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

[RWA]

What, so all of yours (and others) comical conspiracy theories are all facts are they?

Prove to me that they were tortured and threatened first. Some of the scenarios thought up by you super sleuths out there are so laughable that I'm surprised that I haven't fallen off the couch yet or got a stitch!!

You can try and ridicule me as much as you like - you won't get to me and I won't stop giving my views.

I feel sorry for you 'bigoted' lot - keep the barbs coming, I won't relent!!

it is not about proving they were tortured, it is the fact that they had no legal council while being "interviewed" exactly why the police should make sure the accused are represented so there is no doubt - pretty basic stuff and if you don't get it "I really do understand why"

yes, AND:

a) ... they have been held and interrogated in a private hotel room for several days WHY?!!! (especially when this premises belong to the very VERY suspicious individual, involved with every single thing in the case)

... they haven't got even a reasonable (of not official/professional/impartial) translator during all number of days

c) ... They haven't been informed of their rights and haven't been provided with a legal representation

d) ... they have been lied to - by the "translator" that he is the Embassy representative (while perhaps illegally in the Kingdom, with dubious work/business permission behind his own belt) and of significantly different religion

e) ... without any recording of the interrogation / crime admission, legal procedures, etc., ...

........ ehhhh, I'm just giving up ... this all has been pointed out many times, yet no any sensible explanation anywhere in sight ....

[Scott]

More off-topic posts removed.

[StealthEnergiser]

Andy Hall Wai Phyo testified he didn't destroy or dump the phone he found himself (David's phone or not we don't know, all testified they don't know if the phone they found was David's or not). Wai Phyo gave ownership of the phone to his friend and roommate Lin Lin (like a gift to his friend as that friend worked at the same restaurant and he got more tips than Wai Phyo and always shared with Wai Phyo so he gave the phone to him in return). Lin Lin destroyed the phone after hearing news of the murders as Wai Phyo had told him that he found the phone on the beach around 5 minutes walk from the place the bodies were found (not necessarily the place where the killings took place) as he suspected the phone may be related to the murders. Lin Lin consulted on this all with another friend called Nyi Nyi Aung who helped destroy the phone and lived nearby and who tried to access the phone but couldn't as locked. On destroying the phone, it was thrown behind Lin Lin's house (Nyi Nyi Aung lived in same area) in a plastic bag after they broke it using an axe. These three persons testified consistently the same facts on this story, not just Wai Phyo. Police said they found the phone they submitted to court as David's in a plastic bag behind Lin Lin's house but no photographs of the discovery brought to court to prove this fact. The damaged phone as described by 3 witnesses seems perhaps distinctly different to the phone police brought to court, damage as described seems inconsistent. Suspicion remains whether Wai Phyo really found or had possession of David's phone or not as no fingerprints taken on phone alleged to prove it belonged to David. Not only phone, also police allege Wai Phyo stole a pair of sunglasses from David too. Wai Phyo and 2 friends testified they know nothing of these sunglasses, understand (but confused this issue always in court) police said Wai Phyo threw them away so the sunglasses never appeared in court as evidence and no fingerprint analysis. Hope this adds some of the trial testimony has given in court which many people online are choosing to misinterpret or summarise without being present in court and hearing the actual full and detailed testimony given on this very circumstantial evidence issue not necessarily related to the murders at all. Burden of proof should be very high to convict and deny someone of their liberty or life. Coincidences or possibilities shouldn't be enough

Andy Hall What's more, regarding the evidence from David's family, this evidence was first presented to me during my testimony on 23rd September, Sarah Yuen reporting for Sky News and others is incorrect that she reported it came to court on Sunday last minute before close of trial. The evidence was presented to me as a witness during my cross examination after I testified with formal official documents from UK police and government where UK authorities confirmed to me and Reprieve in writing that the UK government has never confirmed to Thai police that the phone was David's and that the uk authorities were not cooperating with thai police on this case at all as it was a death penalty case. If David's family chose to cooperate with the Thai police on evidence issues in a death penalty case its their personal right however, despite this being a breach of UK government official policy if UK government was to cooperate itself. David's family have sent to the Thai police a screenshot from David's Apple computer at his home in Jersey that shows and IMEI number that seemingly matches the IMEI on the phone police said was David's and that was submitted into evidence. I testified the two documents shown to me match but said no idea where the two documents came from. We don't know if this phone in evidence is the same phone Wai Phyo found or not as no fingerprints on that phone, Wai Phyo and friends testified they are not sure and nothing ever proven. Maybe the phone in evidence is david's. What arrived in court on Sunday was a certified translation of the Miller family document originally presented to court to me on 23rd Sept, certified by a notary and officially certified as correct 'translation' into Thai by the Thai Embassy in London. No official UK government agency or Vodafone (phone was allegedly registered to Vodafone) have officially confirmed anything, we just have a screenshot submitted by the Miller family. U.K. Government still insist that they WILL NOT confirm whether the phone is David's or not as the prosecution is insisting on death penalty for this case, won't give UK government guarantee that it won't execute defendants if convicted, and uk government doesn't agree with death penalty. Mark Kent is uk ambassador to Thailand. Jonathan Head Robert Holmes. I say all this to point out dangers of oversimplification of issues and distortions of facts in what still is a death penalty case.

