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

[bongoz]

I wonder how the RTP could afford to send David's phone to the UK?

[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.

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.

Yet again, who said it was taken from the crime scene?

Perhaps you are in a dream world in not actually reading the evidence about the guitar and where it was.

Jeez did you just parachute in from another planet and decide to leap in here without reading a thing.

[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

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.

Who said David was not hit with it? His blood was not found on it thats all. He could well have been hit with it although it was not the only weapon used on him. The RTP in court also mentioned a hammer (never found) and wine bottle shards on the beach (never forensically tested)

[Linky]

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.

No it is YOU that is making all insinuations and implying on this thread. Read the facts.

The facts are that there is NO dna from David on the hoe. So how could it have been used to kill him without his dna on it?

There is touch dna from both Hannah and David which proves they held the hoe for at least 15 seconds.

Now that is not insinuating, that is direct evidence from an expert.

If you do not agree I suggest you offer yourself to the court with your credentials to give expert evidence to prove otherwise.

Or you could just crawl back under your bridge.

[AleG]

Says who? That is nonsense, it takes whatever time it takes to get skin cells to be removed from the skin and transferred to whatever substrate; for example if you get hit by a wooden club (or the handle of a hoe for that matter) more likely than not there will be transfer even if the contact time is a fraction of a second.

This idea that either of the victims wielded the hoe because their DNA was found on it is nothing but hot air.

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.

How about you think for a second before simply deciding what to accept as true or not?

Have you ever scrapped yourself against something, a wall for example? How long it took for your skin to be scrapped and therefore leave traces on the surface it was in contact with? A lot less than 15 seconds I'm sure.

Claiming that finding DNA from both of the victims on the hoe is evidence that they handled it defensively (or at all) is nothing but wishful thinking.

[TheCruncher]

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.

davidphone.jpg

As you say, it is POSSIBLY David's phone, but I think BIB cleared that up almost a year ago already, and there are posts about on this forum.

Other then that I can post a hundred pictures of a phone the LOOKS like David's phone.

[catsanddogs]

Anyone know how far the B2's lodgings were from the crime scene? Just thinking maybe WP was woken up by noises of a disturbance and went to see what was going on at 4am and he witnessed something that he dare not speak of.

[HUH]

Says who? That is nonsense, it takes whatever time it takes to get skin cells to be removed from the skin and transferred to whatever substrate; for example if you get hit by a wooden club (or the handle of a hoe for that matter) more likely than not there will be transfer even if the contact time is a fraction of a second.

This idea that either of the victims wielded the hoe because their DNA was found on it is nothing but hot air.

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.

How about you think for a second before simply deciding what to accept as true or not?

Have you ever scrapped yourself against something, a wall for example? How long it took for your skin to be scrapped and therefore leave traces on the surface it was in contact with? A lot less than 15 seconds I'm sure.

Claiming that finding DNA from both of the victims on the hoe is evidence that they handled it defensively (or at all) is nothing but wishful thinking.

The hoe was handled multiple times that we know, after a year the touch DNA of Hannah & David was still found, logical assumptions follow from logical minds

[sarahy]

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.

I know this wasn't to me, but, I don't take their initial confession into account because it's been retracted and accusations of torture and even testimony states that the confessions were not given freely.. Knowing that they're in police custody, essentially at the Mercy of the RTP day and night after being tortured by the RTP I'm not sure they would say anything even if they knew exactly what happened.

I can't rule out that the Wei wasn't involved being that he was so close to the crime scene when the crime or bodies would have been seen by Wei for sure at 4am. I'm not so sure they're absolutely innocent. After saying all that, I do NOT think they're the prime assailants, they may have been near, they may have been ordered to help stage the scene, who knows really... But the investigation and behavior by RTP and the prosecution says to me there are assailants involved with tons of clout.... A lot of pull and those people, the headmans family or staff... Or both, killed David and Hannah.

