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

[StealthEnergiser]

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.

Maybe the long black pants belong to the No 9 mystery man.

[RWA]

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.

Maybe the long black pants belong to the No 9 mystery man.

NUMB9pants.jpg

maybe so ...

to me, I can see David's t shirt (at ten o'clock), then david's shorts on the top of somebody's blue jeans with a heavy, dark leather belt and somebody's crumpled, white (or light grey) tshirt (at seven o'clock)

[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 .

pants2 hannah.jpg

Edited October 16, 2015 by StealthEnergiser

[GAZZPA]

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.

Well not sure it does mean that sexual intercourse took place.. But anyway, what are you saying? Are you suggesting that Hannah had consensual sex with the B2 while David was there?

Please clarify your thoughts.

[StealthEnergiser]

Edited October 16, 2015 by StealthEnergiser

[Darkknight666]

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?

I think, and I could be wrong, but that style of women's underwear in the states as "boyfriend cut panties"... And they are popular there as well. Many young women probably have a pair in the west.

[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.

Is this pic from the night of the 14th/morn of the 15th? I know it's not easy to make much out on this shot but David looks to me as though he could be wearing a different tee shirt from the one found on the beach. There is no colour change (top half of tee shirt on beach is different colour) on the tee shirt in the pic and nothing to indicate it has a pocket on. I think this would show up however grainy because if you look at the other peoples clothes motifs etc do show up. The RTP have footage of David buying sunglasses down a side street and going into the AC bar. If this pic is after buying sunglasses they would be hanging from a tee shirt pocket like the pics we have seen most likely. Could this be one of the reasons the RTP haven't shown any CCTV of him because he was not wearing what was possibly 'planted' on the beach? Maybe he went back to his room (when he told Chris Ware he was going out to buy fags, but someone else said he was going to see Hannah) and changed? The dark jeans on the beach could be his and the shorts may have been planted. Has the defence seen the CCTV of him entering AC bar to ascertain what clothes he was wearing?

[Darkknight666]

Anyone remember the "revered monk" who claimed to have heard what happened (from the tweaker speed boat cave guy?) and said he would come forward only to then never come forward? That along with the taxi driver refusing the bribe from RTP for his false statements and being intimidated indicate to me the B2 aren't the killers. A lot of things beyond court took place and you can't discount them all, why didn't the defense call the taxi driver? Or the "cave man".... I really can't believe how the courts work here... A crap shoot, more or less.

[StealthEnergiser]

IMO as I have said before - finding a phone is not the issue here

not so clear about being out at 4am looking for stuff but he says he was so no foul there either, from a map it seems all these bars back out onto the beach, it is not clear that before going swimming they left their clothes and the guitar in AC (2) bar or just the guitar, since one of them worked at the bar it is not beyond belief they put their belongs there while swimming at 2am, no foul there either - now to the phones

Police found a phone at the crimesecene as they reported - this was very likely Davids phone IMO

Police also found a smashed phone at B2 residence - admitted by the accused in court (we know the story) or maybe the proceeds from the previous nights muggings - police claimed to be Davids phone

Modern phones are dodgy things to thieve these days, they have tracking abilities and various other tactics to fool thieves and trace stolen devices via GPS, as an example, if someone steals my phone it cannot be turned of from the lockscreen, it looks like it is off but it is still on and traceable via GPS, the battery cannot be removed, so the safest thing for a thief to do is smash it - no point in stealing it in the first place, if I thieved a handbag and it had a modern phone in there I would get rid of it ASAP

So police have 2x phones that we know about

The issue as I see it is - which phone belonged to David ?

Police say the phone at the residence was Davids confirmed by IMEI ...... how convenient, again (just like the DNA) something else we have to take their word for, do we believe them do we trust them ? if we still believe B2 are scapegoats then it is likely police are manipulating evidence and telling lies to strengthen their case - something that many believe has been going on throughout this investigation/trial so nothing unusual there.

If the phone at B2 residence was in fact Davids phone (IMO unlikely) then whos phone was found at the crimesecene and why have police not identified both phones as they are both just as relevent to the crime - just another reason why most people don't trust or believe what they are being told

Phones are not difficult to identify, they have serial numbers IMEI numbers sim cards that could all very easily reveal the history of the phones and who was using them, the motherboard of a smashed phone(usually the screen) could easily be inserted into a working chassis and software (Apple would assist with this) used to access the data bypassing any lock codes.