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110

[manutoo]

A little question to people who well followed what happened in the case.

Was Hannah raped then killed, or killed then raped ?

I looked the crime scene pictures (on BestGore), and she lies on the beach with her legs open.

I don't see having open legs as a last defensive stance right before a hoe is supposed to crush her skull in.

So assuming the body hasn't been moved, it means they killed her & then raped her. Thus they raped a dead girl that had half of her skull caved in. It takes some pretty wicked psycho to do that, not your average drunkard on the beach, no ?

[diehard60]

The real and complete truth will never be known. And the kids death will be over and forgotten by all Thai police and thais in general. But the foreigners will never forget.

[boomerangutang]

If Wai found a phone on the beach at around 4 am, surely he would have some ideas about the crime or who the perps were. Yet neither the defense nor the prosecution (nor, it seems, the court) care about who may have really committed the murders. I can understand how the defense need to keep their gig it tightly focused - on refuting prosecution testimony. It's also plain prosecution and RTP don't want any mention of the most probable perps. Yet why has media missed all that's not happening? Ok, Thai media has been told to NOT COVER the case, or cover it as little as possible.

If I'm a journalist and I go to interview an important person, and that person's arm is missing and there's blood spurting out, I would probably notice it and comment upon it. At least ask the person "what happened?!" Sometimes WHAT'S NOT THERE is as important as what is.

Similarly, there has been no mention of David's wounds during the trial - except a brief cursory mention of the hoe (which didn't have his blood on its head). No mention of the multiple same-sized stab wounds, mostly to the right side of his neck. Even a murder trial in Mumbogumboland Africa would mention wounds, wouldn't it? Yet in Thailand, it's apparently incidental - as unimportant as looking at CCTV of boats leaving the island right after the crime.

Brit forensics is part of the screw-up. They mentioned Hannah, but thus far, zero mention by the Brits of David's wounds or the type of weapons used. If it looks, smells, sounds like a conspiracy to shield Mon's buddies, then it must be....... If not, what excuse do British forensics use for being so secretive and, dare I say, unprofessional? Could it be the same excuse Brit experts used in the Kirsty Jones case (for not submitting evidence for finding her killers?). During the several years since Kirsty was raped and murdered, the Brits excuse (when they're not being mum about it) is they don't want to offend Thai officials.

All indications are: the same shoddy reason applies to the Ko Tao case. Shame on Brit officials for not doing what's right, and for not seeking justice for Hannah and David, and for not lifting a finger to try and keep very dangerous men from roaming around Thailand's tourist islands, to continue to have the option to kill and rape freely - knowing they're untouchable by the short arm of the law - both Thai law enforcement (which we know are useless) and Brit law enforcement (who are looking like wimps).

[lucky11]

The document I linked to is from 2015, by the UK National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Forensic science regulator... you cited a podiatrist for a case in 2009, I hope they had other credible evidence on that case or there's every chance an innocent person is in jail.

Yes, it's sketchy at best, this scientific paper cites a 36% chance of detecting DNA under ideal conditions for people holding a wooden object for 60 seconds: Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions

The UK coroner didn't detect sign of rape weeks after the murders and after the body was embalmed and had already undergone a post mortem. Of course there are going to be discrepancies, and I don't want to go into details on why some signs of rape would not be present by the time of the second autopsy. Apparently bite marks can fade after death too, but I'm no expert, my guess is that there's difference of opinion among experts on a technical point, one thinks is a bite mark, other thinks not. It would hold significance if that would be a key element on the prosecution, but it wasn't.

Chain of custody documents never given? Then how come Dr. Pornthip testified about their content and alleged irregularities? A Crystal ball? This meme is not based on reality.

The torture allegations have nothing to do on the whether they are guilty or not of the murders, I said it before, that is a separate case to be had.

As for your last question, did you miss the warning by a moderator about not discussing the posters?

I'm not discussing posters but responding to a claim that you made ie you said you were gait expert? But I guess you'd like to deflect that?

The same as I'm asking you about your replies that you've responded to which by the way I do not agree with but will stop at debating further with you.

My professional credentials are none of your business.

But regarding the supposed gait analysis presented in court, to begin with they are basing themselves in poor quality footage, obtaining the correct vector for the feet movement out of that involves more guesswork than actual accurate tracking; it's just not possible, the feet look like blobs most of the time, there is no way to produce any consistently accurate angles to within, let's say +- 10 degrees (being generous) of the actual direction of the feet; then on top of that they would be compounding the errors when relating both feet together and the overall direction of motion.

This is the kind of setup used for accurate motion capture:

Do you imagine that if just using one crappy CCTV camera is enough to measure things accurately they would bother with any of that? Even with all that gear it is usually necessary to fix things afterwards.

Getting any accurate measurements from poor CCTV footage to derive an analysis on subtle differences in the kinematics of locomotion is a fools errand.