If it were strictly the B2 all along this trial would look much much different. I believe whole heartedly the killer is either a VIP (dodo) or acted one behalf of a VIP.

The whole thing is making me quite sick.

Wei Phyo told the court he found it on the sand on the beach. It is suspicious he had it. But as we now David was in the AC bar then ended up at the other end of the beach, finding it on the beach is not impossible. Equally he may have stolen it during the attack, or after the attack. Only he knows. But his story is plausible, even if it would be tantamount to a horrific coincidence if he is innocent. But if David was attacked by someone else, and dragged down the beach, it is also possible his phone fell from his pocket. Who knows.

[TheCruncher]

Says who? That is nonsense, it takes whatever time it takes to get skin cells to be removed from the skin and transferred to whatever substrate; for example if you get hit by a wooden club (or the handle of a hoe for that matter) more likely than not there will be transfer even if the contact time is a fraction of a second.

This idea that either of the victims wielded the hoe because their DNA was found on it is nothing but hot air.

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.

How about you think for a second before simply deciding what to accept as true or not?

Have you ever scrapped yourself against something, a wall for example? How long it took for your skin to be scrapped and therefore leave traces on the surface it was in contact with? A lot less than 15 seconds I'm sure.

Claiming that finding DNA from both of the victims on the hoe is evidence that they handled it defensively (or at all) is nothing but wishful thinking.

The hoe was handled multiple times that we know, after a year the touch DNA of Hannah & David was still found, logical assumptions follow from logical minds

You wouldn't think that the forensic who worked for the defence just lied about the test results to discredit the bib, don't you.Because we all know Dr Pornthip doesn't have an axe to grind with the police department.

Edited October 12, 2015 by TheCruncher

[StealthEnergiser]

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.

davidphone.jpg

As you say, it is POSSIBLY David's phone, but I think BIB cleared that up almost a year ago already, and there are posts about on this forum.

Other then that I can post a hundred pictures of a phone the LOOKS like David's phone.

I agree it may not be his phone hard to tell but my point is if they had davids phone it would be easy to damage it and say it was found in the bushes.

The other question needs to be asked did the RTP ask for the IMEI number or did they give the IMEI number to the family.

I would think they would ask for the parents to give them the number then it would be easy as fritzzz demonstrated to change the number.

To many unanswered questions at the moment .

[HUH]

You wouldn't think that the forensic who worked for the defence just lied about the test results to discredit the bib, don't you.Because we all know Dr Pornthip doesn't have an axe to grind with the police department.

No

[glenmohr]

It is pretty shocking to see what David Miller's family did yesterday.

It would be interesting to know exactly what their motivations are and exactly what they were told about the investigation and supposed evidence against the B2. Surely they can't believe the RTP's version 100%, anybody with even a smidgen of intelligence can see it makes zero sense.

The development about the phone does however shed some light on what time he supposedly went home. Surely some cctv could show his to be a lie or not. But as the trial is done i think that particular loose end will be used to finish him sadly.

A disgusting, shambolic excuse for a trial just got worse. Lord help us if we ever get in a similar situation here.

This confirms my belief that these two are the true rapists and killers.

So you can't believe the RTP's version of events, you say. It is not their version actually as one of the accused ADMITTED that he had the phone and got his friend to smash it up and throw it away near his lodgings after he couldn't open it up!!

I think that this is the final nail in their coffin (literally hopefully) as their story that they were simply on the beach playing guitar, smoking and drinking and they didn't go anywhere near the murder scene has been well and truly shown to be a lie, as how else did they get his phone? They have also admitted to sexually violating Hannah's body (which with the bite marks on her breast imply rape) and I think the majority will be eating humble pie soon as they come to terms with the fact that I have been vindicated and they have been duped from the start, thanks to these interfering Human Rights wasters telling them to lie, retract their statements and deny everything.

The British families clearly think the same way as I have all along and I hope they are satisfied with justice once these two scum bags are sent down/executed for their heinous crimes. Well done the RTP for getting the real perpetrators even though they cocked it up all the way through and nearly let them off the hook.

