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

[rockingrobin]

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.

One thing I am not sure about here , at what time did O return the hoe from the vegatable plot to the tree where he originally found it

[Gweiloman]

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.

One thing I am not sure about here , at what time did O return the hoe from the vegatable plot to the tree where he originally found it

Presumably after the bodies were discovered and half the island had already trampled all over the crime scene

[lucky11]

It was his phone as the British end confirmed that it was, categorically David's phone - now I want to know how he (Wei) ended up with his phone (before asking his friend to smash it up and dispose of it for him seemingly in panic fashion) when he claimed he never entered what became the crime scene and knew nothing of the murders until the following morning.

Considering that he said he went to bed at 2.00 AM or was it 4.00 AM and he was with friends, just how did he get hold of this phone? I think that I have the answer!!

He is telling 'porkies' and doing it not very well.

[stephenterry]

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.

It wasn't until the 90"s that UK police corruption was addressed. While I believe that the force is nowadays accountable I also think that the very nature of the job offers opportunities for unlawful activities by some officers.

[Fat Haggis]

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

So AleG is now more of an expert than Dr Porntip in the field of forensics? I don't profess to be as much of an expert as AleG, but surely what Dr Porntip is referring to is "touch" DNA. In other words, not "scrapping" (scraping?) DNA which obviously is totally different.

He's also an expert on gait

He's also very disrespectful to experts in their field by dissing their expertise, but pretty normal from him really.

The question of motive has always intrigued me, as it's never been presented as far as I'm aware in the court.

[Gweiloman]

It was his phone as the British end confirmed that it was, categorically David's phone - now I want to know how he (Wei) ended up with his phone (before asking his friend to smash it up and dispose of it for him seemingly in panic fashion) when he claimed he never entered what became the crime scene and knew nothing of the murders until the following morning.

Considering that he said he went to bed at 2.00 AM or was it 4.00 AM and he was with friends, just how did he get hold of this phone? I think that I have the answer!!

He is telling 'porkies' and doing it not very well.

Someone is telling porkies for sure but I don't think it's Wei Phyo.

Wei Phyo, one of the two Burmese men charged with killing Mr Miller and fellow British tourist Hannah Witheridge, had admitted finding a phone on the beach on the night of the murder.

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."

[stephenterry]

It was his phone as the British end confirmed that it was, categorically David's phone - now I want to know how he (Wei) ended up with his phone (before asking his friend to smash it up and dispose of it for him seemingly in panic fashion) when he claimed he never entered what became the crime scene and knew nothing of the murders until the following morning.

Considering that he said he went to bed at 2.00 AM or was it 4.00 AM and he was with friends, just how did he get hold of this phone? I think that I have the answer!!

He is telling 'porkies' and doing it not very well.

His DNA was not found on the hoe, which was used to murder Hannah. Get your head around it. And troll elsewhere.

[Fat Haggis]

It was his phone as the British end confirmed that it was, categorically David's phone - now I want to know how he (Wei) ended up with his phone (before asking his friend to smash it up and dispose of it for him seemingly in panic fashion) when he claimed he never entered what became the crime scene and knew nothing of the murders until the following morning.

Considering that he said he went to bed at 2.00 AM or was it 4.00 AM and he was with friends, just how did he get hold of this phone? I think that I have the answer!!

He is telling 'porkies' and doing it not very well.

Why do you keep asking this? It's in his testimony he found it, what's so hard to understand?

Have you never found anything in your life, and thought " cool, look what I found? "

What is much more intriguing and alarming is the blonde hair found in Hannah's hand that has never ever been explained nor investigated why is that?

[lucky11]

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.

I think that's highly likely - I wonder if they gift wrapped it for him?.

[stephenterry]

I'm going to keep repeating this. Neither of the b2 DNA was found on the hoe, the weapon that was used to murder Hannah. Her blood was on the blade. Anything else is circumstantial.

[stephenterry]

I'm going to keep repeating this. Neither of the b2 DNA was found on the hoe, the weapon that was used to murder Hannah. Her blood was on the blade. Anything else is circumstantial.[/quote

Bumped again

[Linky]

It was his phone as the British end confirmed that it was, categorically David's phone - now I want to know how he (Wei) ended up with his phone (before asking his friend to smash it up and dispose of it for him seemingly in panic fashion) when he claimed he never entered what became the crime scene and knew nothing of the murders until the following morning.

Considering that he said he went to bed at 2.00 AM or was it 4.00 AM and he was with friends, just how did he get hold of this phone? I think that I have the answer!!

He is telling 'porkies' and doing it not very well.

And here we go again.

First you said they stole it from his pocket. Nope, no evidence of that.

Then you said they found it at the crime scene. Nope, no evidence of that.

So for the third time you change tact to try and justify your delusions. The British end confirmed it belonged to David. What a surprise, wrong again.