Secondly, they were comparing different gaits, walking versus running; people are not cars, they don't just go faster by increasing the rate of motion, the kinematics (everything to do with position, angle, rotation of the limbs and body and center of gravity adjustment) are quite different. So it's just guesswork on top of guesswork to extrapolate from one gait to the other.

Then there's the issue that people some times just walk a little differently than normal, that's why there are words like stroll, amble, sneaking, swagger, etc, etc.. The way a person walks at any moment can be affected by their emotional or mental state, for example by being drunk as the defendants said they were at the time of the "Running man" video.

The "gait analysis" presented by Andy Hall consisted (as far as I've seen) of lines aligned (poorly) to the feet and overall body directions, it compared the gait of one of the suspects walking into a 7/11 (wearing flip flops) with the barefoot running gait of the "running man". That comparison holds no weight whatsoever as "proof" that those two people are different individuals.

My take on this is that company doesn't advertise that service because they either don't provide it at all as such or they know it's not reliable or even credible and prefer not to advertise it openly.

That it was taken to court as a forensic analysis to prove things one way or another just makes me think of the quote "If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.".

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think the company doing that analysis was misrepresenting results or making false claims, as far as I know they could just had been asked to produce a visual representation and all "analysis" and conclusions are the work of the defense or at least tarted up for impact. If those people at Acume have a minimum of professional integrity they would never make the claim that their work proves things to any degree of certainty.

At most you can get a good approximation of body height and proportions by a detailed analysis aimed at that (again I don't know if that company did it and it's absent on what I've seen), but in the end one is left with little more than "well, the two persons have about the same build and height, so they could be the same person, maybe".

You know, like the guidelines I linked to before say "Therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements."

Excellent detailed assessment AleG, thanks for that, well appreciated - well I guess we can put that evidence in the bin then as it PROVES nothing!!

.......now this phone that Wei claimed he picked up from the crime scene at 4.00 AM in the morning, despite the fact that he left the beach at 2.00 AM to crash out in his lodgings (because he rarely drank alcohol and couldn't handle it). He must have awesome powers of recovery!!

[StealthEnergiser]

The document I linked to is from 2015, by the UK National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Forensic science regulator... you cited a podiatrist for a case in 2009, I hope they had other credible evidence on that case or there's every chance an innocent person is in jail.

Yes, it's sketchy at best, this scientific paper cites a 36% chance of detecting DNA under ideal conditions for people holding a wooden object for 60 seconds: Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions

The UK coroner didn't detect sign of rape weeks after the murders and after the body was embalmed and had already undergone a post mortem. Of course there are going to be discrepancies, and I don't want to go into details on why some signs of rape would not be present by the time of the second autopsy. Apparently bite marks can fade after death too, but I'm no expert, my guess is that there's difference of opinion among experts on a technical point, one thinks is a bite mark, other thinks not. It would hold significance if that would be a key element on the prosecution, but it wasn't.

Chain of custody documents never given? Then how come Dr. Pornthip testified about their content and alleged irregularities? A Crystal ball? This meme is not based on reality.

The torture allegations have nothing to do on the whether they are guilty or not of the murders, I said it before, that is a separate case to be had.

As for your last question, did you miss the warning by a moderator about not discussing the posters?

I'm not discussing posters but responding to a claim that you made ie you said you were gait expert? But I guess you'd like to deflect that?

The same as I'm asking you about your replies that you've responded to which by the way I do not agree with but will stop at debating further with you.

My professional credentials are none of your business.

But regarding the supposed gait analysis presented in court, to begin with they are basing themselves in poor quality footage, obtaining the correct vector for the feet movement out of that involves more guesswork than actual accurate tracking; it's just not possible, the feet look like blobs most of the time, there is no way to produce any consistently accurate angles to within, let's say +- 10 degrees (being generous) of the actual direction of the feet; then on top of that they would be compounding the errors when relating both feet together and the overall direction of motion.

This is the kind of setup used for accurate motion capture:

Do you imagine that if just using one crappy CCTV camera is enough to measure things accurately they would bother with any of that? Even with all that gear it is usually necessary to fix things afterwards.

Getting any accurate measurements from poor CCTV footage to derive an analysis on subtle differences in the kinematics of locomotion is a fools errand.

Secondly, they were comparing different gaits, walking versus running; people are not cars, they don't just go faster by increasing the rate of motion, the kinematics (everything to do with position, angle, rotation of the limbs and body and center of gravity adjustment) are quite different. So it's just guesswork on top of guesswork to extrapolate from one gait to the other.

Then there's the issue that people some times just walk a little differently than normal, that's why there are words like stroll, amble, sneaking, swagger, etc, etc.. The way a person walks at any moment can be affected by their emotional or mental state, for example by being drunk as the defendants said they were at the time of the "Running man" video.

The "gait analysis" presented by Andy Hall consisted (as far as I've seen) of lines aligned (poorly) to the feet and overall body directions, it compared the gait of one of the suspects walking into a 7/11 (wearing flip flops) with the barefoot running gait of the "running man". That comparison holds no weight whatsoever as "proof" that those two people are different individuals.

