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

[lucky11]

He admitted he found A phone on the beach. He admitted he smashed A phone the next day. Can the prosecution PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the phone is the EXACT same one he handled. As you can see, one can change an IMEI number quite easily, and it isn't too hard to get phone parts for an iphone to piece one together to use as "evidence".

Unless they can bring in an engineer from Apple who can examine the phone to see if it has been electronically tampered with and say with EXACT certainty that nothing has been altered, I cannot see how this phone can be even be anything but a distraction.

Forget the phone...his own testimony of finding it "around 4am" IMO is the most alarming thing.

What's so alarming about it?

1. They originally said they left the beach and went to bed 2pm

2. Admittedly very drunk at home after 2am but get up again at 4 to look for shoes?? Errr

3.. So, at 4am they are wondering all over the place looking for shoes..but didnt stumble on the crime scene or see or hear anything or anybody?

how big is the place?

And just to add..the phone business..why the need to be paranoid and destroy abd hide it if you did nothing wrong?

Its like a guy innocently walking down the street, but when he sees a policeman approach he does a runner

I'm sure that he (Gweilloman) has a rational explanation!!. Perhaps he meant to go to the toilet and somehow found himself on the beach looking for his shoes 2 hours after crashing out in bed. Wei certainly had an eventful night losing and finding things (even when exceedingly drunk as he hardly ever drunk alcohol, or so he claims) I doubt that he had a very good night's sleep mind you!!

Then again, maybe he was (and still is) fabricating evidence to suit his story and cover up for his mistakes or could he be hiding something a little more sinister as to what truly happened that fateful night?

Edited October 12, 2015 by lucky11

[BritTim]

One point: if Wai Phyo was indeed the running man, it might not be damning evidence against him in context. In fact, it may suggest that he was alone at the time, with the other Burmese kid back in the room. Was it clarified whether they both went out looking for clothes and guitar?

Edited October 12, 2015 by BritTim

[smedly]

I'm not sure the phone itself is probative of anything in the case. If Wei Phyo admitted that he, or someone else, damaged the phone and tried to hide it, that's somewhat incriminating, but only in a circumstantial way. The case comes down to the DNA sample taken off Hannah's body, the chain of custody on that evidence, the DNA testing of the sample and how much credibility the Court extends to the police in the taking, handling and testing of that sample. Nothing else matters.

The problem with the phone is that it makes a connection where there previously was none. Most of us feared a conviction despite a total lack of evidence. The phone gives them a crumb.

Again I need to ask this question

which smashed phone did the police have in the video when they were seen showing it to friends of Davids during interview - it cannot be the same phone that was found behind B2 residence, how many smashed phones do the police have and which one was sent to the UK to confirm IMEI number with the carrier.

There are several ways to see the IMEI number on an iphone -

- If it is working (powering up) you can type a number in the keypad and the phone will show IMEI on the screen

- If it is smashed and not powering up you can look either on the frame of the phone or the sim card drawer and the IMEI will be typed there, since both the phones that we know about were smashed then the only reference to IMEI is what is typed on the phone

- If the phone is smashed it is possible to remove the main circuit board and insert it into a working device and power it up, the device will still be locked and require a factory reset to access IMEI, this can only be done by a technician and only requires the main circuit board

IMO if the police had Davids phone they did not need to send the device to the UK to confirm IMEI as it is typed on the body somewhere, the carrier may have insisted on having the physical phone before agreeing to check it and even then this could have simply been looking at the frame of the phone

The flaw in this process is simple, there is no way of knowing which phone was used for the IMEI confirmation, was it the one found behind the residence or the one in the video - cannot be the same phones as the one in the video was shown only a couple of days after the crime (before the arrests)

So where does that leave us ?

I find it hard to believe that Wei Phyo while out searching for his clothes at 4am (his account in court) did not come across the event on the beach that resulted in the murders, if this was a short time before the murders then the phone he found on the beach is unlikely to belong to David

Hard questions that create doubt in my mind as to this account of events and B2 involvement

- Who took their clothes and the guitar while they were swimming ? something not quite right with this IMO

- why not look for these items when they came out of the water ? something not quite right with this IMO

- why go back to the beach searching after going to bed ?

- was the guitar in AC bar ? if so how did it get there ? again something doesn't sit right here either

although the police may have made a mess of most of this investigation and IMO have no legal grounds to convict - Wei Phyo's own account of events that night/morning raises some serious questions about events that took place and their involvement, I said before from a purely strategic point of view, I saw nothing of value added to the defense case having them testify in court - quite the opposite

[smedly]

Could police have 'planted' the phone? Initially, they said the found phone belonged to Hannah, then they changed their story.

