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

[joebrown]

To : - lucky 11, AleG, Cruncher and all other RTP Drones/Defenders

Isn't it about time at least one of you gave a concise reply to the following :-

Joebrown #2465

I might be tempted to agree with you if you could explain why Mon instructed the gardener to replace the blood stained hoe to the alleged murder scene. How did Mon know that the hoe was a weapon used in the murder of Hannah. From what I recall from the gardener's evidence he had placed the hoe under some plastic bags away from the murder scene. How was Mon in a position to determine the importance of the hoe before the gardener moved it? I feel sure you can easily answer this question, as you have no doubt about the B2's exclusive involvement. in the crimes.(quote)

Explanation of #2465

You say KT is not a dangerous place etc etc.and consider it a safe place to visit. In my post I say I might consider a visit to KT if you can satisfy me it is safe. To help me make up my mind on whether it is safe or not, I ask you to explain why Mon instructed the gardener to replace the hoe etc etc. The reason I ask for your explanation is that I would never wish to visit a place (KT) where I might feel unsafe because of an apparent flaw in the trial evidence given by someone who is portrayed as a saint by a few TVF posters.

I trust this explanation will be sufficient to allay my current fears about visiting Koh Tao. I await your considered response to my # 2465.

Your failure to respond directly to the posts referred to above will lead me to draw the obvious conclusion, ie Mon's testimony in court only served to compound the web of lies already told. Needless to say I would never consider placing myself, family or friends in the obvious dangers still prevalent on Koh Tao.

[smedly]

This is going to sound like a weird post and I will try and explain what I mean as best as I can -

Apart from the interviews (torture as you put it) were the accused had no legal council (illegal IMO) no recordings.....nothing

Court proceedings basically come down to arguments - the prosecution present their case and the defense try to argue against it on behalf of the defendants - ok so we all know that, if you haven't been in court you have seen a fairly good representation on TV

In order for the defense council to do their job they must be presented with a factual case to argue against presented by the prosecution, lets take that thought to an extreme and work backwards, suppose the prosecution in this case stood up in court and said - the accused were on the beach that night (we all agree) and therefore they must be guilty, the only possible reply to that from defense council is confirmation - yes they were on the beach that night

So in very simplistic terms the prosecution has made their case and the defense have made theirs, they all agree so they must be guilty.

Expanding on that - prosecution say we have a DNA match connecting the accused to the victim, defense say show us the DNA we want to test and verify that evidence - oh sorry we no longer have that at which point a Judge should intervene and say - sorry that is not admissible in my court (replace DNA with GUN and you will get my meaning)

The point being and again very basic and simplistic, this case in terms of arguments left the defense council with very little to actually argue against because the prosecution didn't present anything viable, yes the defense and accused testified and covered the illegal interviews (which were illegal - fact) but in all honesty there was little else for defense council to do, it was a case of how do we fill in time here, ok we can get the accused to testify the last 2 days (which I said before was a mistake), we can get Pontip (expert) to test the Hoe for DNA ok all well and good but there was little else for them to do, how do you argue against a case when there is no real argument presented

We had the gun and it was a match but we worked so hard on it there is nothing left - it was exhausted

Oh the phone found at the crime scene did not belong to any of the victims so we never tested it

The murder weapon was missing when we arrived at the scene, what murder weapon ? the hoe, we left it right there and when we arrived back the gardener had removed it, we made him put it back

So basically, no real evidence was presented by the persecution that can be relied upon and the whole case rests upon the Police saying it is so. That means they are relying on the principal that "mud sticks", throw enough mud at it, even if it is not true and enough will stick to convict.

Then they sit back, say nothing, refuse or make stupid excuses as to why the defence cannot cross examine the "so called" evidence and wait for the conviction.

Very scary thought, but you are right. If they are convicted then this will be the worst stitch up I have ever seen or even heard of.

There is one thing that i can't get my head around, the UK pathologist sent a report stating that there was no evidence of rape. This completely destroys the claim that DNA has been found of the B2 inside Hannah. I know the judge does not have to take this as evidence as it is not in Thai jurisdiction but that fact will become very significant later if they are found guilty.

There is no real evidence and the world is watching, lets hope the Judge considers this more then the mud.

And unlike the defense who are preparing a robust closing statement, the prosecution see no need for one apparently? What the F$uk?