My take on this is that company doesn't advertise that service because they either don't provide it at all as such or they know it's not reliable or even credible and prefer not to advertise it openly.

That it was taken to court as a forensic analysis to prove things one way or another just makes me think of the quote "If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.".

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think the company doing that analysis was misrepresenting results or making false claims, as far as I know they could just had been asked to produce a visual representation and all "analysis" and conclusions are the work of the defense or at least tarted up for impact. If those people at Acume have a minimum of professional integrity they would never make the claim that their work proves things to any degree of certainty.

At most you can get a good approximation of body height and proportions by a detailed analysis aimed at that (again I don't know if that company did it and it's absent on what I've seen), but in the end one is left with little more than "well, the two persons have about the same build and height, so they could be the same person, maybe".

You know, like the guidelines I linked to before say "Therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements."

Excellent detailed assessment AleG, thanks for that, well appreciated - well I guess we can put that evidence in the bin then as it PROVES nothing!!

.......now this phone that Wei claimed he picked up from the crime scene at 4.00 AM in the morning, despite the fact that he left the beach at 2.00 AM to crash out in his lodgings (because he rarely drank alcohol and couldn't handle it). He must have awesome powers of recovery!!

I think you have made your point enough it has been answered in many previous posts time to move on.

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

@riverview810 @JQP6 certainly there is a lot of work defense lawyers are doing now to ensure strong robust inclusive model closing statement

many defense requests 4 evidence/information unanswered

in this case what not provided as important as what was

[kiwikeith]

catsanddogs, on 12 Oct 2015 - 11:08, said:catsanddogs, on 12 Oct 2015 - 11:08, said:

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

I read somewhere that their lodgings were in or near the AC2 resort. The AC2 resort is opposite the Maya Beach Club and near where they allegedly went for a swim. The left their guitar at the AC2 resort's beach bar where Maung Maung worked. You will see the distances on the attached map. The log where they were sitting drinking, smoking and playing guitar is right outside the In Touch beach restaurant, which is about 60 metres from where the bodies were found.

Map of Sairee beach 3.jpg

The CCTV pic of running man yesterday looked like he had a phone in his hand.

Andy on facebook has posted that British police looked at running man and were satisfied it was niether of the B2.

It is highly probable that Wei was woken by screems if the lived close to the murder scene , there must have been horific screams, this has never been mentioned.

It is highly probable that Wei did see something and is terified to talk of it.

If he heard screaming others probably did as well.

It is well documented that the prosecution have been highly frustrated that wittness's won't testify as to afraid.

There have been threats made to people trying to assist the B2.

Motive, there is no reason that 2 Burmese boys having a sing song on the beach suddenly become vicious murderers, motive has not been disscussed.

Why is evidence of the phone supposedly supplied by British allowed in this trial when the British investigation and forensics results were not allowed???

As far as torture goes there was a lawyer who wittnessd marks on the boys and he was gotten rid of.

The posting of a link to a story about what a British jugdges thoughts were on the case posted on TV was blocked on the web by the Thai government.

Very suspicious behaviour from Thai Police , a bungle of forensic evidence, censorship in the trial, what more is needed to figure that the B2 are most highly likely scapegoats of a corrupt and nasty little island controlled by family interests.

[HUH]

I know both the defense and prosecution are now preparing their closing statements, but I've not seen anywhere if these are made public, does anyone know? They'll make for some very interesting reading

[zyphodb]

I would say 99% certainly they will be found guilty as otherwise certain very influential people will lose face, not gonna happen in this country.

I would also say 99% certainly, that they didn't do it & the guys that did are still wandering around Koh Tao doing whatever they like knowing that they will always be protected.

TIT

The probable only way to get true justice if anyone cared enough would be to sink to their level & organise a hit... Sad but true...

[glenmohr]

Time to say a big thank you to those who have gone to so much trouble providing research and links, in particular I would like to break forum rules and single out Stealth who has filled in very many gaps for us all.

I fear the B2's future was in the bag and locked up long ago (TIT), but we hope that all these staunch defenders of justice and decency will keep up the chorus of protest long into the future and that Thailand one day will tidy its act up. It is a great country ruined by a few at the very top of their social structure. It is all about money here and the poor Burmese did not have any the day the knock on their door came.

I am always ashamed when visitors to my country are murdered but at least we take the subsequent actions of a decent society to give the victims families some kind of closure and respect.

[HUH]

No it doesn't actually!!

Figure, they all left the beach totally inebriated (because they hardly drank alcohol) at 2.00 AM and he found the phone on the beach at 4.00 AM.

Why did he return to the beach 2 hours after leaving it in a drunken state? Oh!! and he just happened to find David's phone in the process!!