I wonder how many posters are going to own up that they were wrong?

So tell me, why are the B2's DNA not on the weapon...?.........BUT.............

We have read an unknown persons is.....

Your thoughts...?

Never trust a liar I say.

The only time they have told the truth is in the original confessions and when the admitted to sexually violating Hannah - that is enough for me!!

The DNA evidence doesn't prove or disprove anything I'm afraid, not to me anyway.

They were clearly at the murder scene despite their denials/blatant lies or are you going to call the Burmese who had David's phone (he has never denied this don't forget) a liar for telling the truth because it doesn't fit into your story of their innocence. They have well and truly incriminated themselves and deserve all that comes their way, disgusting vermin!!.

Small correction if I may, the Burmese lad had a phone he picked up on the beach. He admitted to that. How does anyone know it was David's phone as a friend of David's appeared to say it wasn't and there is a strong suspicion of planting/ tampering with either a replacement phone or the original. He did not admit to having " David's phone", he admitted to having "a phone", big difference there.

[TheCruncher]

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.

davidphone.jpg

As you say, it is POSSIBLY David's phone, but I think BIB cleared that up almost a year ago already, and there are posts about on this forum.

Other then that I can post a hundred pictures of a phone the LOOKS like David's phone.

I agree it may not be his phone hard to tell but my point is if they had davids phone it would be easy to damage it and say it was found in the bushes.

The other question needs to be asked did the RTP ask for the IMEI number or did they give the IMEI number to the family.

I would think they would ask for the parents to give them the number then it would be easy as fritzzz demonstrated to change the number.

To many unanswered questions at the moment .

More IF's.

Why would the bib ask the family for David's IMEI? Is it it normal that parents know the IMEI's from their children's phone?

[simonuk]

Brit Murders: Accused Says Police Abused Me

Defendant Wei Phyo claims police threatened to chop off his arms and legs, throw his body into the sea to feed the fish.

One of the men accused of murdering two British tourists on the Thai island of Koh Tao last year has accused Thai police of sexual, physical and psychological abuse.

http://news.sky.com/story/1567511/thai-beach-murder-accused-police-abused-me

From that article -

Wei Phyo admitted during his testimony to finding a phone on the beach on the night the two British holidaymakers were killed. He said he took it home but couldn't unlock it.

He told the court: "The next day we heard about the murders and we were worried it might be related to someone involved in the murders. My friend smashed up the phone and threw it into the undergrowth behind our hut."

I find this worrying. Says he admitted to finding a phone on the beach on the 'night' of the murders - am assuming this should read on the 'morning' of the murders. the B2 said they went to bed between 1am and 2am (i think). It has been reported that the murders took place sometime around 4.30am - of course this could be quite wrong. But my concern is did Wei Phyo find the phone after the murders and if so then surely he would have seen something relating to the crime also, or did he find the phone before the murders on the beach? And we still don't know if the damn phone actually belonged to David Miller. How difficult can it be for heavens sake to find out whose phone it was? Somethings not right.

A theory -

Is it possible that they were framed by people who committed the murder?

For example - given it as a "gift" but are now to frightened to say that was the case as friends and family have been visited and threatened with murder?..once the realised they were being framed they smashed the phone and threw it away as they didn't want to risk being caught with it as they new they couldn't say where they really got it , even before it was spelled out to them.

[catsanddogs]

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.

I know this wasn't to me, but, I don't take their initial confession into account because it's been retracted and accusations of torture and even testimony states that the confessions were not given freely.. Knowing that they're in police custody, essentially at the Mercy of the RTP day and night after being tortured by the RTP I'm not sure they would say anything even if they knew exactly what happened.