Andy Hall ‏@Atomicalandy Oct 13

@terryfrd @steadirob I understand from court on Sunday the prosecution won't write a closing statement, but maybe I misunderstood.

Think about it, what exactly are they going to say ? ***I don't know*** and I am being serious, this falls back to my earlier post about the prosecution not actually making a case and the defence having little or nothing to argue, the defence closing statement will be huge - they will point out all the failures during the investigation and the lack of verifyable physical evidence and documentation that doesn't seem to exist or never did, also recently revealed that doctors pathologists lab professionals either failed - refused or wouldn't sign reports and documentaion on behalf of the police - sign this please - no it is not my work.

And finally the phone - well I've covered that one in a few posts, yes they may well have had Davids phone and had the IMEI checked but was it found at the crimescene or at the B2 residence - if the latter then whos phone was found at the crimescene and what happened to it, if this case was a stitch up as many believe then this whole phone thing is totally unreliable just like the rest of this sorry business

[catsanddogs]

I spent a little time on Koh Tao last year, beautiful Island, and was there just before the horrific murders took place, obviously I have been following this with interest, and I have yet to read anywhere as to what was the motive behind such a barbaric attack, as it seems to be the case that the British Pathologist reports has serious differences between the Thai one.

What was the motive?

some nasty lowlife scum that thinks he is something preying on innocent farang women on the island on holiday doesn't like being told to F'off in front of his mates when he tries it on

I said a very long time ago that it was probably Hannah on her own was followed out of the bar intending to walk a short distance to her room, David got involved by chance when he went to investigate a commotion on the beach near his room, he was likely assaulted and murdered first and that sealed Hannah's fate as she was a witness

Motive - some coward scum losing face in the bar during an altercation

I agree Smedly, it sounds just about right ... but still ... WHY would Hannah leave her phone (and perhaps some other items, i.e. purse, keys, etc.,) with her friend before going ALONE back to her room?!!! What on Earth should be the reason for it?

Not going back to room maybe? Could have been going to the ladies. Disappeared out the back door mysteriously (assisted) possibly.

[Chetzee]

the whole prosecution case is so full of holes and incosistancies , i am begining to feel like the defence failed to really get there heads around it , as a good defence barrister would have torn it to shreds in the UK .

sees like one missed trick after another .

[Dogmatix]

Unbelievable right? I guess if the prosecution were to make a statement it would probably be a repeat of the mud slinging anyway,,,

"we found DNA inside Hannah, the guys confessed, they were on the beach and therefore they did it" At which point I could imagine the whole courtroom coughing into their handkerchiefs while uttering the words "Bullsh#t"

I can imagine the prosecutors have no desire to sum up what they have known was an embarrassing non-case from the start. Remember that they knocked the file back to police three times before they accepted the 'case', making feeble excuses about wanting to add additional charges etc. Ultimately they must have had strict orders from on high to prosecute or face dire consequences. The behaviour of the prosecution in the Phuketwan case was also quite strange, as they simply disappeared after presenting their witnesses and were absent from most of the rest of the proceedings. In the KT trial prosecutors were presumably present throughout but didn't bother to cross examine defence witnesses and only popped up in the closing minutes to deliver the curious, phone evidence, which might possibly have been relevant, if presented earlier with verification that could be examined by the defence. The last minute submission of the non-evidence of the phone may also be another thing that the prosecutors were forced reluctantly to do.

Of course the lackadaisical performance of the prosecution doesn't mean that the defendants won't be convicted and sentenced to death.

[smedly]

I think Hannah had her purse (wallet) with her when she left Choppers bar with her friend Emma and two guys. If you look at the CCTV footage she is carrying something in her right hand. So what happened to it?

I'm pretty sure it was found at the crime scene, looks like its pictured here above Davids shoes. I do remember very early reports from the RTP after the bodies were found that robbery was not thought to be the motive, it was also mentioned a small amount of cash was found and phones. This was at the time the RTP were pushing the theory that Chris Ware was involved and Thai language media was making all sorts of unfounded claims of a bisexual motive. The no robbery theory fitted in with this. http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/british-tourists-bludgeoned-to-death-on-thailand-beach-suspicion-falls-back-on-brit/story-fnizu68q-1227059461113

the police chief said that fragments of hair belonging to a foreigner had been found in the hand of Hannah Westridge.