Lies, lies, lies, I want to know what he has to hide?

he did not find Davids phone............he found A PHONE, police say it was Davids phone, there has been much confusion over phones, I have no doubt police actually did have Davids phone and since like everything else in this case we can trust them with impunity, the question remains - was the phone found smashed and dumped actually Davids phone, considering everything else that has gone on I have my doubts, the police have yet to confirm how many f'ing phones they actually have connected to this case - it was definitely more than one........someone correct me

Let me correct you - Wei has admitted that he had THE phone and supposedly he heard about the murders the next day. He wondered whether THE phone could belong to one of the victims (make that he knew it did), panicked, gave it to his friend to smash up and dispose of it when he found it was locked and unusable. His equally unintelligent friend carried this out and threw it away near to Where Wei was lodging. The police, unsurprisingly, found THE phone that Wei has never denied having been in possession of.

Just recently, the British police and David's parents confirmed that THE phone was David's. Now join up the dots!!

I can only conclude that you failed to take the advice from Linky and you do have reading issues, the inaccuracies in your post can all be verified by reading the last few posts this morning

[lucky11]

He didnt find the phone at the crime scene. Do you have reading issues?

Not quite!! He SAID he didn't find it at the crime scene and he is a serial liar so that can be taken with a pinch of salt.

[glenmohr]

Let me correct you Lucky 11 . Wei found a phone on the beach. He gave it to his friend Lin Lin. It was Lin Lin who heard about the murders and decided to destroy the phone with another Burmese friend who was not Wei. Wei's involvement with that phone was very fleeting and temporary. There is little likelihood that that particular phone belonged to David as it is most likely that David's phone was already in Mons' / Big Ears" possession long before the discovery of a phone in the bushes behind Lin Lin's lodgings..

[TheCruncher]

I guess the chap who went to great lengths to find an iPhone IMEI photo didn't read about the way the evidence would have to be collected using forensic software on the computer to clone an exact image of the hard drive. Also proving that chain of custody of said hard drive would be importance.

"when you are grasping at straws, don't be choosy about the color"

I am the guy who went to lengths to find an Iphone EMEI image, primarily to prove that the other poster who ridiculed my remarks was wrong.

So why would they need to clone the image of the hard drive when the IMEI number is engraved in the phone casing?

Engraving is not something you simply wipe and replace with another number do you?

[kiwikeith]

Time to say a big thank you to those who have gone to so much trouble providing research and links, in particular I would like to break forum rules and single out Stealth who has filled in very many gaps for us all.

I fear the B2's future was in the bag and locked up long ago (TIT), but we hope that all these staunch defenders of justice and decency will keep up the chorus of protest long into the future and that Thailand one day will tidy its act up. It is a great country ruined by a few at the very top of their social structure. It is all about money here and the poor Burmese did not have any the day the knock on their door came.

I am always ashamed when visitors to my country are murdered but at least we take the subsequent actions of a decent society to give the victims families some kind of closure and respect.

It is very sad, but I feel that a post above is correct as I think the same, 2 many high ranking officials will loose face if the B2 are aquitted, a guilty verdict therefore seems inevitable.

I hope that access is allowed to the B2 and a decent writer with a decent translater gets their confidence enough , and they sing the truth and a book is written.

A very sad case this, if a guilty verdict is delivered it will mean that those involved in setting up supposed and if ever proven scapegoats have blood on their hands and assisted in nothing more than a double murder of the B2.

Ignorance will be the winner if this happens as many young people that will travel to Thailand have never heard of the B2 trial, and no nothing of what goes on, or the dangers that exist sadly in LOS.

These dangers have only got worse over the last few years and the people that take bribes and rewards don't seem to mind because they are bullet proof, but not to their own kind.

[HUH]

Please read this before calling people Liars

Andy Hall Wai Phyo testified he didn't destroy or dump the phone he found himself (David's phone or not we don't know, all testified they don't know if the phone they found was David's or not). Wai Phyo gave ownership of the phone to his friend and roommate Lin Lin (like a gift to his friend as that friend worked at the same restaurant and he got more tips than Wai Phyo and always shared with Wai Phyo so he gave the phone to him in return). Lin Lin destroyed the phone after hearing news of the murders as Wai Phyo had told him that he found the phone on the beach around 5 minutes walk from the place the bodies were found (not necessarily the place where the killings took place) as he suspected the phone may be related to the murders. Lin Lin consulted on this all with another friend called Nyi Nyi Aung who helped destroy the phone and lived nearby and who tried to access the phone but couldn't as locked. On destroying the phone, it was thrown behind Lin Lin's house (Nyi Nyi Aung lived in same area) in a plastic bag after they broke it using an axe. These three persons testified consistently the same facts on this story, not just Wai Phyo. Police said they found the phone they submitted to court as David's in a plastic bag behind Lin Lin's house but no photographs of the discovery brought to court to prove this fact. The damaged phone as described by 3 witnesses seems perhaps distinctly different to the phone police brought to court, damage as described seems inconsistent. Suspicion remains whether Wai Phyo really found or had possession of David's phone or not as no fingerprints taken on phone alleged to prove it belonged to David. Not only phone, also police allege Wai Phyo stole a pair of sunglasses from David too. Wai Phyo and 2 friends testified they know nothing of these sunglasses, understand (but confused this issue always in court) police said Wai Phyo threw them away so the sunglasses never appeared in court as evidence and no fingerprint analysis. Hope this adds some of the trial testimony has given in court which many people online are choosing to misinterpret or summarise without being present in court and hearing the actual full and detailed testimony given on this very circumstantial evidence issue not necessarily related to the murders at all. Burden of proof should be very high to convict and deny someone of their liberty or life. Coincidences or possibilities shouldn't be enough

Did you have to take so long to write a cock-and-bull-story as I had to waste valuable time reading it!!

