Koh Tao Murders: Defense Asks Court to Drop Charges

[IslandLover]

KunMatt, on 01 Nov 2015 - 23:26, said:

StealthEnergiser, on 01 Nov 2015 - 23:23, said:

KunMatt, on 01 Nov 2015 - 19:14, said:

BritTim, on 01 Nov 2015 - 18:24, said:

This is mostly correct, with two important caveats:

• If Mon, as claimed, had no involvement in the murders, his actions were strange to put it mildly. Why involve himself in the positioning of the alleged murder weapon at the crime scene? Why was he, together with his police sidekick, chasing Sean? (Sean claimed they wanted to kill him and frame him for the murders.)
• Like the families of David and Hannah, Christina's mother was originally persuaded to accept the Thai authorities' version of events. It is now clear that she believes the investigation was not done properly and is doubtful of the claims of death by natural causes. She has not alleged murder, but initiating a private investigation surely suggests she believes just that to be a possibility.

He was also all over the crime scene before and after the police arrived, he was standing behind both of the suspects during the re-enactment and at every public appearance of them and he withheld any CCTV that he owned which could have helped the investigation. I'm not saying that he is involved in the crime but if this was a movie then he would be my first guess.

5.40am "O found bodies must have called Mon

Mon was at scene well before police not sure how long .

6.30am police came "why 1 hour later to a double murder scene ?

8,00 am The doctor comes to the scene.

Police believe a garden hoe which came from the resort and was found leaning against a tree near the crime scene, was used to bludgeon both victims.

After arriving at the crime scene around 5.40am O admitted removing the hoe from next to the tree and taking it back to a vegetable garden inside the resort where he worked.

Around half an hour later he said he was approached by the resort’s boss and a policeman who told him to put on a pair of gloves and return it to the scene, which he did.

- See more at: http://www.mizzima.c...L.z6wn9MP5.dpuf

Jakkapan's testimony was followed by Dr Chasit Yoohat, who said he arrived at the beach at 8am and observed the scene for an hour before leaving and then returning at 10am when he examined the bodies.

He said Witheridge had suffered severe head injuries and there were signs that she had been sexually assaulted while Miller had been beaten.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-backpackers-murder-trial-new-evidence-could-prove-innocence-burmese-duo-1510025

What time did Mon and his policeman friend chase Sean into a 9/11 and threaten to hang him for the crime? How did that fit into the time line?

@KunMatt - that was one week later on 22 September.

[AleG]

Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to why Col. Chiewpreecha (a senior investigating police officer) didn't follow up the rumour about the altercation at the AC bar, which i believe was the last place Hannah and David were seen alive? It does seem strange that the 'lead' wasn't persued, because this should be standard practice in the RTP's investigation manual, since PM Chan Ocha says it's the same one the UK Met Police use.

"Under cross-examination yesterday, Colonel Cherdpong Chiewpreecha, a senior investigating police officer, told judges that he had not looked into the rumour that Ms Witheridge had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth just hours before she was killed, according to a source present at yesterday’s hearing.

While Col Cherdpong admitted that he had heard about Ms Witheridge’s altercation with “Dodo” Toovichien, the son of Koh Tao’s wealthiest man and effectively the island chief, he said that neither he nor his officers actively followed up that line of enquiry." (Source Myanmar Times)

Probably because the person the rumor referred to wasn't even on the island at the time.

'Errm, so you would have us believe!

Notwithstanding the whereabouts of the 'absent' person, why is it that when this investigation was described as 'perfect' by the Thai PM, there was never an in-depth examination of the happenings at the A C Bar, the last place the murder victims were seen alive. From what I recall of events, the owner/manager Mon withheld the CCTV recordings from the police, on the basis they were his 'private' property. This is hardly what could be considered the actions of a man 'helping the police with their enquiries'. What do you think?

To : - AleG

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post.

Need some attention?

I don't bother with presupositional arguments, first show me that Mon did what you said he did and then I'll bother with it.

[AleG]

You are wrong in every single thing you said.

"You do realise that Mon was arrested as the first prime suspect in the case because the original police chief said there was CCTV footage that definitely implicated him as being involved in thr crime, right?"

The first "prime" suspect was Chris Ware, on Sept 17th, six days before Mon was questioned:

"British man 'prime suspect' in Thailand murder

A senior police officer tells The Telegraph a British man is now the prime suspect for the murders of two British backpackers"

Before him three Burmese workers were interrogated as suspects on the 16th:

“Three male Myanmar migrant workers are under police detention for investigation,” southern regional police commander Lt Gen Panya Maman said, without providing any further details."

Mon became a suspect after the drama with Sean McAnna on Sept 23rd, and the social media stampede that followed.

You have no idea of what footage they were referring to, but the prosecution spent 12 hours during one day of the hearings going over CCTV footage alone.

"The police chief was quickly changed out after this and the CCTV footage was never mentioned again."

Panya was promoted, as scheduled, more than a week after that, when the Zaw Lin and Wei Phyo were already being followed as suspects; this meme doesn't get any more true the more it is repeated.

Police promotions are done on the first of October, Somyot retired and his replacement installed on the same date this year, and also in the middle of an even bigger investigation (the Erawan bombers).

"A young female British student then died in Mon's resort just a couple of months later. Her family have just launched a private investigation into her suspicious and unexplained death."