He did not explain how the police knew that the hair was from a foreigner

Yet police had also said on Tuesday that they were convinced that it was crime of jealously, passion or anger due to the extent of the injures to Ms Westridge and lack of any other motives, including robbery.

no way HUH,

there is a video from the police station, where Emma is giving Hannah phone to the police officer next day after the murders were discovered.

Remember, this video went viral right after the RTP announced, that the phone found in the bushes behind the B2 dormitory, which they first claimed is belong to Hannah. (so this particular video proved them wrong, as it just could not been Hannah phone they found there. This is why they changed the "story" afterwards, saying it was not Hannah's but David's instead)

That's why my question still remains:

why Emma haven't clarified WHERE was Hannah going from the AC bar - on her own (for the first time during the whole night) and WITHOUT her phone?!!!

one possible reason for giving the phone to Emma was that it was discharged (no battery left) and she saw no point in carrying it around if Emma was heading back to bed anyway and maybe her bag as well, you don't really need much when hanging around a bar at 2am - a few quid in your pocket, only Emma can answer that really

[smedly]

the whole prosecution case is so full of holes and incosistancies , i am begining to feel like the defence failed to really get there heads around it , as a good defence barrister would have torn it to shreds in the UK .

sees like one missed trick after another .

trust me on this - it would never have got past the DPP and even if it had as soon as the police said their first "I don't know" or we don't have that "Chain of custody" or the original DNA samples - the trial would have been immediatly stopped and the police investigated

[z42]

If anybody is in any doubt about what went down in the courtroom then read the comments section of the following facebook post. And mods I believe this is a credible (or allowable) source because Andy Hall, Sarah Yuen and a guy called Robert Holmes were all in court and heard testimony first hand, and subsequently discuss it here.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153261210105677&id=675065676&p=20&refid=52

[B166ER]

....Miss W could have simply been on her way for a swim and gave her items to said friend since it'd be safer than bringing to the beach. I'd do that. She's quite the cutie....Mr M could have Carpe diumed (scuse me) the moment and followed. Something I'd a done. It's all moot now really. Only those who witnessed their last moments will ever know the true story. My gut tells me there's quite a few.

Sadly the only way for justice to come screaming and kicking to the cause would be if tourism and businesses were directly effected. If tourists suddenly all informed themselves of what transpired on that fateful night and chose out of moral turpitude, to avoid the place altogether. There was a tiny seaside village in Mexico I used to visit yearly awhile ago. It mirrors K T in a lot of ways. Five years in a row it was "my" place to visit. The locals around were once "muy amigable". It just took one last trip to assuage my feelings for the place. They'd gotten the Gringo peso fever. Each business I'd gotten to know were jealous of each other. Favorite cafes were fighting with each other for the "Gringo's Pesos". I'll never forget the first murder that happened either and that was that....

This island is someone's "paradise" too. I can't help to think that their feelings must now as well be tainted and the paradise they once loved so much is lost, if somewhat a few notches at least. If the real culprits came to justice it certainly would lift that dark cloud hanging over the island.

One day the truth will come out. Those accused might not be of this earth any longer and that is a real tragedy. How can we in this day and age watch something unfurl before our very eyes on such a modern system of information gathering that 99% of us believe is fabricated and false, false, false? The reason why I even care is the feeling that they're trying to sell me something I believe is fantasy. It insults me. How can they think I'm that stupid? I lose respect for them and then anything that's said henceforth will be second guessed. How can I as a "Gringo" visit this island and not think everyone is laughing at me for being so stupid? Look....the tourist(s) bought it. They believe it. They really are stupid.

The verdict is to be announced on Christmas eve. I truly truly truly wish for all involved and indirectly involved to believe in the power of good over evil and direct those positive vibes towards this archipelago, for justice to triumph, imagine....

[catsanddogs]

I'm pretty sure it was found at the crime scene, looks like its pictured here above Davids shoes. I do remember very early reports from the RTP after the bodies were found that robbery was not thought to be the motive, it was also mentioned a small amount of cash was found and phones. This was at the time the RTP were pushing the theory that Chris Ware was involved and Thai language media was making all sorts of unfounded claims of a bisexual motive. The no robbery theory fitted in with this. http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/british-tourists-bludgeoned-to-death-on-thailand-beach-suspicion-falls-back-on-brit/story-fnizu68q-1227059461113

the police chief said that fragments of hair belonging to a foreigner had been found in the hand of Hannah Westridge.

