Mobile Phone.

Once the accused retracted their confession they later claimed they found this Mobile Phone on the Beach. Keep in mind that by then the Prosecution had a witness saying they gave it to him. But how plausible is that? Let's see!

If David did lose his Mobile Phone on the beach it had to have been that night as he never reported missing to his friends. Since David was seen on CCTV at a different bar, when it was closed, and a 7-11 later, and before he went to the AC Bar, he did not take the beach path to get their as there are no CCTV Cameras their, as we all know. So he would have had to have lost his phone somewhere along the beach from the AC Bar to the Rocks, and somewhere close the the 2 accused for them to find it in the dark.

So how is it that both of the accused claimed they did not see them. Even if they were swimming how far out in the ocean and away from the shore can 2 guys who are 5 feet tall go? To not notice someone walk by maybe only yards away, with all there clothes their and a guitar hid in the bush someplace. Or sitting on the log playing the guitar and someone walking by would almost have to trip over them.

If they did find the Mobile Phone on the beach how is it they knew it was David Miller's Mobile Phone when asked by the Police, and was directed to its location, and yet they claim they never saw anyone? Why would you give something so valuable to a friend without compensation and for no known good reason to do so, other than possibly trying to hide you had it? Wouldn't trying to sell it and send money home make more sense, if it was found and not stolen? Why would you destroy a Mobile Phone just because it didn't work for you first time. Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?

Sorry but it is no very plausible to me they found it.

Now the next and final point.

As I said before, it beggars belief that the police would just happen to pick two scapegoats that just happened to had found that phone on that night.

It also seems very, shall we say, odd that the people clamoring for the truth don't seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of that issue.

Be glad it wasn't you they picked to become a scapegoat. Remember, you mean nothing to the locals either. And if you were here looking for truth, about 3000 of your posts wouldn't exist.

If I was there looking for the truth, I would start by following a certain fellow around with a gimpy walk and retrieve some DNA from him - which I suspect has already happened that will be compared with the RTP's DNA samples after the trial is over. You may have heard of the term "private investigator" before - often former police officers from countries with first world experience in major crimes.

Would agree with all that

[SiSePuede419]

"Why would David walk around with a Mobile Phone that wasn't working their?"

Maybe it's his smartphone from his home country? That he only uses on WiFi? Because the kids today use messages on Line, Skype, Snapchat, etc to communicate rather than call phone numbers?

[T_Dog]

How many days until the trial recesses for judgment?

[BritTim]

Beach cleaners discovered the Britons’ naked bodies 20 m apart by rocks on idyllic Sairee Beach on Sept. 15. A bloodstained garden hoe, commonly used by beachside bars to dig fire pits, was found nearby and has now been confirmed as the principal murder weapon, along with a wooden club.

The existence of two weapons has “made us believe that there are at least two attackers,” the deputy national police chief, Police General Somyot Pumpanmuang, told reporters Monday.

http://time.com/3420299/thailand-koh-tao-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller/

Wooden club in existence?

There was no wooden club in the final prosecution version as stated in court. They claimed there were three weapons: the hoe that had Hannah's blood but no other DNA (we know that male DNA traces were found when a proper forensic examination was done), a hammer (never found), and a wine bottle (presumed from suspects "confessions" and glass fragments found at the scene, but no forensic examination).

[BritTim]

A mute Burmese beach cleaner stumbled upon the bodies shortly after dawn. A garden hoe and wooden club found nearby were quickly fingered as the principal murder weapons.

http://time.com/3955081/thailand-koh-tao-murder-david-miller-hannah-witheridge-zaw-lin-wai-phyo-burma-myanmar

Was it a half blind gardener that discovered the bodies or a mute Burmese cleaner? Seems very convenient that these people have such disabilities. Was the mute beach cleaner in court to testify anyone know?

I think the media were told the person who found the bodies was mute because they wanted to head off attempts to find and question him.

[BritTim]

The DNA testing circus was farcical. The CCTV not so much. They gave access to all the footage from all cameras to Thai PBS for the period from 2:00 am until he was seen leaving (on at least 3 cameras) around 9:30 am. The CCTV does not show him entering during that time period. It has been suggested that he might have used the fire escape to enter, but there is a camera in the corridor outside his room that was also checked. The CCTV might have been faked but, if so, either someone very senior at Thai PBS is involved in the cover up, or the falsification was very well done.

I can imagine many reasons Nomsod would not have wanted to publicize the footage of him entering his room. My guess, if the CCTV is genuine, is that he entered his room with a girl, and neither this girl, nor his steady girlfriend, would have been impressed.

I'm 50 - 50 on NS. I would like to have seen a verified DNA to reassure me rather than the circus in Bangkok, but regards the CCTV that was analysed by Thai PBS. As far as I'm concerned this carries no weight or proof whatsoever.

CCTV evidence can only be credible if the actual source has been verified from where it was taken and that the time stamp is the original one. There are plenty of UK police guidance documents on this do a Google for "uk police cctv evidence collection and authentication" and you'll find numerous official documents and guidance on the use of cctv as evidence in court and the authentication process it needs to go through first.

Its been demonstrated just how easy it is to change the time stamp for the whole stored cctv recording in situ of the hard drive on another site on that particular model of cctv, it then just needs to be handed to whoever wants it and it appears genuine but in fact has been changed to whatever dates or time were wanted.

I agree CCTV falsification would definitely have been possible. I do not rule it out. If so, though, is it not curious that they did not produce CCTV with him entering his room at, say, 1:00 am? This would have been easier than the many hours of CCTV footage from numerous cameras that they did produce.

[jaidam]

A mute Burmese beach cleaner stumbled upon the bodies shortly after dawn. A garden hoe and wooden club found nearby were quickly fingered as the principal murder weapons.

http://time.com/3955081/thailand-koh-tao-murder-david-miller-hannah-witheridge-zaw-lin-wai-phyo-burma-myanmar

Was it a half blind gardener that discovered the bodies or a mute Burmese cleaner? Seems very convenient that these people have such disabilities. Was the mute beach cleaner in court to testify anyone know?

I think the media were told the person who found the bodies was mute because they wanted to head off attempts to find and question him.

Local sources tell this first person was an (apparently Thai) female with mental problems and acute alcoholism - semi blind was the least of her worries- that used to comb the beaches for saleables and recyclables daily pre-dawn. I say used to because as the trial was starting her body was discovered sliced up and dumped in garbage bags at the town dump. CSI did have mentions of this at the time but of course it was hushed up by local officialdom. There were dozens of witnesses to this, the shock made all the more profound as it was the 2nd chopped up Asian body to be found in the same place that week.