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

[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.

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?

It was from the Miller family. Not the UK police. The police have refused to get involved.

But you would know that if you could read.

[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.

"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.

So you summize that two people bludgeoned to death would not scream or that their sceams would not be heard, is that because the B2 covered their mouths while they bashed them?

It does not matter who said that the B2 were not the running man a good authotity did.I supose you are more expert than this.

A typo about prosecutiont when I meant defense acknowledged ,it was defense who have been frustrated by wittness's to afraid to take the stand , no denying this.

As to motive the B2 had none other than you summising that they were drunk and suddenly became rapists, oh yeh sure they went for a swimm took the guitar inside and then decided to find a Hoe and bash 2 falangs to death making sure they did not scream, pull the other one.

There have been threats against people involved and documented on TV, and the original lawyer did say he saw markings on the B2 so again pull the other one.

And you rebutte that the island is run by local mafia and corrupt police, Im sure you know different.

[HUH]

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?

None of us are aware about that time line as far as I can tell. I looked for a reports of the date they found the phone in the bushes but could find nothing conclusive, maybe somebody else has?

But they did find 4 phones on the 16th Sept one of which was a broken iPhone, perhaps that would have been Davids? http://www.phuketgazette.net/thailand-news/Three-suspects-questioned-murder-British-tourists-Koh/34915#ad-image-0

[HUH]

Phone found in the bushes

[Darkknight666]

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.

Wei being in possession of the phone proves nothing but he has a phone, which we can't be sure online if it's indeed David's phone. What bothers me is that Wei wasn't in bed at 4 am like I previously had thought was the case. Now, being that they aren't regular drinkers I could see Wei maybe getting sick and not being able to sleep, realizes he's lost some valuable (to him) clothes and other items and decides to look for them since he's awake anyways.... All my speculations of course. What I do believe without a doubt is the B2 aren't the killers, they may know more and are afraid to speak, I don't know, but somebody is certainly being shielded from prosecution and it isn't the B2.

Too many coincidences, too much silence, too little cooperation from the prosecuting lawyers in the trial... If these two boys commuted this crime where is validation of all of the evidence? Why is the prosecution so snake like if they really think they've got their perp's? It doesn't add up. Also, Warot's name just came out of thin air? He's so unlucky that he was fingered for a crime by a police commander who knew fingering him would be a big deal? And Panya would just accuse him with zero evidence and risk a possible law suit? No, my friend.... It doesn't add up.

[Mooner]

What was Davids Iphone ( Evidence in a murder) doing in the UK? The IMEI number is on the phone. All that was needed was Davids parents to sign in to his Apple account. Presuming they knew his password.

[TheCruncher]

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?

It was from the Miller family. Not the UK police. The police have refused to get involved.

But you would know that if you could read.

I can read, can you also ?

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.

[RWA]

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.

(already out of Likes for today.... )

You're so right Glen!

it only adds to the fact when they both have been left in shackles over the night after the end of a court hearing late in the night of the other day

thank you for concern and voice out!

[HUH]

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?

It was from the Miller family. Not the UK police. The police have refused to get involved.

But you would know that if you could read.

I can read, can you also ?

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.

and here's the conflict, who would you rather believe, the prosecution or British Government?

"although the prosecution claim the UK government confirmed this phone as David's phone but the UK government deny they ever confirmed such information to the Thai Government"

[RWA]

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?

correct!!!

(no Likes left, so here's my Salute to you!)

[TheCruncher]

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?

It was from the Miller family. Not the UK police. The police have refused to get involved.

But you would know that if you could read.

I can read, can you also ?

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.

and here's the conflict, who would you rather believe, the prosecution or British Government?

"although the prosecution claim the UK government confirmed this phone as David's phone but the UK government deny they ever confirmed such information to the Thai Government"

Thanks for clearing up that the Miller family took action, to ensure that justice will be done, after the UK government let them down.

You still have any doubts if the Miller family considers the accused to be the real suspects or not?

[Linky]

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?

It was from the Miller family. Not the UK police. The police have refused to get involved.