He did not explain how the police knew that the hair was from a foreigner

Yet police had also said on Tuesday that they were convinced that it was crime of jealously, passion or anger due to the extent of the injures to Ms Westridge and lack of any other motives, including robbery.

.... I don't know ... I don't want to sound disgusting or anything ... but ...

I noticed just now ... when I'm looking at the top left corner item, on what supposed to be Hannah panties, ... ehmmm, I just can't help it: why it does look to me more like a tinny (Thai) man underwear, rather than a young, fancy girl's bit? ... really, I just can't imagine Hannah (or any other young girl for that matter) to wear anything this much in-feminine (with such a tall waist and somewhat a lot of material in the crotch..?!!!!)

or is it just by an angle of camera lens, or ... I don't know, but it looks weird ...

items.jpg

... also .... IF (!!!) that piece of evidence (that is hopefully not lost too) has been forensically examined - what DNA did THIS offered? ... there must be plenty of it, right?

I don’t think these can be the shorts David was seen wearing on CCTV the morning of the murders.

Using a scale of 1cm on screen = 12cm in reality. All measurements are approx. I am using this scale because the pink flip flops supposedly of Hannah’s measure 2cm in length which equals 24cm which is approx. a size 7 ladies shoe. You can see the shorts are roughly twice the length of the flip flops. Hannah possibly had smaller feet, but this is irrelevant for this exercise.

Waist - The shorts pictured here, supposedly David’s from the crime scene ,measure 4.5 at the waist, (so 9cms all round) giving a waist measurement of 108cm (42inches).

Length – The length of the outside leg is 4cm, giving a measurement of 48cm (16 and a half inches). The inside leg is 2cm giving a measurement of 24cm (9 and a half inches).

Inside leg – crotch to waist is 2cm giving a measurement again of 24cm (9 inches).

A 9 inch inside leg on shorts = short shorts on a tall man not just below the knee as seen in the photo here of David.

In the past few years, the low-water-mark length of a 15-inch-or-so inseam receded to knee-length (11 inches), then a knee-baring 9 inches, then to a quadriceps-exposing 7 inches and on to the newly fashionable thigh-flaunting 5 inches.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=length+of+mens+shorts

Giving the benefit of the doubt that David could have been wearing these shorts low slung on his hips, from looking at the photo and where the shorts come to on his knee, his entire backside would have been showing. These shorts appear to be too short to be his. He was over six feet tall and the shorts pictured are wider than they are long. Also, measuring the men’s pants, the waistband is the same as the shorts, but pants are stretchy. How many men have pants with the same waist measurement as their trousers? The pants would fall down! Try it yourself men over 6 feet. Get your tape measure out and measure from your waist down to 16.5 inches and see where it comes to on your knees. Short shorts on a tall man.

To confirm my ascertain that these are not the shorts David was wearing – that belt does not belong with those shorts. It’s as plain as day! Look at it – imagine doing it up – see where the bend is on the non- buckle end? If it was fastened where the bend is in the belt then the belt would have to be much smaller to fit these shorts. The belt is too big for those shorts – it would mean an excess of around 30cm of leather! How many men have a foot of excess leather stuffed through the loops of their trousers? That is the belt that was pictured on the first crime scene photos where the clothes are scattered around and I seem to remember that belt with that bend in it being on a dark items of shorts/trousers.

Also, I seem to remember other pictures of David’s shorts being posted that had stains on the front? These one here to not appear to be stained.

[mike313]

It proves he lied where he was at the time of the crime .

He was on the same location at the time of the crime

He had the phone of one of the victims

He lost his clothes that he was wearing that night

[RWA]

the whole prosecution case is so full of holes and incosistancies , i am begining to feel like the defence failed to really get there heads around it , as a good defence barrister would have torn it to shreds in the UK .

sees like one missed trick after another .

I remember (will never forget, actually) how I have been fighting with my lawyers during my own trial here in Thailand, arguing how I want them to defend my case.