I can't rule out that the Wei wasn't involved being that he was so close to the crime scene when the crime or bodies would have been seen by Wei for sure at 4am. I'm not so sure they're absolutely innocent. After saying all that, I do NOT think they're the prime assailants, they may have been near, they may have been ordered to help stage the scene, who knows really... But the investigation and behavior by RTP and the prosecution says to me there are assailants involved with tons of clout.... A lot of pull and those people, the headmans family or staff... Or both, killed David and Hannah.

If it were strictly the B2 all along this trial would look much much different. I believe whole heartedly the killer is either a VIP (dodo) or acted one behalf of a VIP.

The whole thing is making me quite sick.

Wei Phyo told the court he found it on the sand on the beach. It is suspicious he had it. But as we now David was in the AC bar then ended up at the other end of the beach, finding it on the beach is not impossible. Equally he may have stolen it during the attack, or after the attack. Only he knows. But his story is plausible, even if it would be tantamount to a horrific coincidence if he is innocent. But if David was attacked by someone else, and dragged down the beach, it is also possible his phone fell from his pocket. Who knows.

Him?

[Linky]

Says who? That is nonsense, it takes whatever time it takes to get skin cells to be removed from the skin and transferred to whatever substrate; for example if you get hit by a wooden club (or the handle of a hoe for that matter) more likely than not there will be transfer even if the contact time is a fraction of a second.

This idea that either of the victims wielded the hoe because their DNA was found on it is nothing but hot air.

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, Thailands 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.

How about you think for a second before simply deciding what to accept as true or not?

Have you ever scrapped yourself against something, a wall for example? How long it took for your skin to be scrapped and therefore leave traces on the surface it was in contact with? A lot less than 15 seconds I'm sure.

Claiming that finding DNA from both of the victims on the hoe is evidence that they handled it defensively (or at all) is nothing but wishful thinking.

The hoe was handled multiple times that we know, after a year the touch DNA of Hannah & David was still found, logical assumptions follow from logical minds

You wouldn't think that the forensic who worked for the defence just lied about the test results to discredit the bib, don't you.Because we all know Dr Pornthip doesn't have an axe to grind with the police department.

Dr Porthip does not work for the defence.

If the rtp or prosecution thought she lied they could have countered with their own forensics. But they said there was nothing on it so never subjected it to further testing. BIG mistake.

So back on your bike with your assumptions.

[glenmohr]

Making comments about a trial that is still in motion, without being there, to see view hear all the evidence is also paramount to rumour mongering, why not wait until the triall is over, and I am sure any irregularities will be examined by the defence,and prosecution for that matter, and or petition for a re trial, trying to second guess what is what when you are not part of either team (prosecution or defence), A very sad reflection on expats

Because it is not a trial in the conventional sense, it is a scapegoating which is very different to a trial.

[smedly]

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.

so whos <deleted> phone is it then sherlock

Like I said earlier there is confusion over the phones, police displayed a phone well before the B2 arrests and the discovery of the smashed phone behind their residence, again it is only the police that say the latter was Davids phone, where is this other phone

The whole phone thing is quite honestly full of inconsistencies just like everything else

[Linky]

In my view the accused are being honest. If they were lying they would have recanted the admission of knowing anything about the phone. But they didnt recant about the phone, they were too honest and admitted it.

Usual rule, whether guilty or innocent never ever talk to police otherwise they can set up the scene against you.

Of course that theory does not work if you are tortured, threatened with electrocution or having burning tires around your neck. Or fish food. In that case try making the confession as far fetched as a monty python argument.

[StealthEnergiser]

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.

davidphone.jpg

As you say, it is POSSIBLY David's phone, but I think BIB cleared that up almost a year ago already, and there are posts about on this forum.

Other then that I can post a hundred pictures of a phone the LOOKS like David's phone.

I agree it may not be his phone hard to tell but my point is if they had davids phone it would be easy to damage it and say it was found in the bushes.

The other question needs to be asked did the RTP ask for the IMEI number or did they give the IMEI number to the family.