When the defendant (note: one defendant, not two) claims he found the phone on the beach, what time did that happen ....before the crime? after?

If he made that claim during torture, than it means absolutely nothing. He could admit to being The Pope under torture.

The worst the phone incident shows, is one of the defendants might be a petty thief who took something off a beach.

He admitted it in court. It is now PROVEN that one of the accused took he murder victims phone, and that makes it highly likely that he was at the scene of the murder or close enough to know what happened. He also admits to theft and vandalism (stealing the phone and breaking it). The police work has been super shabby and unprofessional, but that doesn't mean that they have the wrong men. We will never know for sure, because the Thai police can't be trusted, but sometimes they get the right results, and the FACT that one of the accused took the phone, is huge.

wrong, he admitted finding a phone and getting rid of it next day - there is a lot of confusion over phones that police had in there possession and when - see my post above

[Basil B]

The trail is over other than for "closing arguments"...

Unfortunately without a jury and transcripts or recording of the proceedings, even those present in court were banned from taking notes how will anyone ever accept the findings of the Judges...

[GAZZPA]

Did I understand correctly that one of the defendants admits to finding the phone at 4 a.m.? And he still admits to it? To be honest, I haven't been following the case that closely lately. But if that's true, and he's truly innocent, then that's pretty bad luck on his part, isn't it?

And exceptionally good luck on the part of the police, if one would assume the theory that those two men were picked up as scapegoats what a fantastic coincidence that they'd try to frame up the two guys who just happened to had found that phone.

No, no coincidences, obviously they had found other evidence that pointed at those two men before the phone was found

Confirmation on the phone proves that the police had solid grounds to arrest them; the framing theories are now even more detached from reality than before, the insinuations that the Miller family were having doubts about the guilt of the defendants are blown away too.

So far I have completely disagreed with your opinions on this trial. However, I have to a admit the accused standing confession to finding the phone and smashing the phone after hearing about the murders does seem very odd.

A sensible person would also say it would be a fantastic coincidence that they were framing the 2 guys that just happened to find the phone, they also "realised" it might be part of the murders so they attempted to smash is and dump it. what are the odds really?

Also, his behaviour and explanation around the phone is strange. If I innocently found a phone on a beach and then later heard there had been some horrible murders on the same night further down the beach I would not immediately think to myself "wow, I bet that phone belongs to the victim, better dump it in case someone, some day accuses me of those murders,, can't be found with his phone"

In fact I might not even put the 2 together, I would just consider i had found a phone on the beach.. (of course I would attempt to get it back to owner but thats different story).

There are still many points I do not agree with you on and I have not u turned (still think there is not enough to convict these guys) but in this instance I do agree with you it is strange and it does look like something is wrong...

[Linky]

One thing that does annoy me is that the prosecution case was finished. These days were for defence. Why can prosecution just interrupt defence time and add what evidence they want? Their time was finished.

They didnt give the phone as evidence in a timely manner, a couple of hours before end of trial. Doesnt give defence any time whatsoever to question that evidence. Surely the phone must be temdered as evidence by the rtp that found it then he can be questioned about it.

[catsanddogs]

I think most of you have missed one rather significant point.

From the Sky news article:

He said he picked it out of the sand some distance from the murder scene and took it home but he could not open it as it was locked with a passcode.

"The next day we heard about the murders and we were worried it might belong to someone involved," he told the court.

"My friend smashed up the phone and threw it into the undergrowth behind our hut."

If WP was one of the murderers, then he surely would not have then taken the phone, right?

It is also possible that the location of the dropped phone was the original scene of the crime (which would suggest that it happened before 4 am). MM mentioned early on that he left the B2 at about 1 am. WP mentioned that he went to look for the guitar and found the phone at 4 am. Could the B2 have left the scene at say 2 am, went back to their quarters (drunk as they said) and WP came out later at 4 am to look for the guitar that they left behind? It's not inconceivable that they forgot about the guitar in their state of intoxication.

So the scenario could be as such:

- B2 + MM smoking and playing guitar on the beach

- MM leaves at 1 am

- B2 leaves at 2 am, leaving behind the guitar

- crime happens between 2 - 4 am at the place where the B2 were sat

- one of the perps took the guitar with him

- WP, realising he left the guitar at the beach, goes down to retrieve it at 4 am

- no guitar but he finds an iPhone on the beach which he picks up (finder's keeper's and no one can really blame him)

- next day, one of the real perps gives the guitar to the RTP as "proof" that one of the owners are one of the culprits - this explains how early on, there are pictures and videos of RTP holding up a guitar

- WP, having picked up a phone the previous night, panics and naively tells a friend who equally naively tries to break it and dump in close to where they reside

The reported fact from sky news above is enough to cast reasonable doubt as to whether the B2 actually committed the crime.