I can call who I think is a liar thank you.

Don't flatter yourself, Stealth is not the author of that piece, but I guess those reading issues of yours let you down in identifying who is.

It's still his fault as he posted this nonsense.

Yes of course, everything from the defense team and those who report directly from the court is nonsense then according to you, very interesting and gives an excellent indication of your closed mind in this case.

[glenmohr]

He didnt find the phone at the crime scene. Do you have reading issues?

Not quite!! He SAID he didn't find it at the crime scene and he is a serial liar so that can be taken with a pinch of salt.

Lucky 11 we want to keep this thread running making false accusations it make people think that your are deliberately baiting them which is not allowed if you read forum rules.

Commenting on other posters and trying to get them banned is not allowed either.

Where am I making false accusations? It is my opinion that he is a liar and just because I have differing views to you doesn't make it bating.

I think that you (and others) are baiting me by calling me a troll, accusing me of baiting, telling me that I have reading difficulties. I am deeply offended by this treatment.

And I am deeply offended by you calling Wei a liar. You may have difficulty eating at times but it was reported that the 2 accused Burmese were offered no food at all during their 12 hour court sessions, that is also deeply offending and shows a lack of human rights by the jailers.

[RWA]

Time to say a big thank you to those who have gone to so much trouble providing research and links, in particular I would like to break forum rules and single out Stealth who has filled in very many gaps for us all.

I fear the B2's future was in the bag and locked up long ago (TIT), but we hope that all these staunch defenders of justice and decency will keep up the chorus of protest long into the future and that Thailand one day will tidy its act up. It is a great country ruined by a few at the very top of their social structure. It is all about money here and the poor Burmese did not have any the day the knock on their door came.

I am always ashamed when visitors to my country are murdered but at least we take the subsequent actions of a decent society to give the victims families some kind of closure and respect.

out of Likes ...

THANK YOU and to ALL those who's been contributing in a sensible, fair and useful fashion here!

[CharlieH]

Some petty bickering posts removed.

[AleG]

catsanddogs, on 12 Oct 2015 - 11:08, said:catsanddogs, on 12 Oct 2015 - 11:08, said:

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

I read somewhere that their lodgings were in or near the AC2 resort. The AC2 resort is opposite the Maya Beach Club and near where they allegedly went for a swim. The left their guitar at the AC2 resort's beach bar where Maung Maung worked. You will see the distances on the attached map. The log where they were sitting drinking, smoking and playing guitar is right outside the In Touch beach restaurant, which is about 60 metres from where the bodies were found.

Map of Sairee beach 3.jpg

The CCTV pic of running man yesterday looked like he had a phone in his hand.

Andy on facebook has posted that British police looked at running man and were satisfied it was niether of the B2.

It is highly probable that Wei was woken by screems if the lived close to the murder scene , there must have been horific screams, this has never been mentioned.

It is highly probable that Wei did see something and is terified to talk of it.

If he heard screaming others probably did as well.

It is well documented that the prosecution have been highly frustrated that wittness's won't testify as to afraid.

There have been threats made to people trying to assist the B2.

Motive, there is no reason that 2 Burmese boys having a sing song on the beach suddenly become vicious murderers, motive has not been disscussed.

Why is evidence of the phone supposedly supplied by British allowed in this trial when the British investigation and forensics results were not allowed???

As far as torture goes there was a lawyer who wittnessd marks on the boys and he was gotten rid of.

The posting of a link to a story about what a British jugdges thoughts were on the case posted on TV was blocked on the web by the Thai government.

Very suspicious behaviour from Thai Police , a bungle of forensic evidence, censorship in the trial, what more is needed to figure that the B2 are most highly likely scapegoats of a corrupt and nasty little island controlled by family interests.

"The CCTV pic of running man yesterday looked like he had a phone in his hand."

StealthEnergizer forgot to mention that image comes from this article: "Police use superimposition technique to identify killers"

"Police have used superimposition, a specialised forensic medical technique, to compare an image of a man captured by a surveillance camera with the pictures of suspects"

What that means is that the image is not the CCTV footage, it's the CCTV footage with some other image put on top.

"Andy on facebook has posted that British police looked at running man and were satisfied it was niether of the B2."

That's simply not true, the British police said no such thing, the company that the defense hired to run the analysis said so, at least according to Andy Hall's testimony.

"It is highly probable that Wei was woken by screems if the lived close to the murder scene , there must have been horific screams, this has never been mentioned."

First of, they didn't live close to the crime scene, secondly if nobody hear any "horrific screams" it's probably because there were no "horrific screams", what you are doing is using the absence of evidence as evidence of something.

"It is highly probable that Wei did see something and is terified to talk of it."