Prosecution witness said British officials told him it was David's. British officials said no, we arenot allowed to provide evidece in death penalty cases. So did not confirm.

Would you like to try for the quadrella of being proved wrong or just slide into the sunset of ignorance.

[toenail]

I always say when you <deleted> up--learn from your mistakes. Unfortunately this trial about the koh-tao murders and the zig-zag investigation by the BKK police with the bombing points to the lack of professionalism of the department. Investigation of evidence, facts, and professionals trained in criminology does not exist in Thailand. Come on guys (the police department) this is the 21st Century- you cannot keep being incompetent as if you are able to make up your own rules as you wish.

[lucky11]

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

Heard about the murders .

[Linky]

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

Heard about the murders .

And you have evidence to prove otherwise? ?

The onus f proof is on the prosecution.

Thats 4 from 4 wrong from from you. You're out.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Linky

[Gweiloman]

It was his phone as the British end confirmed that it was, categorically David's phone - now I want to know how he (Wei) ended up with his phone (before asking his friend to smash it up and dispose of it for him seemingly in panic fashion) when he claimed he never entered what became the crime scene and knew nothing of the murders until the following morning.

Considering that he said he went to bed at 2.00 AM or was it 4.00 AM and he was with friends, just how did he get hold of this phone? I think that I have the answer!!

He is telling 'porkies' and doing it not very well.

And here we go again.

First you said they stole it from his pocket. Nope, no evidence of that.

Then you said they found it at the crime scene. Nope, no evidence of that.

So for the third time you change tact to try and justify your delusions. The British end confirmed it belonged to David. What a surprise, wrong again.

Prosecution witness said British officials told him it was David's. British officials said no, we arenot allowed to provide evidece in death penalty cases. So did not confirm.

Would you like to try for the quadrella of being proved wrong or just slide into the sunset of ignorance.

In all fairness, it's not completely wrong for un Lucky to say that the British end confirmed that it was David's phone. From the sky news article:

In a dramatic twist in the final hours of the trial in Thailand, the prosecution received information from the Thai Embassy in London suggesting that a phone found near the lodgings of one of the accused Burmese migrant workers belonged to Mr Miller.

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.

We do not know the source of this. Was this merely something claimed by the prosecution? Has it been verified beyond doubt that it was indeed the Miller family that passed on this information to the Thai Embassy in London?

I hope that I'm not being insensitive in saying this but if I were a member of the Miller family, I would be participating in this forum and asking questions and opinions of other posters, particularly those who have lived here a number of years and know how the system works, as well as those who were (or are) professionals in crime investigations and forensic science.

If I were a member of the Miller family, I would challenge those who support the B2 to try and convince me of the B2's innocence. At the same time, I would also ask those who are in the opposite camp why they feel so strongly that the B2 are guilty, in spite of the sparsity of evidence that came out of the trial.

[ChrisY1]

This evidence will (IMO) could most definately be the precurser for the verdict desired by the RTP.....

[stephenterry]

I'm going to keep repeating this. Neither of the b2 DNA was found on the hoe, the weapon that was used to murder Hannah. Her blood was on the blade. Anything else is circumstantial.

LOADS OF DNA ON THE MURDER WEAPON BUT NOT FROM THE B2..

IS THAT CLEAR..............?

Feeeeeeerk the phone, the hotdog wrapper, a zillion fags on the beach, but wait.....a coke bottle had the B2's DNA on it found in BKK....Must be them......

Gawd.....................

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

[Gweiloman]

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

Heard about the murders .

Your insinuation thus is that Wei Phyo knew about the murders. Share with us the evidence, otherwise, it's just an opinion, to which you're entitled.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Gweiloman

[stephenterry]

I'm going to keep repeating this. Neither of the b2 DNA was found on the hoe, the weapon that was used to murder Hannah. Her blood was on the blade. Anything else is circumstantial.

LOADS OF DNA ON THE MURDER WEAPON BUT NOT FROM THE B2..

IS THAT CLEAR..............?

Feeeeeeerk the phone, the hotdog wrapper, a zillion fags on the beach, but wait.....a coke bottle had the B2's DNA on it found in BKK....Must be them......

Gawd.....................

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

Correct...........All this fluffing around is crap....The B2's DNA AIN'T ON THE MURDER WEAPON.............Some of you don't understand that ...

Many folk on that beach were having fun, drink, sex, music, anything, BUT.....somebody, or perhaps a few took it tooooo far....The ones who killed.....The ones who's DNA is on the murder weapon, the ones who use small blade or shark tooth thingies...

The B2 may have been involved with 'fun', but they did not kill.....

Yes in a nutshell they didn't kill Hannah. Undeniable fact. Or to be legally correct there's no DNA evidence to support their involvement.

[happy Joe]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

[stephenterry]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

There is no DNA evidence to support the Rtp assertions. Good and troll elsewhere.