Almost every piece of evidence I wanted to be presented to the court (that has been totally clear, simple, straightforward and bulletproof) has been disliked and some completely dismissed by them (my attorneys). They kept on telling me that "it doesn't matter what's the matter", that I don't understand, that what they only need to do is to tell and show to the judge what the judge wants to see and will understand - made out of it. That they know how this and that judge thinks and what he doesn't like and THAT is only what they will present to him and won't bother him with what I want, think or deem sensible and correct.

It was a nightmare for me to listen to all these "sick" arguments and exchanges at the court (completely irrelevant, unsubstantial non-related stuff) , but it did work and I won all 3 instances. I still can't believe I didn't end up in a jail, after all that non-seance that has been heard or red at this, higher and the appeal court.

Believe me, I also thought - no, I was hundred percent sure, my defense lawyers were failing me all the time, yet they were right at last ...

It is really something VERY else than what we're accustomed to ... truly hard to comprehend

[catsanddogs]

Two pairs of shorts with the same label in the back. One pair clean, one pair dirty. Looking at the length on both pairs of shorts, the dirty ones appear to be longer and the circumference of the hem narrower. The third photo - the mystery jeans with what appears to be the same belt. If anyone says these are a white pair of shorts inside out my name's father Christmas. I used to know someone who liked to unpick his designer labels from the inside of his shirts and stitch them on the back so everyone could see. Need to highlight it again - the belt is too big for the clean shorts.

[catsanddogs]

Is anyone able to confirm what date this picture of Hannah next to Shark Tooth Ring man was taken please? Is Stingray and Shark Tooth man the same person?

[RWA]

Two pairs of shorts with the same label in the back. One pair clean, one pair dirty. Looking at the length on both pairs of shorts, the dirty ones appear to be longer and the circumference of the hem narrower. The third photo - the mystery jeans with what appears to be the same belt. If anyone says these are a white pair of shorts inside out my name's father Christmas. I used to know someone who liked to unpick his designer labels from the inside of his shirts and stitch them on the back so everyone could see. Need to highlight it again - the belt is too big for the clean shorts.

yes,

but still:

Look at the allegedly Hannah's panties (underwear she didn't wear on her body when found)

in the top left, above the pinky flip flops ...

DID YOU ever seen any young, sexy girl on her night out on a tropical island (not in Alaska during the winter!!!)

wearing such an awful thing?

This "Hannah's panties" looks more like a Thai guy's underwear to me .... anybody?

[catsanddogs]

Two pairs of shorts with the same label in the back. One pair clean, one pair dirty. Looking at the length on both pairs of shorts, the dirty ones appear to be longer and the circumference of the hem narrower. The third photo - the mystery jeans with what appears to be the same belt. If anyone says these are a white pair of shorts inside out my name's father Christmas. I used to know someone who liked to unpick his designer labels from the inside of his shirts and stitch them on the back so everyone could see. Need to highlight it again - the belt is too big for the clean shorts.

yes,

but still:

Look at the allegedly Hannah's panties (underwear she didn't wear on her body when found)

in the top left, above the pinky flip flops ...

DID YOU ever seen any young, sexy girl on her night out on a tropical island (not in Alaska during the winter!!!)

wearing such an awful thing?

This "Hannah's panties" looks more like a Thai guy's underwear to me .... anybody?

The picture does seem odd I agree. They look like a normal pair of knickers mostly but seems strange at the bottom, almost as if there is something else there in front of them.

[RWA]

Is anyone able to confirm what date this picture of Hannah next to Shark Tooth Ring man was taken please? Is Stingray and Shark Tooth man the same person?

yes, the "Shark Tooth" and "Stingray ring" guy are the same, however often confused with a "Hoe guy" who's somebody else. (well, there is a third guy, also easily confused with the two, I forgot his name ... I remember Darknight666 explaining who is who in some of the earlier post)

and the photo should be from the night before the murders, where there was some big beach party with the fire-dancer and things ... I think they have been on the island only 2 days before they were found death...?

[catsanddogs]

Two pairs of shorts with the same label in the back. One pair clean, one pair dirty. Looking at the length on both pairs of shorts, the dirty ones appear to be longer and the circumference of the hem narrower. The third photo - the mystery jeans with what appears to be the same belt. If anyone says these are a white pair of shorts inside out my name's father Christmas. I used to know someone who liked to unpick his designer labels from the inside of his shirts and stitch them on the back so everyone could see. Need to highlight it again - the belt is too big for the clean shorts.

yes,

but still:

Look at the allegedly Hannah's panties (underwear she didn't wear on her body when found)

in the top left, above the pinky flip flops ...