No, it's not highly probable, it's just speculation not based on any known information. None of the defendants have ever even intimated the notion that they were witnesses to the crimes, let alone being threatened to keep silent about it.

"If he heard screaming others probably did as well."

Here you pile one supposition on top of another.

"It is well documented that the prosecution have been highly frustrated that wittness's won't testify as to afraid."

You mean the defense? Yes the defense claims that there are witnesses that don't want to testify, it sounds like a cop out to me.

"There have been threats made to people trying to assist the B2."

Have there? Such as what? Anything along this lines perhaps? "The probable only way to get true justice if anyone cared enough would be to sink to their level & organise a hit... Sad but true..."

As for motive, do you question what the motive would had been every time you hear of a rape? That is enough motive on itself, and in any case the defendants admitted of being drunk at the time, not only do drunk people do stupid things they'd normally wouldn't do when sober, the stupid things they do have a tendency to escalate into tragedies.

"Why is evidence of the phone supposedly supplied by British allowed in this trial when the British investigation and forensics results were not allowed???"

"By the British", yes, I guess you could refer to David Miller's family under those terms, because they were the ones that provided that information. The only people that have complained against allowing information from the UK authorities to be used on the case has been the defense, they protested when the FCO released a statement from the families and they protested when the prosecution cited an unofficial ID of the phone by the UK authorities.

On the other hand the defense was very eager to present the findings of the coroner that examined Witheridge, which was allowed to be presented in court. So this point is just wrong on every aspect.

"As far as torture goes there was a lawyer who wittnessd marks on the boys and he was gotten rid of."

"Gotten rid of"? By who?

I suppose you are talking about the first lawyer sent by the Myanmar embassy that met the defendants?, probably he didn't join the case because after that meeting he also declared that they had confessed, freely, of the murders.

"Lawyer Aung Myo Thant said the pair, Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun, both 21, from the Arakanese town of Kyaukphyu, told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe on 15 September. However, he said, their stories were “somewhat inconsistent” and “their faces portrayed fear”.

...

“We went to the prison [on Koh Samui] and were allowed to meet with the two freely. They confessed to committing the crime under the influence of alcohol. When asked for further details, they said they bashed the victims two or three times each with the blunt end of a hoe, but not with the sharp end. They said they did it because they were drunk but did not intend to kill the couple."

"The posting of a link to a story about what a British jugdges thoughts were on the case posted on TV was blocked on the web by the Thai government."

Andrew Drummond's story is not about a British judge thoughts on the case, it's about the report the judge that handled the request by the defense to release the findings of the UK inquiry into the investigation released.

This is the conclusion the judge arrived to (you can read the whole document here):

125.

Conclusion: My ultimate conclusion is that there is nothing in the personal data which would be of any real value to the Claimants. I have not identified any particular piece of information to which I would attribute any really substantial weight to be set against the MPS’s objectives. As such I accept that the objections to disclosure raised by the MPS to defeat the application are valid and, on the facts of the case, suffice to outweigh the claimants’ otherwise strong interest in access.

126.

In coming to this end result I nonetheless feel very considerable unease. I sit at a long distance from the seat of the trial and I do not have a true “hands on” feel for the way the evidence has been tendered in the trial to date or how the accused might structure their defences. I have not been assisted by the lack of evidence about the Thai proceedings or as to the evidence that has in fact been tendered by the prosecution or as to the main lines of the defence. I have had to work these out for myself doing, as the parties put it, “the best I could”. This has not been a comfortable process.

If you read the whole report you may see that some of the things Mr Drummond wants to insinuate in his article and selective quoting are not supported by the original report.

Besides that Andrew Drummond's blocking has nothing to do with the Koh Tao murders.

"Very suspicious behaviour from Thai Police , a bungle of forensic evidence, censorship in the trial, what more is needed to figure that the B2 are most highly likely scapegoats of a corrupt and nasty little island controlled by family interests."

The thing is, if your suspicions are based on the sort of points I just rebutted maybe, just maybe, they are not as valid as you think they are.

[canuckamuck]

There isn't even enough evidence to prove that Wei ever touched David's phone. He found a phone on the beach but the police also found a phone at the beach and the one they found was at the crime scene. Which one is more likely to be David's?

They also claim to have found a phone near Wei's residence. Now given that we have strong evidence for a frame up, including torture and concealment of evidence. I must assume that planting the crime scene phone, in a place where they knew Wei's friend had tossed the other, is a distinct possibility. In fact it is highly unlikely the police would have discovered a phone out in the bushes had they not been tipped off.

If this is not the case then who's phone did the police find at the crime scene if it wasn't David's?

[TheCruncher]

There isn't even enough evidence to prove that Wei ever touched David's phone. He found a phone on the beach but the police also found a phone at the beach and the one they found was at the crime scene. Which one is more likely to be David's?

They also claim to have found a phone near Wei's residence. Now given that we have strong evidence for a frame up, including torture and concealment of evidence. I must assume that planting the crime scene phone, in a place where they knew Wei's friend had tossed the other, is a distinct possibility. In fact it is highly unlikely the police would have discovered a phone out in the bushes had they not been tipped off.