Guitars seem to be very significant to these crimes.

1. Maung Maung said he woke the sleeping B2 around 5am to ask the whereabouts of his guitar and expensive shoes. B2 said they left it at the AC Bar.

2. WP goes out to look for his own guitar around 4am.

3. CCTV stills show the case of David Miller's guitar in his hotel room but there is no guitar in shot and none of his friends or family are seen leaving Koh Tao carrying a guitar.

4. Sean McAnna is seen leaving Koh Tao with a guitar splattered with dried blood.

5. B2 admit to playing guitar and singing on beach on the eve/morn of 14/15 Sep '14.

6. A group of of people are heard playing guitar and singing western songs on the beach on the eve/morn of 14/15 Sept.

Were all these people who had guitars maybe together at some point on the beach having a good time before something blew up?

[Linky]

Please refrain from calling me a troll simply because my version of events differs from yours.

Simply answer this question - how was it possible that David's phone was stolen from his pocket by Wei if, as they claimed, that they "never went anywhere near the crime scene" in fact they didn't even know that a rape and double murder had taken place on the beach that night if I recall rightly!!

Also, don't you think that the fact that they incriminated themselves by admitting that they violated Hannah's body carries a little bit of weight as to their guilt!!

If you can answer these two questions in a convincing manner then you may call me for trolling.

Your question is easy to answer.

Who said the phone was taken from david's pocket?

If you dont want to be called a troll i suggest you stop doing so.

In weeks of evidence of so called dna matching the actual only evidence proved was one of the boys admitting he found a phone. Thats it. That is the complete evidence, a found phone.

[fritzzz25]

"Mr Miller's family had apparently secured the IMEI number from David's computer"

So, was this done forensically with a software that ensures no alteration of the boot record of the computer? If one wants to bring computer evidence into a trial, they have to ensure the data has not been manipulated in any way. The way this is done is with digital forensic software like EnCase. It also has to show that the computer has not been booted up without EnCase attached to ensure data is intact. Again, no chain of evidence on this. AND no proof the the Met Police did this. Which they said they did not do because of it being a death penalty case.......

I can understand the family wants justice, but for them to say "oh hey, we found this on David's computer, here we wrote it down for you on a piece of paper can you make sure the court hears about it" TWO hours before the end of the trial.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" - Shakespeare

The only rotten thing I see there is your insinuations that the Miller family fabricated the evidence.

AleG. Show me where i sated the Miller family fabricated the evidence. I explained the way that FORENSIC digital evidence is captured. it is done with EnCase which is the Gold Standard. To ensure it is legitimate, the target disk must be shown to have NO modification of data. Meaning that NO boot of the computer has been done EVER WITHOUT EnCase attached.

I have no problem posting my credentials for police investigation training. I can show you criminal cases that I have worked on where computer forensic analysis was conducted. I wrote my first DNA warrant in 1999 while you were still watching "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego" getting your taste of "detective work".

I know what is required for evidence and the chain of custody. And if any fabricated evidence was done like changing an IMEI, it was done by the RTP with some "help"- maybe some farang who has some skills with electronics and has become nervous that they might get burnt for helping out an incompetent group of investigators. Would be a great way for the RTP to turn and point the finger at the farang and say "he helped us alter the evidence.

[bamukloy]

so we now know that Wei Phyo found a phone at 4am in the morning while out looking for clothes and his guitar

we also know that a phone was smashed and disposed of behind their residence

the above admitted by himself in court

also his clothes were indeed missing - who would take their clothes ??? which from pictures of the beach area if they did go for a swim they were never more than 10m from where they were sitting, didn't the guitar end up in AC bar ? how did it get there

something just doesn't sit right with all this

what smashed phone did the police have in the video (I assume before B2 were arrested) - the one they were showing to Friends of the victims during interview, was it this phone that was sent to Davids family ?

there is some serious confusion about this phone issue

how many phones were there

And to add to the confusion - Maung Maung said he went to the AC bar around 5am to look for his own guitar (and shoes?) which the B2 had previously stated they left there. So if true, Wei Phyo and Maung Maung were around the beach area between the hours of 4 and 5am which is not looking good. Maybe the Burmese men were forced to help with moving bodies as has already been touted and the phone was given to one of them as a thanks and shut up.