DID YOU ever seen any young, sexy girl on her night out on a tropical island (not in Alaska during the winter!!!)

wearing such an awful thing?

This "Hannah's panties" looks more like a Thai guy's underwear to me .... anybody?

The picture does seem odd I agree. They look like a normal pair of knickers mostly but seems strange at the bottom, almost as if there is something else there in front of them.

I should have added that the style is womens' boxers. Very popular in the UK.

[RWA]

I spent a little time on Koh Tao last year, beautiful Island, and was there just before the horrific murders took place, obviously I have been following this with interest, and I have yet to read anywhere as to what was the motive behind such a barbaric attack, as it seems to be the case that the British Pathologist reports has serious differences between the Thai one.

What was the motive?

some nasty lowlife scum that thinks he is something preying on innocent farang women on the island on holiday doesn't like being told to F'off in front of his mates when he tries it on

I said a very long time ago that it was probably Hannah on her own was followed out of the bar intending to walk a short distance to her room, David got involved by chance when he went to investigate a commotion on the beach near his room, he was likely assaulted and murdered first and that sealed Hannah's fate as she was a witness

Motive - some coward scum losing face in the bar during an altercation

I agree Smedly, it sounds just about right ... but still ... WHY would Hannah leave her phone (and perhaps some other items, i.e. purse, keys, etc.,) with her friend before going ALONE back to her room?!!! What on Earth should be the reason for it?

Not going back to room maybe? Could have been going to the ladies. Disappeared out the back door mysteriously (assisted) possibly.

and Emma wouldn't get to go to look for her after a while?

girls are usually going to ladies together ...

and would not raise alarm after she (Emma) came to their room (alone, without Hannah, from the AC bar) and haven't found her asleep in her bed?! (if she only went for ladies)

[sambum]

It seems unfortunate that the defence had to place so much emphasis on the allegations of torture, which, although undoubtedly true, could no more be proven beyond a reasonable doubt than the defendants' commission of the rape and murders. That highlights the utterly unsound basis of this trial. The forced confessions were not only retracted but were inadmissible under Thai law, as pointed out by Ajarn Burin in his oped piece, because the defendants were not informed of their rights to remain silent and to have lawyers present.

The defence lawyers presumably knew that the prosecution would present the forced confessions as one of the two main planks of their case, along with the police's unverifiable DNA match from the tape that didn't take place.

They were also aware that the court would routinely accept forced confessions without Miranda rights, since this must be an every day occurrence in Thai courts.

In addition they were severely hampered in performing what should have been their main task of proving that the defendants could not have committed the crimes by the refusal by prosecutors and police to allow them access to the most critical evidence. That would include the DNA samples, the crime scene photographs, the victims' clothing, the CCTV footage etc etc.

This is going to sound like a weird post and I will try and explain what I mean as best as I can -

Apart from the interviews (torture as you put it) were the accused had no legal council (illegal IMO) no recordings.....nothing

Court proceedings basically come down to arguments - the prosecution present their case and the defense try to argue against it on behalf of the defendants - ok so we all know that, if you haven't been in court you have seen a fairly good representation on TV

In order for the defense council to do their job they must be presented with a factual case to argue against presented by the prosecution, lets take that thought to an extreme and work backwards, suppose the prosecution in this case stood up in court and said - the accused were on the beach that night (we all agree) and therefore they must be guilty, the only possible reply to that from defense council is confirmation - yes they were on the beach that night

So in very simplistic terms the prosecution has made their case and the defense have made theirs, they all agree so they must be guilty.

