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.

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?

David was an adult, not a child, why would his parents need to know the IMIE number of their adult son?

The IMIE number is also on the iphone box, mine was on the side, it's possible that the parents found the box, and sent the IMIE number to Thailand for verification/confirmation, as it's already been pointed out to you, and oddly enough it's been pointed out many times here by posters, the IMIE was never confirmed, now it has.

Does it prove murder? no all it proves is nothing really, and it's also been shown that an IMIE number can be changed with software, pretty much the same as a single still from a CCTV isn't proof of being in a place at a certain time.

Would I be in the least bit surprised that certain information contained within every single Koh Tao thread doesn't make its way to the RTP investigating this case? Not in the slightest, people here who are in denial, have interests with the more darker side of Koh Tao.

Don't be surprised in the slightest that the RTP have been using these threads via their proxies and the contents to "assist them" in their dismal initial investigation.

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.

errr finding something on the beach doesn't have to make sense, unless it's a mermaid !!

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.

What makes you think that?

I dont expect an answer as you have avoided many questions asked of you. Especially those of Mr Transam

"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.

Again, you do not UNDERSTAND evidence and courts. If you want to provide credible evidence to a court, you must PROVE that the evidence is unaltered. The way the Millers have presented the evidence is that "we found the IMEI on the phone, here it is". How was this found? Who found it? What method was used to find it? Who used the computer from the date of the incident, to the date the IMEI evidence was obtained? Hundreds of unanswered questions........

Nobody here is to intimidate you. All we are here is to expose your agenda and your lack of credibility. If you feel intimidated, maybe you should go to the RTP and have them conduct an investigation. You are insinuating a threat by stating "You are only digging yourselves deeper and deeper". Threatening users is in contravention of the forum rules last time I checked.......

As has been said by all on here the DNA evidence will make or break this case. The rtp have not provided any and Ms pornthip has testified that the b2 DNA is not on the murder weapon. Hannah's blood is. Whatever other circumstantial is debated the lack of DNA evidence is enough to find the b2 not guilty of murder.

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?

Top pic in that post - is that a man sitting on the left of the pic?

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

What makes you think that?

I dont expect an answer as you have avoided many questions asked of you. Especially those of Mr Transam

That if she actually said that it takes at least 15 seconds to transfer DNA she is completely wrong.

As for Transam, he is not asking a question (that has already been answered many times), he is simply trolling.

Once again, the answer is no, I don't have any interests of any kind in Koh Tao. Which of course it's not going to settle the matter (again) because I will be called a liar (again).

Lack of Evidence, Local Media Coverage Adds to Mystery of Koh Tao Murder

Last week, a partially blind Burmese beach cleaner told the court he spotted the garden hoe at the scene before police arrived, and returned the tool to its normal spot nearby. Upon police's request, he later retrieved the hoe, which he said he was unaware was covered in blood.

“The garden hoe yielded no DNA traces and no fingerprints, according to police,” said the defendants’ lawyer, Nakhon Chompuchat. “But we think there should be something left.”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1436774626&typecate=06&section=

You have mixed up two testimonies here.

The Burmese beach cleaner found the bodies and told O, an employee of Mon, about it.

He called Mon who came down to the beach.

0 then walked back to the resort and saw his hoe against a tree some way from the murder scene - at least 50 metres - maybe more like 75 - 100, he said.

He said he recognised it as his hoe and wondered why it was against the tree so he picked it up, didn't see the blood on it in the dawn light, and took it back to his small vegetable plot at the top of the beach. he then decided to do some painting as he didn't think he could be useful with the bodies.

He then said Mon and a policeman came to him and asked him where his hoe was.

He said it was in his vegetable patch as he had found it by the tree.

O says the police gave him a ruber glove - in court he demonstrated putting it on - and told him to put the hoe back by the tree.

When the hoe was found in the vegetable plot the police took pictures and the picture showed it wasn;t just placed in the plot but the end of it - the bloodied end - had been hidden among garbage bags.

He said he always kept his hoe among his garbage bags.

This is a transcript from the court procedure.

Again I think we should stick to the subject , members you do not agree with is easy to ignore.

"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.

Again, you do not UNDERSTAND evidence and courts. If you want to provide credible evidence to a court, you must PROVE that the evidence is unaltered. The way the Millers have presented the evidence is that "we found the IMEI on the phone, here it is". How was this found? Who found it? What method was used to find it? Who used the computer from the date of the incident, to the date the IMEI evidence was obtained? Hundreds of unanswered questions........