[TheCruncher]

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.

What it definitely proofs is that the accused were in the possession of the phone of the murder victim.

It doesn't proof they murdered them, but it surely puts them in very hot water.

If the phone was smashed it most probably would not work anymore, and they would not be able to upload a "fake" IMEI number to it. Anyway the RTP didn't know David's IMEI number until a few days ago, so they wouldn't know which number to install in the phone.

I don't know about an Iphone, but all phones I have owned had the IMEI number under the battery, so no need to have a functional phone to discover the IMEI.

[stephenterry]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Even better, return to the pond.

[Gweiloman]

Summary of disturbing facts regarding the two Burmese:

1 - They drunk beer and wine. They were reportedly stole their clothes while they were swimming ???

2 - Their DNA was found in the body of the Hannah. This evidence is contested in form but not in substance. The complotiste version is that RTP falsified the results of analysis to incriminate them.

3 - They would have "found" David's phone in the night on the beach when they were probably still under the influence of alcohol. However they don't saw the victims ???

One takes the side of victim's families cannot accept this version.

We understand that the motivation of a vast majority of posters here is the unilateral criticism of investigators and by extension of Thailand in general. It was already coarser at first, it becomes farcical with these last informations.

Presumably, you're not a native English speaker so you are excused for not understanding certain words like "facts".

It is not a "fact" that their DNA was found in the body of Hannah. It was "claimed". This was contested but the RTP refused to back up their claim.

No one knows for certain how far away the bodies were from where WP claimed to have found the phone. If you bothered to look at the crime scene pictures, you will see that there are many big rocks and these could have easily hidden the bodies from view, if you were 30 metres or more away. Also, at 4 am, it's not exactly light so it would be highly plausible not to have seen the bodies.

If I were a member of the victim's family, I definitely cannot accept the prosecution's version.

The "unilateral" criticism of investigators in Thailand is based on solid, empirical evidence.

[IslandLover]

sarahy, on 12 Oct 2015 - 07:27, said:

Gweiloman, on 12 Oct 2015 - 06:26, said:

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.

Just to be clear, Maung Maung (MM) worked at the AC2 bar, not the AC bar where Hannah and David were last seen alive. The guitar was left at the AC2 bar, not the AC bar. It was allegedly retrieved from the AC2 bar by a relative of Mon's who testified to this in court. The AC2 bar/guest house is also owned by the Toovichien family.

[stephenterry]

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.

What it definitely proofs is that the accused were in the possession of the phone of the murder victim.

It doesn't proof they murdered them, but it surely puts them in very hot water.

If the phone was smashed it most probably would not work anymore, and they would not be able to upload a "fake" IMEI number to it. Anyway the RTP didn't know David's IMEI number until a few days ago, so they wouldn't know which number to install in the phone.

I don't know about an Iphone, but all phones I have owned had the IMEI number under the battery, so no need to have a functional phone to discover the IMEI.

There is no proof that the b2 murdered either of the victims. Get your head around it. Any court of law outside Thailand couldn't convict them. There's no DNA evidence. Period.

[happy Joe]

There is no DNA evidence to support the Rtp assertions. Good and troll elsewhere.

The DNA match is clearly in the prosecution case.

As for being Troll should start with yourself that are showing here a sufficiently eloquent blindness.

[JLCrab]

I'm going to keep repeating this. Neither of the b2 DNA was found on the hoe, the weapon that was used to murder Hannah. Her blood was on the blade. Anything else is circumstantial.

LOADS OF DNA ON THE MURDER WEAPON BUT NOT FROM THE B2..

IS THAT CLEAR..............?

Feeeeeeerk the phone, the hotdog wrapper, a zillion fags on the beach, but wait.....a coke bottle had the B2's DNA on it found in BKK....Must be them......

Gawd.....................

Clearly the fact that there was no b2 DNA found on the hoe that was used to murder Hannah escapes some posters. The constant deviation of a phone is typical of misinformation deliberately used by trolls.

"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."

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

So maybe they didn't hold it for more than 15 seconds.

[TheCruncher]

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.

What it definitely proofs is that the accused were in the possession of the phone of the murder victim.

It doesn't proof they murdered them, but it surely puts them in very hot water.

If the phone was smashed it most probably would not work anymore, and they would not be able to upload a "fake" IMEI number to it. Anyway the RTP didn't know David's IMEI number until a few days ago, so they wouldn't know which number to install in the phone.

I don't know about an Iphone, but all phones I have owned had the IMEI number under the battery, so no need to have a functional phone to discover the IMEI.

There is no proof that the b2 murdered either of the victims. Get your head around it. Any court of law outside Thailand couldn't convict them. There's no DNA evidence. Period.

I suggest you take some reading lessons. Did I say it proofs they murdered either of the victims?