If this is not the case then who's phone did the police find at the crime scene if it wasn't David's?

So Wei's friend admits he smashed the phone he received from Wei, while the phone that the police found at the crime scene wasn't smashed.

I'm sure the UK police is able to recognize if the phone that carries David's IMEI is smashed or not.

[StealthEnergiser]

Khaosod English

06 October 2014

Police Clarify Koh Tao Victim's Cellphone 'Planting'

Last week, Thai police chief Somyot Pumphanmuang said officers found Witheridge’s phone during a raid of one of the suspect’s homes.

However, internet skeptics started passing around a photo of Witheridge with her phone prior to the murder, and another one of Witheridge’s friends giving the same phone to police.

Pol.Col. Prachum Ruengthong, a top officer in charge of Koh Tao, explained yesterday that there was a misunderstanding.

According to Pol.Col. Prachum, the phone uncovered by police at the suspect's residence belonged to Miller, not Witheridge.

As for Witheridge's cellphone, police returned it along with her iPad and digital camera to her family on 18 September, said Pol.Col. Prachum said.

"An official from the UK embassy witnessed the transfer and signed a document as evidence at a police substation on Koh Tao," the officer said.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1412601958

[Linky]

There isn't even enough evidence to prove that Wei ever touched David's phone. He found a phone on the beach but the police also found a phone at the beach and the one they found was at the crime scene. Which one is more likely to be David's?

They also claim to have found a phone near Wei's residence. Now given that we have strong evidence for a frame up, including torture and concealment of evidence. I must assume that planting the crime scene phone, in a place where they knew Wei's friend had tossed the other, is a distinct possibility. In fact it is highly unlikely the police would have discovered a phone out in the bushes had they not been tipped off.

If this is not the case then who's phone did the police find at the crime scene if it wasn't David's?

So Wei's friend admits he smashed the phone he received from Wei, while the phone that the police found at the crime scene wasn't smashed.

I'm sure the UK police is able to recognize if the phone that carries David's IMEI is smashed or not.

The UK police have nothing to do with it. They have never confirmed or commented about the phone.

[HUH]

There isn't even enough evidence to prove that Wei ever touched David's phone. He found a phone on the beach but the police also found a phone at the beach and the one they found was at the crime scene. Which one is more likely to be David's?

They also claim to have found a phone near Wei's residence. Now given that we have strong evidence for a frame up, including torture and concealment of evidence. I must assume that planting the crime scene phone, in a place where they knew Wei's friend had tossed the other, is a distinct possibility. In fact it is highly unlikely the police would have discovered a phone out in the bushes had they not been tipped off.

If this is not the case then who's phone did the police find at the crime scene if it wasn't David's?

From the highlight above if not Davids then this could be another explanation:

Perhaps the same person who had blonde hairs at least one of which was found in Hannah's hand. Or the blond hairs found snagged in the phone: "There was also blonde hair on a mobile telephone police have now located" Article from the 17th Sept http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11103274/DNA-found-on-body-of-murdered-British-backpacker-in-Thailand-no-match-to-suspects.html

[Linky]

Khaosod English

06 October 2014

Police Clarify Koh Tao Victim's Cellphone 'Planting'

Last week, Thai police chief Somyot Pumphanmuang said officers found Witheridges phone during a raid of one of the suspects homes.

However, internet skeptics started passing around a photo of Witheridge with her phone prior to the murder, and another one of Witheridges friends giving the same phone to police.

Pol.Col. Prachum Ruengthong, a top officer in charge of Koh Tao, explained yesterday that there was a misunderstanding.

According to Pol.Col. Prachum, the phone uncovered by police at the suspect's residence belonged to Miller, not Witheridge.

As for Witheridge's cellphone, police returned it along with her iPad and digital camera to her family on 18 September, said Pol.Col. Prachum said.

"An official from the UK embassy witnessed the transfer and signed a document as evidence at a police substation on Koh Tao," the officer said.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1412601958

Im not sure of the timeline.

Could someone please explain.....does that mean the police admitted and confirmed they had David's phone before they found the one in the bushes?

[TheCruncher]

There isn't even enough evidence to prove that Wei ever touched David's phone. He found a phone on the beach but the police also found a phone at the beach and the one they found was at the crime scene. Which one is more likely to be David's?

They also claim to have found a phone near Wei's residence. Now given that we have strong evidence for a frame up, including torture and concealment of evidence. I must assume that planting the crime scene phone, in a place where they knew Wei's friend had tossed the other, is a distinct possibility. In fact it is highly unlikely the police would have discovered a phone out in the bushes had they not been tipped off.

If this is not the case then who's phone did the police find at the crime scene if it wasn't David's?

So Wei's friend admits he smashed the phone he received from Wei, while the phone that the police found at the crime scene wasn't smashed.

I'm sure the UK police is able to recognize if the phone that carries David's IMEI is smashed or not.

The UK police have nothing to do with it. They have never confirmed or commented about the phone.

Then how do you explain the package with his phone, and confirmation that it was David's phone, just came from the UK the other day?