Nobody here is to intimidate you. All we are here is to expose your agenda and your lack of credibility. If you feel intimidated, maybe you should go to the RTP and have them conduct an investigation. You are insinuating a threat by stating "You are only digging yourselves deeper and deeper". Threatening users is in contravention of the forum rules last time I checked.......

What I meant by digging deeper and deeper is this:

"All we are here is to expose your agenda..." Therefore proving that it is you (as a group) who are here with an agenda to initiate personal attacks.

"... and your lack of credibility." Based on lies that I am in any way connected to the crimes in Koh Tao, a supposed cover up, the investigation or the work of the RTP.

You are all levels of wrong on what you are doing.

Nothing coming out of court regards last movements of deceased from all their friends who were with them before they were butchered. Not even one of the female friends to reveal why Hannah left her phone in her care when she went off somewhere. What a twisted unbelievable trial to not include such pertinent information. I can only conclude that they are so fearful because of what they know/witnessed that they have no intentions whatsoever of assisting in the pursuit of justice. Truly sickening.

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?

Top pic in that post - is that a man sitting on the left of the pic?

There is the other side of the coin to ponder. What if their clothes and guitar were taken to be used to incriminate them given they had been seen on the beach at the right time. This would of course require premeditative action and we have no idea if there was, and if it was taken for the wrong purposes, why was it not strategically placed. It is a conundrum and it is impossible to know who is telling the truth, or as others have intimated, who they might be protecting if it was not them but they were there.

I have never heard in 21 days of court testimony either defendant admit violating Hannah's body. I imagine the only admission of this was in their confessions, which they now claim were extracted under duress.

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?

Since Wai Phyo was looking for his clothes, it removes one of the objections to Wai Phyo being the running man. It is an admission that he changed his clothes. I still do not believe the Burmese kids guilty of the murders, but this has been by far the worst day for the defense.

It may well be that Wai may have seen the murder take place, didn't the British police say in a news report or Andy on face book, that they were certain he was not the running man.

So who is the running man??? not a thing said of this.

Maybe the guitar and clothes were planted at AC bar, there was also a report I think at the beginnning of all this of someone wearing one of the victims shorts and running away from the scene (correct me if I'm wrong.)???

Something very fishy here if the B2 did witness more than we know they certainly would be to terrified to tell the story.

If they are aquitted they will have to get out of town quickly and run for Burma as they won't last long in Thailand.

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

What makes you think that?

I dont expect an answer as you have avoided many questions asked of you. Especially those of Mr Transam

That if she actually said that it takes at least 15 seconds to transfer DNA she is completely wrong.

As for Transam, he is not asking a question (that has already been answered many times), he is simply trolling.

Once again, the answer is no, I don't have any interests of any kind in Koh Tao. Which of course it's not going to settle the matter (again) because I will be called a liar (again).

Well if she is wrong then prosecution is derelict in its duty not to inform the court. Shame for the families of the victims the prosecution let her testimony stand when you have evidence she is wrong. A travesty.

I too have done some searching about you and In my view Transam has no need to apologise. You can deny what you like but seems there are some things out in the wild world web that go against your assertion. But its ok, you can be anyone you want on here.

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 ?

I can answer some. They swam on sairee beach for 15 minutes they say. B2 walked home. MM had taken the motorbike to apparently visit his girlfriend. When they came from swimming they went to retrieve their stuff and said it wasn't where they left it. don't know exact distance from the AC bar that they swam allegedly but nothing is far. I imagine they swam near the bar after depositing their guitar there if they did. 50 - 100 metres from the crime scene behind rocks.

the police said they submitted video from all cameras which were working.

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

What makes you think that?

I dont expect an answer as you have avoided many questions asked of you. Especially those of Mr Transam

That if she actually said that it takes at least 15 seconds to transfer DNA she is completely wrong.

As for Transam, he is not asking a question (that has already been answered many times), he is simply trolling.

Once again, the answer is no, I don't have any interests of any kind in Koh Tao. Which of course it's not going to settle the matter (again) because I will be called a liar (again).

now that the trial is over, whether you feel that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the B2 are guilty? I consider myself fairly well educated and of reasonable intelligence but...

- neither prints nor DNA of accused found on alleged murder weapon

- no witnesses to the crime

- claimed DNA match on victim's body but unable to substantiate beyond reasonable doubt

- serious doubts raised on RTP's version of events (rape, attack from behind etc)

Undeniable facts are:

- B2 in the vicinity of the crime scene before said crime; unproven that they were present during the crime

- one of the suspects found a phone, presumably belonging to one of the victims - doesn't really prove anything beyond reasonable doubt

There's a whole lot more but I'll spare other readers what has been discussed over and over. Can you enlighten us as to why you are so convinced of the B2's guilt? If you want to be taken seriously and wish to engage in constructive debate, the least you can do is to respond, without deviation or deflection.