But you would know that if you could read.

I can read, can you also ?

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.

So let me understand this. You are saying that the UK authorities confirmed the phone was David's because.....the Miller family received the phone from the Thai embassy.

That is the most bizarre logic I have ever read. Nowhere does it say the UK police assisted anyone.

The UK authorities were asked if they had helped the prosecution. They denied providing such assistance and refused to comment on the phone.

The UK authorities are prohibited from assisting on matters where the death penalty is in play.

[HUH]

I can read, can you also ?

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.

and here's the conflict, who would you rather believe, the prosecution or British Government?

"although the prosecution claim the UK government confirmed this phone as David's phone but the UK government deny they ever confirmed such information to the Thai Government"

Thanks for clearing up that the Miller family took action, to ensure that justice will be done, after the UK government let them down.

You still have any doubts if the Miller family considers the accused to be the real suspects or not?

I have no doubts, again if you do some reading in previous posts you will see that a reporter in court who spoke regularly to the Miller family stated: The Miller's are convinced of their guilt and want a guilty verdict. Others who sat through all the testimony are not.

I also have no doubts that the prosecution witness committed perjury, another fine example of why the prosecution case is not credible

[TheCruncher]

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?

It was from the Miller family. Not the UK police. The police have refused to get involved.

But you would know that if you could read.

I can read, can you also ?

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.

So let me understand this. You are saying that the UK authorities confirmed the phone was David's because.....the Miller family received the phone from the Thai embassy.

That is the most bizarre logic I have ever read. Nowhere does it say the UK police assisted anyone.

The UK authorities were asked if they had helped the prosecution. They denied providing such assistance and refused to comment on the phone.

The UK authorities are prohibited from assisting on matters where the death penalty is in play.

What I said was that there was conflicting testominy, which you should understand as neither confirmed or denied, and that the Miller family by their actions want to ensure that justice will prevail.

[RWA]

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?

Nah,

not really, no...

What has been reported (after the 2B's arrest), was that they found the Hannah's phone behind their (2B) dormitory

and that's been corrected by Somyot shortly after the "Facebook uproar", that it was not Hannah's phone, but David's instead (however they made up THIS - new, conclusion)

[fritzzz25]

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?

In order to provide evidence in court to ensure that no images were manipulated, the computer MUST be forensically examined to ensure NOTHING has been altered on it. Here is a quick search of a Canadian court case ruled on 9 years ago (on an investigation that was 11 years ago - showing you how long the software has been in use......) that may enlighten you on the use of digital forensic software. http://canlii.ca/t/1q84q

"(6) The Crown called viva voce evidence in response to the Application. Staff Sergeant Keuper gave evidence that the ENCASE software is commercially available forensic software with global application. Furthermore, it has been the industry standard for law enforcement, government, and in the private sector among forensic accountants for the past four to five years. The ENCASE software offers a reliable way to acquire data without altering it thereby permitting continuity in forensic analysis."

Maybe you have heard of a program called photoshop.... not that the RTP would have the budget for it, but I am sure they could get a copy for 200 baht at MBK. The three stooges couldn't have come up with a better comedy than the RTP has with their evidence gathering. In any western country, a prosecutor wouldn't wipe their arse with the paper the RTP have put their case on. This has all come down to money and face - the two things this country is famous for.

[fritzzz25]

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!!

So we have the Met Police confirming this? Well knock me down with a feather. Where did this come from?

[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?

correct!!!

(no Likes left, so here's my Salute to you!)

Pathetic!! .

Reported for baiting

[RWA]

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?

None of us are aware about that time line as far as I can tell. I looked for a reports of the date they found the phone in the bushes but could find nothing conclusive, maybe somebody else has?

But they did find 4 phones on the 16th Sept one of which was a broken iPhone, perhaps that would have been Davids? http://www.phuketgazette.net/thailand-news/Three-suspects-questioned-murder-British-tourists-Koh/34915#ad-image-0

[Linky]

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?

It was from the Miller family. Not the UK police. The police have refused to get involved.