This video shows damaged iPhones a6 6.36

Edited October 16, 2015 by StealthEnergiser

[StealthEnergiser]

[StealthEnergiser]

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.

Is this pic from the night of the 14th/morn of the 15th? I know it's not easy to make much out on this shot but David looks to me as though he could be wearing a different tee shirt from the one found on the beach. There is no colour change (top half of tee shirt on beach is different colour) on the tee shirt in the pic and nothing to indicate it has a pocket on. I think this would show up however grainy because if you look at the other peoples clothes motifs etc do show up. The RTP have footage of David buying sunglasses down a side street and going into the AC bar. If this pic is after buying sunglasses they would be hanging from a tee shirt pocket like the pics we have seen most likely. Could this be one of the reasons the RTP haven't shown any CCTV of him because he was not wearing what was possibly 'planted' on the beach? Maybe he went back to his room (when he told Chris Ware he was going out to buy fags, but someone else said he was going to see Hannah) and changed? The dark jeans on the beach could be his and the shorts may have been planted. Has the defence seen the CCTV of him entering AC bar to ascertain what clothes he was wearing?

One thing I am not sure about in hannah's photo its the photo with the green towel covering her face , she has the pink top and something else pulled up above her waste it might be bikini bras but very hard to see .

Or the killers have cut the crutch of her panties and pulled them up.

if her panties had been removed Is it unusual to dress her again i would have thought that the forensics people would not want this done.

[joebrown]

NEWS FROM KOH TAO -- LAST CHANCE SALOON NOW OPEN

Posted Today, 11:39

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.

LAST CHANCE SALOON CLOSES IN 1 HOUR. if no response is posted to my above questions, I will draw the conclusion that Koh Tao is still a dangerous place to visit.

[evadgib]

Isn't it time this was

until 23 Dec 15?

[catsanddogs]

Seen something I hadn't noticed before. I think it was assumed running man was running around topless on all the stills.

Looking as these again it seems as if he was wearing a white tee shirt in the two 4.51am stills and was topless in the 5.41 still. Can't make out whether topless or not in the 3.44am one. So if these are all of running man, he stopped wearing his tee shirt sometime after 4.51am. Did he have to get rid of it because of blood stains/lend it to someone who needed a replacement top because theirs was stained? Did it get ripped off him in a fight? Could this tee shirt he is wearing be the one that RWA says he can see in the photos posted earlier today?

Edited October 16, 2015 by catsanddogs

[RWA]

IMO as I have said before - finding a phone is not the issue here

not so clear about being out at 4am looking for stuff but he says he was so no foul there either, from a map it seems all these bars back out onto the beach, it is not clear that before going swimming they left their clothes and the guitar in AC (2) bar or just the guitar, since one of them worked at the bar it is not beyond belief they put their belongs there while swimming at 2am, no foul there either - now to the phones

Police found a phone at the crimesecene as they reported - this was very likely Davids phone IMO

Police also found a smashed phone at B2 residence - admitted by the accused in court (we know the story) or maybe the proceeds from the previous nights muggings - police claimed to be Davids phone

Modern phones are dodgy things to thieve these days, they have tracking abilities and various other tactics to fool thieves and trace stolen devices via GPS, as an example, if someone steals my phone it cannot be turned of from the lockscreen, it looks like it is off but it is still on and traceable via GPS, the battery cannot be removed, so the safest thing for a thief to do is smash it - no point in stealing it in the first place, if I thieved a handbag and it had a modern phone in there I would get rid of it ASAP

So police have 2x phones that we know about

The issue as I see it is - which phone belonged to David ?

Police say the phone at the residence was Davids confirmed by IMEI ...... how convenient, again (just like the DNA) something else we have to take their word for, do we believe them do we trust them ? if we still believe B2 are scapegoats then it is likely police are manipulating evidence and telling lies to strengthen their case - something that many believe has been going on throughout this investigation/trial so nothing unusual there.

If the phone at B2 residence was in fact Davids phone (IMO unlikely) then whos phone was found at the crimesecene and why have police not identified both phones as they are both just as relevent to the crime - just another reason why most people don't trust or believe what they are being told

Phones are not difficult to identify, they have serial numbers IMEI numbers sim cards that could all very easily reveal the history of the phones and who was using them, the motherboard of a smashed phone(usually the screen) could easily be inserted into a working chassis and software (Apple would assist with this) used to access the data bypassing any lock codes.

This video shows damaged iPhones a6 6.36

nice catch, this one !!!! thank you Stealth!