If not, then the board's opinion of you remain unchanged.

It seems its time to REPEAT previous warnings.

The frequent members to this thread know and and it has been posted several times, DISCUSS THE TOPIC NOT THE POSTER.

Any posts directly referring to or discussing an individual poster will be removed and you may be suspended.

If you wish to respond to a person/member, use the quote function, there is no need to to keep posting names and making personal enquiries, this is off topic and will be removed.

If this thread continues to cause problems it will be CLOSED again.

Lack of Evidence, Local Media Coverage Adds to Mystery of Koh Tao Murder

Last week, a partially blind Burmese beach cleaner told the court he spotted the garden hoe at the scene before police arrived, and returned the tool to its normal spot nearby. Upon police's request, he later retrieved the hoe, which he said he was unaware was covered in blood.

“The garden hoe yielded no DNA traces and no fingerprints, according to police,” said the defendants’ lawyer, Nakhon Chompuchat. “But we think there should be something left.”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1436774626&typecate=06&section=

You have mixed up two testimonies here.

The Burmese beach cleaner found the bodies and told O, an employee of Mon, about it.

He called Mon who came down to the beach.

0 then walked back to the resort and saw his hoe against a tree some way from the murder scene - at least 50 metres - maybe more like 75 - 100, he said.

He said he recognised it as his hoe and wondered why it was against the tree so he picked it up, didn't see the blood on it in the dawn light, and took it back to his small vegetable plot at the top of the beach. he then decided to do some painting as he didn't think he could be useful with the bodies.

He then said Mon and a policeman came to him and asked him where his hoe was.

He said it was in his vegetable patch as he had found it by the tree.

O says the police gave him a ruber glove - in court he demonstrated putting it on - and told him to put the hoe back by the tree.

When the hoe was found in the vegetable plot the police took pictures and the picture showed it wasn;t just placed in the plot but the end of it - the bloodied end - had been hidden among garbage bags.

He said he always kept his hoe among his garbage bags.

This is a transcript from the court procedure.

He then said Mon and a policeman came to him and asked him where his hoe was.

No doubt this was Big Ears policeman who has not been seen of heard of since McAnna posted the pics of them threatening him in the store.

Why on earth did Mon and policeman go to this man named O to ask him where his hoe was? They must have been concerned that it was not where it was originally and how did they know where it was originally? Have there been photos of the hoe by the tree as opposed to in the veg garden circulated on the web? Am also not aware of any photos in which the hoe end was in the veg garden with the bloodied end hidden among garbage bags - is anyone else?

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?

Since Wai Phyo was looking for his clothes, it removes one of the objections to Wai Phyo being the running man. It is an admission that he changed his clothes. I still do not believe the Burmese kids guilty of the murders, but this has been by far the worst day for the defense.

The problem with following this drama is between police incompetency and deceitfulness it's impossible to know what could be anywhere near the truth - police saying they found Hannah's phone and then retracting it could be down to their usual deficiency in reporting capability and the way they absolutely love to jump in front of reporters with any glimpse of news when they're under pressure. Sorry for family and/or defendants but for joe-soaps like us I doubt we'll ever be sure of the full truth of what happened that night.

Lack of Evidence, Local Media Coverage Adds to Mystery of Koh Tao Murder

Last week, a partially blind Burmese beach cleaner told the court he spotted the garden hoe at the scene before police arrived, and returned the tool to its normal spot nearby. Upon police's request, he later retrieved the hoe, which he said he was unaware was covered in blood.

“The garden hoe yielded no DNA traces and no fingerprints, according to police,” said the defendants’ lawyer, Nakhon Chompuchat. “But we think there should be something left.”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1436774626&typecate=06&section=

You have mixed up two testimonies here.

The Burmese beach cleaner found the bodies and told O, an employee of Mon, about it.

He called Mon who came down to the beach.

0 then walked back to the resort and saw his hoe against a tree some way from the murder scene - at least 50 metres - maybe more like 75 - 100, he said.

He said he recognised it as his hoe and wondered why it was against the tree so he picked it up, didn't see the blood on it in the dawn light, and took it back to his small vegetable plot at the top of the beach. he then decided to do some painting as he didn't think he could be useful with the bodies.

He then said Mon and a policeman came to him and asked him where his hoe was.

He said it was in his vegetable patch as he had found it by the tree.

O says the police gave him a ruber glove - in court he demonstrated putting it on - and told him to put the hoe back by the tree.

When the hoe was found in the vegetable plot the police took pictures and the picture showed it wasn;t just placed in the plot but the end of it - the bloodied end - had been hidden among garbage bags.