I could also think of several theories.

Given the theft reported on previous nights, it seemed the MO of the thieves was to pilfer belongings of tourists (i presume) while they were swimming.

Say David and Hanna went for a late swim, David sees someone pilfer his phone and gives chase, followed by Hanna.

They catch the guy in the vacinity of a bar. They have a loud argument which is heard/seen by the staff at the bar.. and then we all know what happens when it is farang against Thai.

But in this case the B2 worked at the bar (?) so i dont find it hard to believe that they might step in to help if a farang looked like shaking the xxxx out of their tiny Burmese workmate.

In chase, Hanna could have grabbed the hoe in self defense of the pack beatdown..gave it to David at some stage, but someone already caused the fatal injury to his throat.

The Burmese guys may be only thieves but they could hardly speak out against the others who helped them, seeing it was the petty theft caused the whole fracas in the first place.

Yes we could speculate endlessly but all to nothing

[fritzzz25]

I'm not sure the phone itself is probative of anything in the case. If Wei Phyo admitted that he, or someone else, damaged the phone and tried to hide it, that's somewhat incriminating, but only in a circumstantial way. The case comes down to the DNA sample taken off Hannah's body, the chain of custody on that evidence, the DNA testing of the sample and how much credibility the Court extends to the police in the taking, handling and testing of that sample. Nothing else matters.

The problem with the phone is that it makes a connection where there previously was none. Most of us feared a conviction despite a total lack of evidence. The phone gives them a crumb.

Again I need to ask this question

which smashed phone did the police have in the video when they were seen showing it to friends of Davids during interview - it cannot be the same phone that was found behind B2 residence, how many smashed phones do the police have and which one was sent to the UK to confirm IMEI number with the carrier.

There are several ways to see the IMEI number on an iphone -

- If it is working (powering up) you can type a number in the keypad and the phone will show IMEI on the screen

- If it is smashed and not powering up you can look either on the frame of the phone or the sim card drawer and the IMEI will be typed there, since both the phones that we know about were smashed then the only reference to IMEI is what is typed on the phone

- If the phone is smashed it is possible to remove the main circuit board and insert it into a working device and power it up, the device will still be locked and require a factory reset to access IMEI, this can only be done by a technician and only requires the main circuit board

IMO if the police had Davids phone they did not need to send the device to the UK to confirm IMEI as it is typed on the body somewhere, the carrier may have insisted on having the physical phone before agreeing to check it and even then this could have simply been looking at the frame of the phone

The flaw in this process is simple, there is no way of knowing which phone was used for the IMEI confirmation, was it the one found behind the residence or the one in the video - cannot be the same phones as the one in the video was shown only a couple of days after the crime (before the arrests)

So where does that leave us ?

I find it hard to believe that Wei Phyo while out searching for his clothes at 4am (his account in court) did not come across the event on the beach that resulted in the murders, if this was a short time before the murders then the phone he found on the beach is unlikely to belong to David

Hard questions that create doubt in my mind as to this account of events and B2 involvement

- Who took their clothes and the guitar while they were swimming ? something not quite right with this IMO

- why not look for these items when they came out of the water ? something not quite right with this IMO

- why go back to the beach searching after going to bed ?

- was the guitar in AC bar ? if so how did it get there ? again something doesn't sit right here either

although the police may have made a mess of most of this investigation and IMO have no legal grounds to convict - Wei Phyo's own account of events that night/morning raises some serious questions about events that took place and their involvement, I said before from a purely strategic point of view, I saw nothing of value added to the defense case having them testify in court - quite the opposite

Here is how to find the IMEI on Apple devices

https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT204073

IMEI can be changed with software. Sim card trays can be swapped. Back cases can be changed. Hence you could have 3 different IMEI numbers on the same phone. Which one is legitimately the one that belongs to the phone - the one that would be tied to the serial number. Without an Apple expert to give evidence on this, how can any of this be evidence other than hearsay at best with the parents saying they say this number on his computer (again, bringing us back to the chain of custody to verify that NO data has been changed in any way).

[Fat Haggis]

Could police have 'planted' the phone? Initially, they said the found phone belonged to Hannah, then they changed their story.

When the defendant (note: one defendant, not two) claims he found the phone on the beach, what time did that happen ....before the crime? after?

If he made that claim during torture, than it means absolutely nothing. He could admit to being The Pope under torture.

The worst the phone incident shows, is one of the defendants might be a petty thief who took something off a beach.