I would think they would ask for the parents to give them the number then it would be easy as fritzzz demonstrated to change the number.

To many unanswered questions at the moment .

More IF's.

Why would the bib ask the family for David's IMEI? Is it it normal that parents know the IMEI's from their children's phone?

you must be missing the news

Mr Miller's family claimed to have secured the identifying number of their son's phone and passed it to the Thai Embassy, after there was conflicting testimony as to whether the British authorities had helped the prosecution confirm ownership.

http://news.sky.com/story/1567511/british-family-intervenes-in-thai-murders-trial

[catsanddogs]

Zero information from prosecution or defence coming from court on the mystery woman caught on CCTV seen running around the time of the murders who the RTP wanted to trace.

[Linky]

Making comments about a trial that is still in motion, without being there, to see view hear all the evidence is also paramount to rumour mongering, why not wait until the triall is over, and I am sure any irregularities will be examined by the defence,and prosecution for that matter, and or petition for a re trial, trying to second guess what is what when you are not part of either team (prosecution or defence), A very sad reflection on expats

Because it is not a trial in the conventional sense, it is a scapegoating which is very different to a trial.

And the trial is over. Its only closing submissions left which is a recap of evidence.

[HughJass]

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.

I will ask you again...The B2's DNA was not on the murder weapon....Others were...

Your thoughts.......?

I am starting to believe the B2 know more about this than they are letting on

admitting to "finding" what turns out to be Davids black coloured i phone on a sandy beach in the pitch dark sounds rather fortunate to say the least

losing clothes on the beach after going for a swim?...how far out were they swimming?...who would be around to steal cheap clothes in the middle of the night...its a useful tale if the clothes had blood on them

maybe i have missed something but when was this said?.. "the fact that they incriminated themselves by admitting that they violated Hannah's body"...?

i do not think they acted alone if in fact they were involved which would explain why their DNA was not on the hoe

with regard to the running man is there a possibility it could be their buddy who supposedly left the beach earlier to visit his g/f.....was his alibi fully checked out?

Edited October 12, 2015 by HughJass

[TheCruncher]

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.

davidphone.jpg

As you say, it is POSSIBLY David's phone, but I think BIB cleared that up almost a year ago already, and there are posts about on this forum.

Other then that I can post a hundred pictures of a phone the LOOKS like David's phone.

I agree it may not be his phone hard to tell but my point is if they had davids phone it would be easy to damage it and say it was found in the bushes.

The other question needs to be asked did the RTP ask for the IMEI number or did they give the IMEI number to the family.

I would think they would ask for the parents to give them the number then it would be easy as fritzzz demonstrated to change the number.

To many unanswered questions at the moment .

More IF's.

Why would the bib ask the family for David's IMEI? Is it it normal that parents know the IMEI's from their children's phone?

you must be missing the news

Mr Miller's family claimed to have secured the identifying number of their son's phone and passed it to the Thai Embassy, after there was conflicting testimony as to whether the British authorities had helped the prosecution confirm ownership.

http://news.sky.com/story/1567511/british-family-intervenes-in-thai-murders-trial

No I didn't miss the news, in fact they came up with that almost a year after the phone was found, and that sounds to me as if they stumbled by coincidence on the IMEI number by going through Davids pc.

Do you have children and know the IMEI numbers of their phones?

[smedly]

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.

Extra info re the above is that:

MM worked at the AC Bar.

He went back to get a bottle of wine from somewhere undisclosed at about 1am so they stayed later on the beach.

The B2 went for a swim about 2am after hiding their guitar under a table at the AC Bar.

They left their clothes on the beach.

When they came back their clothes were gone.

They went to the bar and the guitar was gone. Nothing was where they left it.

They went home. They went to sleep then WP got up and went back to beach he says looking for his shoes because he really needed them. Then he found the phone he says.

Now he could have got up and been involved in the crime and that is how he got the phone. But in this day of tracked phones he might have thought twice about it.