[HUH]

Seen something I hadn't noticed before. I think it was assumed running man was running around topless on all the stills.

Looking as these again it seems as if he was wearing a white tee shirt in the two 4.51am stills and was topless in the 5.41 still. Can't make out whether topless or not in the 3.44am one. So if these are all of running man, he stopped wearing his tee shirt sometime after 4.51am. Did he have to get rid of it because of blood stains/lend it to someone who needed a replacement top because theirs was stained? Did it get ripped off him in a fight? Could this tee shirt he is wearing be the one that RWA says he can see in the photos posted earlier today?

Not sure about him wearing a t shirt at 4.51am. If you look at this other image this would have been the same time 4.51 as the mystery couple was just ahead of him and I cant make out a t shirt?

[StealthEnergiser]

This is the picture with blue recovery tarp under her

Thanks Stealth and well done! So the female pants on the official investigation photos are not the ones Hannah was wearing when she was murdered! I'm assuming the defence are aware of this? They either belong to someone else who was on the murder scene or they were planted by someone.

Edit - What we see is Hannah lying on the tarp wearing pants with a pattern on. What we see where they clothes are all layed out is a pair of pants with no pattern on. Anyone know the date the pic was taken of the clothes with the red arrows on it please? So it appears the police have placed a different pair of pants in that picture. Where are the ones she was wearing when she was murdered? They have disposed of all her clothes because they were covered in DNA that would reveal the killers.

Catsanddogs, that's not exactly correct ...

what you see Hannah's wearing when found murdered in the beach is her pink top pulled down to her waist (she wasn't wearing any bra that evening) and her short skirt pulled up to her waist. Her panties were removed ... (she didn't wear any when found. Only top and skirt)

So hannah changed her dress so it's different dress it looks very small but you are probably correct I thought the video was showing the last dress she was wearing and it is different.

[catsanddogs]

This is the picture with blue recovery tarp under her

hannpants.jpg dressh.jpg

Thanks Stealth and well done! So the female pants on the official investigation photos are not the ones Hannah was wearing when she was murdered! I'm assuming the defence are aware of this? They either belong to someone else who was on the murder scene or they were planted by someone.

Edit - What we see is Hannah lying on the tarp wearing pants with a pattern on. What we see where they clothes are all layed out is a pair of pants with no pattern on. Anyone know the date the pic was taken of the clothes with the red arrows on it please? So it appears the police have placed a different pair of pants in that picture. Where are the ones she was wearing when she was murdered? They have disposed of all her clothes because they were covered in DNA that would reveal the killers.

Catsanddogs, that's not exactly correct ...

what you see Hannah's wearing when found murdered in the beach is her pink top pulled down to her waist (she wasn't wearing any bra that evening) and her short skirt pulled up to her waist. Her panties were removed ... (she didn't wear any when found. Only top and skirt)

Sorry RWA but in that pic to me it does not look like the skirt. The skirt has a dark (Blackish) pattern at the bottom which you can see runs in two parallel lines along the bottom of the skirt, and the rest of it looks plain white without a pattern. In the picture of Hannah on the tarp it looks like pants to me or a bikini bottom. There is no break in the pattern (parallel lines)on this fabric in the pic and there is no excess white fabric so how can it be her skirt? I haven't and don't want to see the horrific crime pics so if you have, maybe you can confirm that what you see is definitely a skirt?

[RWA]

This is the picture with blue recovery tarp under her

hannpants.jpg dressh.jpg

Thanks Stealth and well done! So the female pants on the official investigation photos are not the ones Hannah was wearing when she was murdered! I'm assuming the defence are aware of this? They either belong to someone else who was on the murder scene or they were planted by someone.

Edit - What we see is Hannah lying on the tarp wearing pants with a pattern on. What we see where they clothes are all layed out is a pair of pants with no pattern on. Anyone know the date the pic was taken of the clothes with the red arrows on it please? So it appears the police have placed a different pair of pants in that picture. Where are the ones she was wearing when she was murdered? They have disposed of all her clothes because they were covered in DNA that would reveal the killers.

Catsanddogs, that's not exactly correct ...

what you see Hannah's wearing when found murdered in the beach is her pink top pulled down to her waist (she wasn't wearing any bra that evening) and her short skirt pulled up to her waist. Her panties were removed ... (she didn't wear any when found. Only top and skirt)

So hannah changed her dress so it's different dress it looks very small but you are probably correct I thought the video was showing the last dress she was wearing and it is different.