He admitted it in court. It is now PROVEN that one of the accused took he murder victims phone, and that makes it highly likely that he was at the scene of the murder or close enough to know what happened. He also admits to theft and vandalism (stealing the phone and breaking it). The police work has been super shabby and unprofessional, but that doesn't mean that they have the wrong men. We will never know for sure, because the Thai police can't be trusted, but sometimes they get the right results, and the FACT that one of the accused took the phone, is huge.

There is a huge difference in the words "took", and "found".

[Fat Haggis]

I'm very very very surprised that not a single person hasn't picked up on the fact that not one of the accused had any defensive wounds on them, if Hannah and David were using the hoe to protect themselves.

[Adeeos]

Regarding the phone in this clip at 2.55 you will see the police showing the broken phone to Chris Ware and it looks like he replies no.

I never realised until a few days ago when i found this clip that it was the broken phone they were showning him.

Some other posters may have known this already but I thought they showed him a good phone before.

Chris ware in this video

I've replayed the vid from the, 2:53ish-3:00 point, and at the, 2:58-2:59 point, while shaking his head, "No", and pointing,,,, he seems to clearly be saying, "No, that's not his",,,, at least that's what I hear, using earbuds,,,,,

Edited October 12, 2015 by Adeeos

[lucky11]

Please refrain from calling me a troll simply because my version of events differs from yours.

Simply answer this question - how was it possible that David's phone was stolen from his pocket by Wei if, as they claimed, that they "never went anywhere near the crime scene" in fact they didn't even know that a rape and double murder had taken place on the beach that night if I recall rightly!!

Also, don't you think that the fact that they incriminated themselves by admitting that they violated Hannah's body carries a little bit of weight as to their guilt!!

If you can answer these two questions in a convincing manner then you may call me for trolling.

Your question is easy to answer.

Who said the phone was taken from david's pocket?

If you dont want to be called a troll i suggest you stop doing so.

In weeks of evidence of so called dna matching the actual only evidence proved was one of the boys admitting he found a phone. Thats it. That is the complete evidence, a found phone.

OK, taken from the crime scene AFTER the rape and murders!! Unless of course David dropped it and Wei conveniently found it when walking off the beach in a drunken stupor in the early hours of the morning or back onto the beach to look for his guitar and shoes a few hours later. A bit careless walking back to his lodgings and forgetting both his shoes and guitar despite sitting on the beach a few minutes earlier guitar in hand singing his head off!!

Perhaps he put the guitar down to put his shoes on, forgot to put his shoes on and also forgot to pick up his guitar. All was not lost though as he spotted a phone somewhere in the sand and picked it up and took it home. It's rather surprising though that when he picked the phone up he didn't notice that he had left his guitar and shoes behind though!! I know, when he found the phone that David must have dropped he was so delighted that he forgot everything else. That doesn't add up though as he forgot his guitar and shoes before he found the phone.

[Fat Haggis]

Actually I'm pretty sure with regards to the iIMIE number the iPhone has to be connected to the computer/iTunes via the data transfer cable, otherwise no technical aspects of the phone shows.

[lucky11]

I'm very very very surprised that not a single person hasn't picked up on the fact that not one of the accused had any defensive wounds on them, if Hannah and David were using the hoe to protect themselves.

I thought the hoe was supposed to be the murder weapon. On account of this, It's really not surprising that you were the only one to pick up on this, you are a genius, well done!!

[catsanddogs]

boomerangutang, on 12 Oct 2015 - 03:06, said:boomerangutang, on 12 Oct 2015 - 03:06, said:

Could police have 'planted' the phone? Initially, they said the found phone belonged to Hannah, then they changed their story.

When the defendant (note: one defendant, not two) claims he found the phone on the beach, what time did that happen ....before the crime? after?

If he made that claim during torture, than it means absolutely nothing. He could admit to being The Pope under torture.

The worst the phone incident shows, is one of the defendants might be a petty thief who took something off a beach.

You need to read Andy Hall's facebook post which was reposted by StealthEnergiser a short while ago. Wai Phyo testified that he found the phone at around 4:00am on 15 September while he was out looking for his guitar and clothes.

While this doesn't look good for Wai Phyo, it is still only circumstantial evidence linking him to the murders. It doesn't in itself prove that he and Zaw Lin murdered Hannah Witheridge and David Miller. We should also consider the possibility that he is telling the truth when he says he came across the phone by accident.

I wonder what happened to the sunglasses he is also charged with stealing?

This is nothing new really , he found the phone by accident and took it home with him. It should not change the outcome of this case unless there is more evidence waiting to be revealed . He will not be charged with murder for stealing a phone.