But you would know that if you could read.

I can read, can you also ?

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.

So let me understand this. You are saying that the UK authorities confirmed the phone was David's because.....the Miller family received the phone from the Thai embassy.

That is the most bizarre logic I have ever read. Nowhere does it say the UK police assisted anyone.

The UK authorities were asked if they had helped the prosecution. They denied providing such assistance and refused to comment on the phone.

The UK authorities are prohibited from assisting on matters where the death penalty is in play.

What I said was that there was conflicting testominy, which you should understand as neither confirmed or denied, and that the Miller family by their actions want to ensure that justice will prevail.

Why should i have to understand as neither confirmed or denied.

Wrong.

It has been denied. The UK did not assist.

Everyone wants justice to prevail, but what the Miller family has done is NOT provide any evidence. It would not be difficult for the rtp to get evidence to prove who owned the phone but they did not do so. There are many things the rtp could have done and should have done but for reasons only known to them, they refused to do.

[stephenterry]

I can read, can you also ?

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.

and here's the conflict, who would you rather believe, the prosecution or British Government?

"although the prosecution claim the UK government confirmed this phone as David's phone but the UK government deny they ever confirmed such information to the Thai Government"

Thanks for clearing up that the Miller family took action, to ensure that justice will be done, after the UK government let them down.

You still have any doubts if the Miller family considers the accused to be the real suspects or not?

I have no doubts, again if you do some reading in previous posts you will see that a reporter in court who spoke regularly to the Miller family stated: The Miller's are convinced of their guilt and want a guilty verdict. Others who sat through all the testimony are not.

I also have no doubts that the prosecution witness committed perjury, another fine example of why the prosecution case is not credible

It could explain why no friends of either victim have offered any witness testimony, because they have been assured that the suspects are guilty. If true, I'm sorry to hear that.

[RWA]

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.

Wei being in possession of the phone proves nothing but he has a phone, which we can't be sure online if it's indeed David's phone. What bothers me is that Wei wasn't in bed at 4 am like I previously had thought was the case. Now, being that they aren't regular drinkers I could see Wei maybe getting sick and not being able to sleep, realizes he's lost some valuable (to him) clothes and other items and decides to look for them since he's awake anyways.... All my speculations of course. What I do believe without a doubt is the B2 aren't the killers, they may know more and are afraid to speak, I don't know, but somebody is certainly being shielded from prosecution and it isn't the B2.

Too many coincidences, too much silence, too little cooperation from the prosecuting lawyers in the trial... If these two boys commuted this crime where is validation of all of the evidence? Why is the prosecution so snake like if they really think they've got their perp's? It doesn't add up. Also, Warot's name just came out of thin air? He's so unlucky that he was fingered for a crime by a police commander who knew fingering him would be a big deal? And Panya would just accuse him with zero evidence and risk a possible law suit? No, my friend.... It doesn't add up.

but. but. but They did it!!!

can't you see on the photo how that's been done (??!!!) :

[lucky11]

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?

In order to provide evidence in court to ensure that no images were manipulated, the computer MUST be forensically examined to ensure NOTHING has been altered on it. Here is a quick search of a Canadian court case ruled on 9 years ago (on an investigation that was 11 years ago - showing you how long the software has been in use......) that may enlighten you on the use of digital forensic software. http://canlii.ca/t/1q84q

"(6) The Crown called viva voce evidence in response to the Application. Staff Sergeant Keuper gave evidence that the ENCASE software is commercially available forensic software with global application. Furthermore, it has been the industry standard for law enforcement, government, and in the private sector among forensic accountants for the past four to five years. The ENCASE software offers a reliable way to acquire data without altering it thereby permitting continuity in forensic analysis."

Maybe you have heard of a program called photoshop.... not that the RTP would have the budget for it, but I am sure they could get a copy for 200 baht at MBK. The three stooges couldn't have come up with a better comedy than the RTP has with their evidence gathering. In any western country, a prosecutor wouldn't wipe their arse with the paper the RTP have put their case on. This has all come down to money and face - the two things this country is famous for.