Equally someone might have killed David and dragged his body to the rocks and the phone fell out along the way, An awful coincidence if so for WP but possible.

WP said in the renaction the police told him to point to where he found the phone, telling him where, but he says that was not where he found the phone. He told the court where.

If he could not unlock the phone how could he know it was David's? Unless he did kil him?

If he found out there was a murder the next day he might well try to dispose of it thinking it could have come from someone involved.

But would he really dispose of it outside his own window. He may be young but is he that daft when there is a whole ocean outside.

Or was it planted to justify his arrest.

So many questions and only they know. But this is either really good police work in finding pieces of the puzzle or a dreadful, awful coincidence for this lad.

Either way it does not place him at the crime scene and remains circumstantial.

this is significant, B2 went to AC at 2am to leave the guitar somewhere safe then went for a swim, where did they actually do the swimming ? both victims were likely still in the bar at this time, then B2 say they went home (police say on motorbike) the Mei returned to look for stuff at 4am I would assume in or near the location of AC bar if that is where they were swimming

As I am not familiar with the layout someone mentioned that AC bar had a back entrance onto the beach, I would assume they went for the swim at that location near AC bar, not sure how far this was from the murder scene or the log they where on earlier, it could well have been some distance away from the crimescene near AC bar (again don't know the layout of the place)

worth noting that AC bar gets mentioned again and again and yet all cctv footage was withheld by the owners.....why ?

[stephenterry]

No accused DNA on the handle of the hoe. Plenty of the victims. Hannah's blood on the blade. Conclusion the b2 did not murder Hannah.

Really simple.

[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.

so whos f'ing phone is it then sherlock

Like I said earlier there is confusion over the phones, police displayed a phone well before the B2 arrests and the discovery of the smashed phone behind their residence, again it is only the police that say the latter was Davids phone, where is this other phone

The whole phone thing is quite honestly full of inconsistencies just like everything else

There is confusion because people like StealthEnergizer keep fomenting it.

The phone in the picture is one of the phones confiscated from the first suspects, on the 16th of September:

"Three Myanmar workers were detained on Tuesday for questioning in connection with murders of two Britons on Koh Tao off Surat Thani on Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said Tuesday.

Police will question them and check DNA samples to compare with evidence collected from the crime scene to determine if they are the killers.

Meanwhile a source said their detention came after witnesses told police that they were seen drinking alcohol around the time when the crime occurred.

Police raided a worker's bungalow near the crime scene earlier today, and detained the three Myanmar workers.

Four mobile phones, one of which was a broken iPhone, were confiscated. Police will examine them to determine if any of the phones belonged to the victims."

The video and the screen grab StealthEnergizer posted comes from the day after that, when Chris Ware was interrogated, and it shows one of those phones. Those Burmese, and Ware of course, were cleared of any involvement and let go.

[skinnymat]

If Wei was at the scene and observed the murder , wouldnt it work in his favor to tell the court who he saw that night on the beach ?

If he is innocent and set free he will go back to Burma anyway so he shouldnt worry about his life will be in danger if he talks.

This is exactly what I said. Why are they not saying their side of the story? Just saying he found it on the beach at 4am doesn't make sense to me.

[AleG]

How about you think for a second before simply deciding what to accept as true or not?

Have you ever scrapped yourself against something, a wall for example? How long it took for your skin to be scrapped and therefore leave traces on the surface it was in contact with? A lot less than 15 seconds I'm sure.

Claiming that finding DNA from both of the victims on the hoe is evidence that they handled it defensively (or at all) is nothing but wishful thinking.

The hoe was handled multiple times that we know, after a year the touch DNA of Hannah & David was still found, logical assumptions follow from logical minds

You wouldn't think that the forensic who worked for the defence just lied about the test results to discredit the bib, don't you.Because we all know Dr Pornthip doesn't have an axe to grind with the police department.

I don't think Dr. Pornthip lied about the results, but I think it very likely that she has been quoted out of context.