Well maybe not but in my eyes, after claiming they were asleep in their room all this time, Once on the stand he says he went back out for his shoes?, saw the phone but not the scene? I don't know man, I think the B2 have a pretty damn good idea what happened only they can't say anything. Don't forget, it would be easy as pie for RTP to "suicide" the B2 if they don't comply, and they've already been tortured and coerced. They most likely still fear for their lives, fear from a death penalty hanging over their heads and fear of being covertly murdered in police custody... I know I would do my best to get out of the situation alive. Then again, if Wei was a part in some way why wouldn't he confess to get a halved sentence? My guess is even if he wanted to he would be too scared of the consequences.

Mon Toovicien is the key to this puzzle, that man needs the screws out to his balls.... Figuratively speaking. He certainly is the closest thing to vulnerable in this case there is. Come on nail the guy RTP and get to the bottom of this.

Oh lastly, they're going the read the verdict on December 24th? Some timing, eh?

Would be a piece of cake to get hold of Mon's DNA to compare with the DNA of the deceased held by the Brits. But no one who has the power to do anything to this end is doing anything!

[AleG]

"Mr Miller's family had apparently secured the IMEI number from David's computer"

So, was this done forensically with a software that ensures no alteration of the boot record of the computer? If one wants to bring computer evidence into a trial, they have to ensure the data has not been manipulated in any way. The way this is done is with digital forensic software like EnCase. It also has to show that the computer has not been booted up without EnCase attached to ensure data is intact. Again, no chain of evidence on this. AND no proof the the Met Police did this. Which they said they did not do because of it being a death penalty case.......

I can understand the family wants justice, but for them to say "oh hey, we found this on David's computer, here we wrote it down for you on a piece of paper can you make sure the court hears about it" TWO hours before the end of the trial.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" - Shakespeare

The only rotten thing I see there is your insinuations that the Miller family fabricated the evidence.

AleG. Show me where i sated the Miller family fabricated the evidence. I explained the way that FORENSIC digital evidence is captured. it is done with EnCase which is the Gold Standard. To ensure it is legitimate, the target disk must be shown to have NO modification of data. Meaning that NO boot of the computer has been done EVER WITHOUT EnCase attached.

I have no problem posting my credentials for police investigation training. I can show you criminal cases that I have worked on where computer forensic analysis was conducted. I wrote my first DNA warrant in 1999 while you were still watching "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego" getting your taste of "detective work".

I know what is required for evidence and the chain of custody. And if any fabricated evidence was done like changing an IMEI, it was done by the RTP with some "help"- maybe some farang who has some skills with electronics and has become nervous that they might get burnt for helping out an incompetent group of investigators. Would be a great way for the RTP to turn and point the finger at the farang and say "he helped us alter the evidence.

"AleG. Show me where i sated the Miller family fabricated the evidence."

You are clearly making the insinuation here:

"I can understand the family wants justice, but for them to say "oh hey, we found this on David's computer, here we wrote it down for you on a piece of paper can you make sure the court hears about it" TWO hours before the end of the trial.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" - Shakespeare"

Do you think you are intimidating me with your games of "you know who you are and what you do"? You are only digging yourselves deeper and deeper.

[Fat Haggis]

I'm very very very surprised that not a single person hasn't picked up on the fact that not one of the accused had any defensive wounds on them, if Hannah and David were using the hoe to protect themselves.

I thought the hoe was supposed to be the murder weapon. On account of this, It's really not surprising that you were the only one to pick up on this, you are a genius, well done!!

The murder weapon that didn't have any of the accused DNA on it? But had both victims DNA, but only Hannah's blood but not David's?

The DNA was from when both victims held the hoe, not when they were killed with it.

They never presented David's murder weapon as far as I recall.

[GAZZPA]

The only evidence the prosecution have linking the defendants to the rape charge is the police statements asserting that they found the defendants' DNA inside the rape victim. There is no evidence whatsoever that links the defendants to the murders. The prosecution's case must be that whoever committed the rape must have committed the murders as well - not necessarily the case but the best argument they can come with, since they were unable or unwilling to provide any forensic evidence specifically relating to the mirders and failed to even submit a murder weapon in David's case or explain how his wounds were caused.

So the most crucial evidence relies only on police say so. They refused to allow independent testing of this evidence, giving unconvincing excuses, and then refused to even provide documentation relating to chain of custody and the DNA match, apparently out of terror that an Australian expert was in Samui ready to testify on their documentation which they presumably didn't think likely to withstand scrutiny by a foreign professional. Hannah's clothes and other vital pieces of forensic evidence were deliberately withheld by police who also refused to allow the defense access to crime scene photographs giving an excuse that was obviously a lie. It also seems that evidence from Norwich coroner casts serious doubt on the police that Hannah was raped which would remove the central plank from the police and prosecution case completely.