Expanding on that - prosecution say we have a DNA match connecting the accused to the victim, defense say show us the DNA we want to test and verify that evidence - oh sorry we no longer have that at which point a Judge should intervene and say - sorry that is not admissible in my court (replace DNA with GUN and you will get my meaning)

The point being and again very basic and simplistic, this case in terms of arguments left the defense council with very little to actually argue against because the prosecution didn't present anything viable, yes the defense and accused testified and covered the illegal interviews (which were illegal - fact) but in all honesty there was little else for defense council to do, it was a case of how do we fill in time here, ok we can get the accused to testify the last 2 days (which I said before was a mistake), we can get Pontip (expert) to test the Hoe for DNA ok all well and good but there was little else for them to do, how do you argue against a case when there is no real argument presented

We had the gun and it was a match but we worked so hard on it there is nothing left - it was exhausted

Oh the phone found at the crime scene did not belong to any of the victims so we never tested it

The murder weapon was missing when we arrived at the scene, what murder weapon ? the hoe, we left it right there and when we arrived back the gardener had removed it, we made him put it back

So basically, no real evidence was presented by the persecution that can be relied upon and the whole case rests upon the Police saying it is so. That means they are relying on the principal that "mud sticks", throw enough mud at it, even if it is not true and enough will stick to convict.

Then they sit back, say nothing, refuse or make stupid excuses as to why the defence cannot cross examine the "so called" evidence and wait for the conviction.

Very scary thought, but you are right. If they are convicted then this will be the worst stitch up I have ever seen or even heard of.

There is one thing that i can't get my head around, the UK pathologist sent a report stating that there was no evidence of rape. This completely destroys the claim that DNA has been found of the B2 inside Hannah. I know the judge does not have to take this as evidence as it is not in Thai jurisdiction but that fact will become very significant later if they are found guilty.

There is no real evidence and the world is watching, lets hope the Judge considers this more then the mud.

While I agree with most of your post regarding the lack of evidence, and manipulation of the situation by the prosecution, I must disagree with one point: :-

"There is one thing that i can't get my head around, the UK pathologist sent a report stating that there was no evidence of rape. This completely destroys the claim that DNA has been found of the B2 inside Hannah."

The report from the UK patholigist states that there is no evidence of rape. That does not mean that sexual intercourse had not taken place.

[catsanddogs]

Is anyone able to confirm what date this picture of Hannah next to Shark Tooth Ring man was taken please? Is Stingray and Shark Tooth man the same person?

yes, the "Shark Tooth" and "Stingray ring" guy are the same, however often confused with a "Hoe guy" who's somebody else. (well, there is a third guy, also easily confused with the two, I forgot his name ... I remember Darknight666 explaining who is who in some of the earlier post)

and the photo should be from the night before the murders, where there was some big beach party with the fire-dancer and things ... I think they have been on the island only 2 days before they were found death...?

Thanks. Same man as in these pics then? (bottom right in bar pic) Big man, likely with large waist.

[RWA]

Two pairs of shorts with the same label in the back. One pair clean, one pair dirty. Looking at the length on both pairs of shorts, the dirty ones appear to be longer and the circumference of the hem narrower. The third photo - the mystery jeans with what appears to be the same belt. If anyone says these are a white pair of shorts inside out my name's father Christmas. I used to know someone who liked to unpick his designer labels from the inside of his shirts and stitch them on the back so everyone could see. Need to highlight it again - the belt is too big for the clean shorts.

Catsanddogs,

on the last picture, I can see a blue jeans, David's Tshirt, a belt .. and what is that white rag at seven o'clock?!!!

that's nothing I can recognize from the big picture above, where all items are organized...

[RWA]

Two pairs of shorts with the same label in the back. One pair clean, one pair dirty. Looking at the length on both pairs of shorts, the dirty ones appear to be longer and the circumference of the hem narrower. The third photo - the mystery jeans with what appears to be the same belt. If anyone says these are a white pair of shorts inside out my name's father Christmas. I used to know someone who liked to unpick his designer labels from the inside of his shirts and stitch them on the back so everyone could see. Need to highlight it again - the belt is too big for the clean shorts.

Catsanddogs,

on the last picture, I can see a blue jeans, David's Tshirt, a belt .. and what is that white rag at seven o'clock?!!!

that's nothing I can recognize from the big picture above, where all items are organized...

how many things they have really found at this scene?!

how many clothes, accessories, phones, etc., - belong to whom?

(none been forensically evidenced and examined, huh)

[RWA]

Is anyone able to confirm what date this picture of Hannah next to Shark Tooth Ring man was taken please? Is Stingray and Shark Tooth man the same person?

yes, the "Shark Tooth" and "Stingray ring" guy are the same, however often confused with a "Hoe guy" who's somebody else. (well, there is a third guy, also easily confused with the two, I forgot his name ... I remember Darknight666 explaining who is who in some of the earlier post)

and the photo should be from the night before the murders, where there was some big beach party with the fire-dancer and things ... I think they have been on the island only 2 days before they were found death...?