I don't think she changed during that night ... I think she wore the same pink top and short whitish skirt all the times and that is the same clothing she had been found with ... only the skirt looks a bit different, as that more pronounced rim (a little more a pronounced pattern on the fabric on the bottom of the skirt) has been pulled up and hidden in the folds ... ?

[StealthEnergiser]

This looks like the first 3 suspects that were released

[catsanddogs]

Seen something I hadn't noticed before. I think it was assumed running man was running around topless on all the stills.

Looking as these again it seems as if he was wearing a white tee shirt in the two 4.51am stills and was topless in the 5.41 still. Can't make out whether topless or not in the 3.44am one. So if these are all of running man, he stopped wearing his tee shirt sometime after 4.51am. Did he have to get rid of it because of blood stains/lend it to someone who needed a replacement top because theirs was stained? Did it get ripped off him in a fight? Could this tee shirt he is wearing be the one that RWA says he can see in the photos posted earlier today?

Not sure about him wearing a t shirt at 4.51am. If you look at this other image this would have been the same time 4.51 as the mystery couple was just ahead of him and I cant make out a t shirt?

Maybe because that was the time he took it off. Couple of seconds to take off a tee shirt. Could have had blood on it and when he saw other people such as big man and little lady and whipped it off cos he would have looked suspicious. Could be why we don't get to see the three seconds inbetween these stills? I deffo see what I think is a tee shirt on running man at 4.51am. I'll shut up now as no doubt I'm getting on everyone's nerves. Sorry .

[CharlieH]

Forum members:

I personally dont see the need to trawl through and rediscover every minutia of this incident, but if you wish to "discuss it" that's fair enough, BUT lets show a little more sensitivity regarding images etc of Hannah, there isnt really any need to be reviewing pictures of her body again. Certainly no need to be reposting them.

Thank you for your co-operation.

CharlieH.

[HUH]

Seen something I hadn't noticed before. I think it was assumed running man was running around topless on all the stills.

Looking as these again it seems as if he was wearing a white tee shirt in the two 4.51am stills and was topless in the 5.41 still. Can't make out whether topless or not in the 3.44am one. So if these are all of running man, he stopped wearing his tee shirt sometime after 4.51am. Did he have to get rid of it because of blood stains/lend it to someone who needed a replacement top because theirs was stained? Did it get ripped off him in a fight? Could this tee shirt he is wearing be the one that RWA says he can see in the photos posted earlier today?

Not sure about him wearing a t shirt at 4.51am. If you look at this other image this would have been the same time 4.51 as the mystery couple was just ahead of him and I cant make out a t shirt?

Maybe because that was the time he took it off. Couple of seconds to take off a tee shirt. Could have had blood on it and when he saw other people such as big man and little lady and whipped it off cos he would have looked suspicious. Could be why we don't get to see the three seconds inbetween these stills? I deffo see what I think is a tee shirt on running man at 4.51am. I'll shut up now as no doubt I'm getting on everyone's nerves. Sorry .

Don't shut up, its only through critical thinking one can debate issues

Edited October 16, 2015 by HUH

[StealthEnergiser]

Seen something I hadn't noticed before. I think it was assumed running man was running around topless on all the stills.

Looking as these again it seems as if he was wearing a white tee shirt in the two 4.51am stills and was topless in the 5.41 still. Can't make out whether topless or not in the 3.44am one. So if these are all of running man, he stopped wearing his tee shirt sometime after 4.51am. Did he have to get rid of it because of blood stains/lend it to someone who needed a replacement top because theirs was stained? Did it get ripped off him in a fight? Could this tee shirt he is wearing be the one that RWA says he can see in the photos posted earlier today?

Not sure about him wearing a t shirt at 4.51am. If you look at this other image this would have been the same time 4.51 as the mystery couple was just ahead of him and I cant make out a t shirt?

Maybe because that was the time he took it off. Couple of seconds to take off a tee shirt. Could have had blood on it and when he saw other people such as big man and little lady and whipped it off cos he would have looked suspicious. Could be why we don't get to see the three seconds inbetween these stills? I deffo see what I think is a tee shirt on running man at 4.51am. I'll shut up now as no doubt I'm getting on everyone's nerves. Sorry .

No need to say sorry it's great to see debating with people seeking justice.

Edited October 16, 2015 by StealthEnergiser

[CharlieH]

Ok I tried to ask you politely, seems you don't want to co-operate.

CLOSED PENDING INTERNAL DISCUSSION.