Despite all of these setbacks the prosecution remains under considerable pressure to win its trumped up case in the 'national interests'. To show their bosses they are still making their KPIs, they pull one more stunt using help from their buddies in the British police and FCO. The latter cannot be seen to be helping directly again as they are in enough trouble for aiding and abetting a notoriously corrupt foreign police force in a death penalty case. But with covert help from British police and the FCO It proves easy enough to manipulate the distraught family of one of the victims again and the Thai Embassy in London is used for cover. It sounds spectacular in the sensationalist headlines but actually all they have is another piece of circumstantial evidence that we'll have been falsified anyway. It is obvious from the deeply suspicious timing that the prosecution had no intention of allowing any independent analysis of this evidence or allow the defence to comment on it.

"Buddies in the British Police Force"? What are you talking about? I am not aware of there being any "buddy" relationship with the British Police. I can certainly say with confidence that the British Police are not corrupt, you cannot bribe them, they will investigate crimes and if evidence is there it will be presented.

Also, the fore sic lab sent evidence to the courts stating that Hannah was not raped, that hardly helps the cause of the Proesection and Thai Police. I know the British Police did not send this but I hope you are not suggesting that the forensic lab is honest and the British Police are not.

For the other points I agree with you completely. I do think it is very likely the 2 accused are innocent from what I have seen and read. But I am suspicious about this mobile phone and I do think that the accused behaviour is very strange as he is openly admitted that he found the phone. It is a miraculous that the police happened to accuse someone who coincidently had possession of Davids phone.

[TheCruncher]

"Mr Miller's family had apparently secured the IMEI number from David's computer"

So, was this done forensically with a software that ensures no alteration of the boot record of the computer? If one wants to bring computer evidence into a trial, they have to ensure the data has not been manipulated in any way. The way this is done is with digital forensic software like EnCase. It also has to show that the computer has not been booted up without EnCase attached to ensure data is intact. Again, no chain of evidence on this. AND no proof the the Met Police did this. Which they said they did not do because of it being a death penalty case.......

I can understand the family wants justice, but for them to say "oh hey, we found this on David's computer, here we wrote it down for you on a piece of paper can you make sure the court hears about it" TWO hours before the end of the trial.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" - Shakespeare

The only rotten thing I see there is your insinuations that the Miller family fabricated the evidence.

AleG. Show me where i sated the Miller family fabricated the evidence. I explained the way that FORENSIC digital evidence is captured. it is done with EnCase which is the Gold Standard. To ensure it is legitimate, the target disk must be shown to have NO modification of data. Meaning that NO boot of the computer has been done EVER WITHOUT EnCase attached.

I have no problem posting my credentials for police investigation training. I can show you criminal cases that I have worked on where computer forensic analysis was conducted. I wrote my first DNA warrant in 1999 while you were still watching "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego" getting your taste of "detective work".

I know what is required for evidence and the chain of custody. And if any fabricated evidence was done like changing an IMEI, it was done by the RTP with some "help"- maybe some farang who has some skills with electronics and has become nervous that they might get burnt for helping out an incompetent group of investigators. Would be a great way for the RTP to turn and point the finger at the farang and say "he helped us alter the evidence.

And of course the BIB changed the IMEI of the phone to David's phone IMEI, however it would have been impossible to know that IMEI without having David's phone.

[HUH]

I'm very very very surprised that not a single person hasn't picked up on the fact that not one of the accused had any defensive wounds on them, if Hannah and David were using the hoe to protect themselves.

I thought the hoe was supposed to be the murder weapon. On account of this, It's really not surprising that you were the only one to pick up on this, you are a genius, well done!!

Its already established that Hannah's touch DNA was all over the hoe handle along with Davids, its more than reasonable to assume the reason for this is that they were holding it defensivly seeing as touch DNA takes at the minimum 15 seconds according to some and a minute according others

Edited October 12, 2015 by HUH

[Darkknight666]

I'm very very very surprised that not a single person hasn't picked up on the fact that not one of the accused had any defensive wounds on them, if Hannah and David were using the hoe to protect themselves.

And, Dave had wounds NOT from the hoe........Looked them, 100% sure.....Also sure the UK knows what caused those wounds..