Thanks. Same man as in these pics then? (bottom right in bar pic) Big man, likely with large waist.

yes

[catsanddogs]

RWA - in answer to your post 2600,

Maybe Emma did go out to look for her -

Police are also trying to trace a mystery western woman seen on CCTV running along the main street in the early hours on the night of the murders

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/thailand-beach-murders-hannah-witheridge-4297320

or maybe another friend went out to look for her?

The police did not want that footage out in the media for some reason.

[catsanddogs]

Two pairs of shorts with the same label in the back. One pair clean, one pair dirty. Looking at the length on both pairs of shorts, the dirty ones appear to be longer and the circumference of the hem narrower. The third photo - the mystery jeans with what appears to be the same belt. If anyone says these are a white pair of shorts inside out my name's father Christmas. I used to know someone who liked to unpick his designer labels from the inside of his shirts and stitch them on the back so everyone could see. Need to highlight it again - the belt is too big for the clean shorts.

Catsanddogs,

on the last picture, I can see a blue jeans, David's Tshirt, a belt .. and what is that white rag at seven o'clock?!!!

that's nothing I can recognize from the big picture above, where all items are organized...

No idea. Doesn't look like Hannah's underwear. Maybe someone else on here has some info on what it is?

[Nigeone]

I'm going to put this out there for all you brilliant contributors to this thread over the month and year.. One or two people on here who I respect for there efforts are aware of this info already and please excuse if this has been said before... A person who seems genuine and story checks out has said has friends on Koh Tao and as most of us know there seems to be a veil of secrecy in that particular part of the world, that our efforts around this case should be focused on Shark tooth man as allegedly he has a lot to do with this terrible act....I think I've worded that such so as too make it clear I'm not saying he did it !! Am I.... I've thought long and hard over whether to pass this on publicly and have decided to do so for all the other hard working people on this forum..It was also confirmed that ' a big family control Koh Tao and everybody is scared to speak in case they get into trouble!!

Make of this what you will !

[StealthEnergiser]

Two pairs of shorts with the same label in the back. One pair clean, one pair dirty. Looking at the length on both pairs of shorts, the dirty ones appear to be longer and the circumference of the hem narrower. The third photo - the mystery jeans with what appears to be the same belt. If anyone says these are a white pair of shorts inside out my name's father Christmas. I used to know someone who liked to unpick his designer labels from the inside of his shirts and stitch them on the back so everyone could see. Need to highlight it again - the belt is too big for the clean shorts.

Catsanddogs,

on the last picture, I can see a blue jeans, David's Tshirt, a belt .. and what is that white rag at seven o'clock?!!!

that's nothing I can recognize from the big picture above, where all items are organized...

No idea. Doesn't look like Hannah's underwear. Maybe someone else on here has some info on what it is?

There is something not adding up about these clothes - I have cut a small piece out of Hanna's panties and put on the pink flip flops you see the material is not white .

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[catsanddogs]

Two pairs of shorts with the same label in the back. One pair clean, one pair dirty. Looking at the length on both pairs of shorts, the dirty ones appear to be longer and the circumference of the hem narrower. The third photo - the mystery jeans with what appears to be the same belt. If anyone says these are a white pair of shorts inside out my name's father Christmas. I used to know someone who liked to unpick his designer labels from the inside of his shirts and stitch them on the back so everyone could see. Need to highlight it again - the belt is too big for the clean shorts.

Catsanddogs,

on the last picture, I can see a blue jeans, David's Tshirt, a belt .. and what is that white rag at seven o'clock?!!!

that's nothing I can recognize from the big picture above, where all items are organized...

No idea. Doesn't look like Hannah's underwear. Maybe someone else on here has some info on what it is?

There is something not adding up about these clothes - I have cut a small piece out of Hanna's panties and put on the pink flip flops you see the material is not white .

pants2 hannah.jpg

Are you saying the piece you have cut out and placed on the flip flops is a close up of Hannah's underwear that was found on the beach before the police piled it up neatly for the photographs? If it is, can you post the pic of where you were able to see this print on them please Stealth?