The Miller's simply want justice for his death - now why would they say it was David's phone if it wasn't!! I think that they are in a much better position than any poster on this forum to decide that fact, don't you.

They must have listened to what the UK police have observed and it seems that despite the cock-ups by the RTP they firmly believe that the Burmese killed him, so what does that say?

[Linky]

It says they havent listened to the evidence in court.

[lucky11]

I hope the Miller's get their justice and can have closure on their terrible loss.

I think that they are privy to something that we don't know about - maybe something revealed to them by the UK police in their capacity of observing the investigation, of which cannot be given out to the public. Otherwise, why would they want the B2 to go down if they they were not truly convinced of their guilt?

[Linky]

It does not matter what the Millers say about the phone. What they say is NOT evidence. If you think the phone is David's, and it could well be, then blame that on the rtp for not proving it after having it all this time.

Seems the Millers are also fed up with the rtp incompetence and doing their own investigation and getting involved. Despite them asking everyone else not to get involved and let the trial take its course. Yet they themselves have not let the trial take its course.

[stephenterry]

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?

In order to provide evidence in court to ensure that no images were manipulated, the computer MUST be forensically examined to ensure NOTHING has been altered on it. Here is a quick search of a Canadian court case ruled on 9 years ago (on an investigation that was 11 years ago - showing you how long the software has been in use......) that may enlighten you on the use of digital forensic software. http://canlii.ca/t/1q84q

"(6) The Crown called viva voce evidence in response to the Application. Staff Sergeant Keuper gave evidence that the ENCASE software is commercially available forensic software with global application. Furthermore, it has been the industry standard for law enforcement, government, and in the private sector among forensic accountants for the past four to five years. The ENCASE software offers a reliable way to acquire data without altering it thereby permitting continuity in forensic analysis."

Maybe you have heard of a program called photoshop.... not that the RTP would have the budget for it, but I am sure they could get a copy for 200 baht at MBK. The three stooges couldn't have come up with a better comedy than the RTP has with their evidence gathering. In any western country, a prosecutor wouldn't wipe their arse with the paper the RTP have put their case on. This has all come down to money and face - the two things this country is famous for.

The Miller's simply want justice for his death - now why would they say it was David's phone if it wasn't!! I think that they are in a much better position than any poster on this forum to decide that fact, don't you.

They must have listened to what the UK police have observed and it seems that despite the cock-ups by the RTP they firmly believe that the Burmese killed him, so what does that say?

It says what you've just stated. I would suggest that the Miller family want closure, and are prepared to accept the FCO and RTP version of events to achieve that. It must be a very emotional time for them, and they just want it to end, so they can get on with their lives.

And I suggest you do the same, rather than continuing to bleat on ad nauseam about the phone.

[lucky11]

It says they havent listened to the evidence in court.

I'm sure they have paid close attention to events and made up their own minds on this.

I hope that their feelings on the matter holds sway with the judge and they come to the right decision.

[Linky]

I hope the Miller's get their justice and can have closure on their terrible loss.

I think that they are privy to something that we don't know about - maybe something revealed to them by the UK police in their capacity of observing the investigation, of which cannot be given out to the public. Otherwise, why would they want the B2 to go down if they they were not truly convinced of their guilt?

Well you are conviced of their guilt purely because the Millers are. So your own view indicates how easy it is to be misled.

You cannot be convinced because of evidence because there is none.

The Millers were only told what the rtp wanted them told. Dna match perfect. But now we know the claim was rubbish.

[Linky]

It says they havent listened to the evidence in court.

I'm sure they have paid close attention to events and made up their own minds on this.

I hope that their feelings on the matter holds sway with the judge and they come to the right decision.

People on this forum has also paid close attention. The Millers are not privvy to any more information than anyone else. The evidence provided in court.

Their feeling are of no concern when determining guilt or innocence. Nor should they be. That is determined on facts and facts alone.

Using your logic, or lack of it, shall we hope the feelings of the accused families holds more sway with the judges and they come to the right decision to acquit.