In order to subdue David there had to be either multiple assailants or a gun. With big ears cop up Mon's bum 24/7 a gun wouldn't be surprising to me. David's wounds were most certainly cause by a blade and I didn't see any indication at all he was hit with the hoe even once. How did the B2 manage to overpower two people larger than themselves and do so without getting a scratch on them.... And, rather than gtf'outta town after the murders they stuck around. To me all that has changed is the part of Wei's story where he went back out and found the phone, that's not a good thing to hear after claiming he was asleep from 2am on.

The worst part of all of this is,, nobody cares about th killers walk freely aside from the victims family's... Thai officials couldn't give less of a toss so long as their face and tourism is saved.

Horrifying.

[StealthEnergiser]

"Mr Miller's family had apparently secured the IMEI number from David's computer"

So, was this done forensically with a software that ensures no alteration of the boot record of the computer? If one wants to bring computer evidence into a trial, they have to ensure the data has not been manipulated in any way. The way this is done is with digital forensic software like EnCase. It also has to show that the computer has not been booted up without EnCase attached to ensure data is intact. Again, no chain of evidence on this. AND no proof the the Met Police did this. Which they said they did not do because of it being a death penalty case.......

I can understand the family wants justice, but for them to say "oh hey, we found this on David's computer, here we wrote it down for you on a piece of paper can you make sure the court hears about it" TWO hours before the end of the trial.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" - Shakespeare

The only rotten thing I see there is your insinuations that the Miller family fabricated the evidence.

AleG. Show me where i sated the Miller family fabricated the evidence. I explained the way that FORENSIC digital evidence is captured. it is done with EnCase which is the Gold Standard. To ensure it is legitimate, the target disk must be shown to have NO modification of data. Meaning that NO boot of the computer has been done EVER WITHOUT EnCase attached.

I have no problem posting my credentials for police investigation training. I can show you criminal cases that I have worked on where computer forensic analysis was conducted. I wrote my first DNA warrant in 1999 while you were still watching "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego" getting your taste of "detective work".

I know what is required for evidence and the chain of custody. And if any fabricated evidence was done like changing an IMEI, it was done by the RTP with some "help"- maybe some farang who has some skills with electronics and has become nervous that they might get burnt for helping out an incompetent group of investigators. Would be a great way for the RTP to turn and point the finger at the farang and say "he helped us alter the evidence.

And of course the BIB changed the IMEI of the phone to David's phone IMEI, however it would have been impossible to know that IMEI without having David's phone.

This is possibly davids phone it look like his photo is attached to the paper.

Police could have easily of damaged it and sent it to david's family saying it was found damages in the bushes near b2s residence.

Edited October 12, 2015 by StealthEnergiser

[HUH]

Its already established that Hannah's touch DNA was all over the hoe handle along with Davids, its more than reasonable to assume the reason for this is that they were holding it defensivly seeing as touch DNA takes at the minimum 15 seconds according to some and a minute according others

Dr Pornthip says a minimum of 15 secs, would you like to tell her thats nonsense, I'll go with her opinion not yours

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11857706/British-backpacker-murder-trial-DNA-on-murder-weapon-does-not-match-accused.html

Dr Pornthip, Thailand’s most famous forensic scientist, told the court that DNA would have been left on the hoe by anyone who handled it for more than 15 seconds.

Edited October 12, 2015 by CharlieH

[AleG]

this is possibly davids phone it look like his photo is attached to paper

davidphone.jpg

David Miller had black hair now?

You are trying to muddle the waters, there is nothing that indicates that was David Miller's phone, only your insinuations.

[realenglish1]

What is really sad is that I truly believe the police tortured this guys GUILTY Or NOT Police have no business using torture methods to extract a confession.

Time and time again it has been proven by many trained people that physical torture does not extract the truth . It only gets words the torturer wants to hear .

This is another reason the police need to be totally reshaped They are not professionals that is the simple truth

[lucky11]

I'm very very very surprised that not a single person hasn't picked up on the fact that not one of the accused had any defensive wounds on them, if Hannah and David were using the hoe to protect themselves.

I thought the hoe was supposed to be the murder weapon. On account of this, It's really not surprising that you were the only one to pick up on this, you are a genius, well done!!

Its already established that Hannah's touch DNA was all over the hoe handle along with Davids, its more than reasonable to assume the reason for this is that they were holding it defensivly seeing as touch DNA takes at the minimum 15 seconds according to some and a minute according others

Are you implying that they attacked them with the hoe and both Hannah and David took it in turn to hold onto the handle for between 15 seconds and one minute in order to protect themselves and David was not hit once with it!!! Yeh right.