He said he always kept his hoe among his garbage bags.

This is a transcript from the court procedure.

He then said Mon and a policeman came to him and asked him where his hoe was.

No doubt this was Big Ears policeman who has not been seen of heard of since McAnna posted the pics of them threatening him in the store.

Why on earth did Mon and policeman go to this man named O to ask him where his hoe was? They must have been concerned that it was not where it was originally and how did they know where it was originally? Have there been photos of the hoe by the tree as opposed to in the veg garden circulated on the web? Am also not aware of any photos in which the hoe end was in the veg garden with the bloodied end hidden among garbage bags - is anyone else?

Not only that. Why would Mon and a policeman ask about a hoe in the first instance? After all, it could have been a rock. Unless.....

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 ?

I can answer some. They swam on sairee beach for 15 minutes they say. B2 walked home. MM had taken the motorbike to apparently visit his girlfriend. When they came from swimming they went to retrieve their stuff and said it wasn't where they left it. don't know exact distance from the AC bar that they swam allegedly but nothing is far. I imagine they swam near the bar after depositing their guitar there if they did. 50 - 100 metres from the crime scene behind rocks.

the police said they submitted video from all cameras which were working.

Sarahy - your input to this forum is much appreciated.

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

What makes you think that?

I dont expect an answer as you have avoided many questions asked of you. Especially those of Mr Transam

That if she actually said that it takes at least 15 seconds to transfer DNA she is completely wrong.

As for Transam, he is not asking a question (that has already been answered many times), he is simply trolling.

Once again, the answer is no, I don't have any interests of any kind in Koh Tao. Which of course it's not going to settle the matter (again) because I will be called a liar (again).

now that the trial is over, whether you feel that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the B2 are guilty? I consider myself fairly well educated and of reasonable intelligence but...

- neither prints nor DNA of accused found on alleged murder weapon

- no witnesses to the crime

- claimed DNA match on victim's body but unable to substantiate beyond reasonable doubt

- serious doubts raised on RTP's version of events (rape, attack from behind etc)

Undeniable facts are:

- B2 in the vicinity of the crime scene before said crime; unproven that they were present during the crime

- one of the suspects found a phone, presumably belonging to one of the victims - doesn't really prove anything beyond reasonable doubt

There's a whole lot more but I'll spare other readers what has been discussed over and over. Can you enlighten us as to why you are so convinced of the B2's guilt? If you want to be taken seriously and wish to engage in constructive debate, the least you can do is to respond, without deviation or deflection.

If not, then the board's opinion of you remain unchanged.

Very well said.

One can say over and over again that they think they are guilty or not guilty but that adds nothing.

Its the reasoning behind their thoughts that have meaning. Use the evidence, what are the reasons for your thoughts.

Personally I am all for differing opinions but it must be made on logic and facts and, as a jury would decide things....what would a reasonable person consider beyond reasonable doubt.

So, would a reasonable person think, on the facts, that they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Pass that test with logic and facts and we are all ears.

If not, well.....we have been warned.

"Thai justice".....the oxymoron of the century!

On what has been presented to the court as far as we know the prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the b2 have committed the crimes they have been accused of. Bottom line, no substantiated DNA evidence.

"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.

Great to hear from somebody who has actually worked in the area of criminal investigations and particularly DNA and computing. Well responded to sir. Thank you for that.

My first comment after reading and keeping abreast of the events. If I murdered someone on a beach at night I would certainly not pick up the victim's phone. If it was on KT island I would not pick up the phone to later smash it nor would I hand it in to the BIBs. Sorry if this has been covered before , but only today have I read so much about a smashed phone.

what was the motive?

My first comment after reading and keeping abreast of the events. If I murdered someone on a beach at night I would certainly not pick up the victim's phone. If it was on KT island I would not pick up the phone to later smash it nor would I hand it in to the BIBs. Sorry if this has been covered before , but only today have I read so much about a smashed phone.

It's called diversionary tactics by the trolls to close down this thread. Take the focus away from no DNA evidence to convict the b2 of the murders.

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.

I think you need a reality check regarding your 'saintlike' opinion of the British Police Force in action.

Try reading the Graeme McLagan book titled "Bent Coppers" and then come back and convince everyone that a leopard can actually change it's spots.

My first comment after reading and keeping abreast of the events. If I murdered someone on a beach at night I would certainly not pick up the victim's phone. If it was on KT island I would not pick up the phone to later smash it nor would I hand it in to the BIBs. Sorry if this has been covered before , but only today have I read so much about a smashed phone.

Exactly!! WP said as much himself with the following quote:

The next day we heard about the murders and we were worried it might belong to someone involved