Her mother has repeatedly stated that there was no foul play involved in her death:

"Christina died on the same island British tourists Hannah Witheridge, 23, and David Miller, 24, were murdered last year.

But Mrs Annesley ruled out foul play, and confirmed her daughter had now been repatriated."

They are now in the middle of establishing the circumstances in which that happened, nothing whatsoever has been reported that even implies that her death is unexplained, let alone that she may have been murdered.

Not that the facts would get on the way of using her as nothing but a character that can be made to think and said whatever is convenient.

This is mostly correct, with two important caveats:

• If Mon, as claimed, had no involvement in the murders, his actions were strange to put it mildly. Why involve himself in the positioning of the alleged murder weapon at the crime scene? Why was he, together with his police sidekick, chasing Sean? (Sean claimed they wanted to kill him and frame him for the murders.)
• Like the families of David and Hannah, Christina's mother was originally persuaded to accept the Thai authorities' version of events. It is now clear that she believes the investigation was not done properly and is doubtful of the claims of death by natural causes. She has not alleged murder, but initiating a private investigation surely suggests she believes just that to be a possibility.

Why is it strange that he was there? the crime scene was practically at his business doorstep, he was called to it and what you want to imply as suspicious beheaviour is that he made an attempt at preserving the crime scene and that he confronted Sean after he was incorrectly informed that he was seen with blood on him on the night of the murders. If he would not have done any of those things you'd be asking why he didn't instead, I guarantee it.

The reason why this threads go on and on in circles is because the "Internet Sleuths" keep trying to make the facts fit around their theories, and the facts don't line up, so they try this angle, and they try that angle and it just doesn't work; it's a complete waste of time and it would just be sad to witness but you (plural you) keep dragging people into it and putting words in people's mouths (as in the case of Ms. Annesley mother) or flinging baseless accusations left right and center; these are real people, not things to play with.

[peko]

Not only are two pieces of Hannah's clothing missing, but also a pair of black trousers which police found at the crime scene when they first arrived. Any one of those items could harbor DNA which would ID the actual culprits. It's no surprise why they're now 'missing.'

[aphuketinsider]

Why is it strange that he was there? the crime scene was practically at his business doorstep, he was called to it and what you want to imply as suspicious beheaviour is that he made an attempt at preserving the crime scene and that he confronted Sean after he was incorrectly informed that he was seen with blood on him on the night of the murders. If he would not have done any of those things you'd be asking why he didn't instead, I guarantee it.

The reason why this threads go on and on in circles is because the "Internet Sleuths" keep trying to make the facts fit around their theories, and the facts don't line up, so they try this angle, and they try that angle and it just doesn't work; it's a complete waste of time and it would just be sad to witness but you (plural you) keep dragging people into it and putting words in people's mouths (as in the case of Ms. Annesley mother) or flinging baseless accusations left right and center; these are real people, not things to play with.

Really I fear the reason why the threads go on are to do with finding the truth:

"Christina’s mother Margaret, 55, has called for the full autopsy to be carried out in the UK. Mrs Annesley said she and her husband Boyne, 63, could not face flying out to Thailand. She said: “I don’t want to fly out there, I don’t think I can face the trip. We want the autopsy to be done in the UK and not Thailand.

“We are worried they could cover something up – especially after the murders last year."

She is also now carrying out her own private investigations from the latest report so it looks like her opinion has not changed.

But back on topic, I'm afraid if you are going to accuse anyone of fitting facts around theories then you need look no closer than the prosecution case. There are prime examples of that throughout this farce and I'm happy to share but that would be going round in circles

[peko]

During the first days of the investigation, police speculated that whomever did the crime may have changed (or tried to change) pants with David. That might explain the missing black pants, and why David's shorts were initially found on the sand, bundled up as if pulled down his legs. A short while (90 minutes?) later, David's shorts were shown uncrumpled at the crime scene, and as clean and pressed as if they'd just been laundered. Running Man video shows a thin young man in white shorts. Could that have been his underwear shorts?

[smedly]

Not only are two pieces of Hannah's clothing missing, but also a pair of black trousers which police found at the crime scene when they first arrived. Any one of those items could harbor DNA which would ID the actual culprits. It's no surprise why they're now 'missing.'

and the mobile phone found at the crimesecene, what happened to that ? I personally believe it was Davids phone and this was verified by checking the EMEI number through the parents in the UK although the police claim this phone was found behind the accused residence

[AleG]

Why is it strange that he was there? the crime scene was practically at his business doorstep, he was called to it and what you want to imply as suspicious beheaviour is that he made an attempt at preserving the crime scene and that he confronted Sean after he was incorrectly informed that he was seen with blood on him on the night of the murders. If he would not have done any of those things you'd be asking why he didn't instead, I guarantee it.

The reason why this threads go on and on in circles is because the "Internet Sleuths" keep trying to make the facts fit around their theories, and the facts don't line up, so they try this angle, and they try that angle and it just doesn't work; it's a complete waste of time and it would just be sad to witness but you (plural you) keep dragging people into it and putting words in people's mouths (as in the case of Ms. Annesley mother) or flinging baseless accusations left right and center; these are real people, not things to play with.

Really I fear the reason why the threads go on are to do with finding the truth:

"Christina’s mother Margaret, 55, has called for the full autopsy to be carried out in the UK. Mrs Annesley said she and her husband Boyne, 63, could not face flying out to Thailand. She said: “I don’t want to fly out there, I don’t think I can face the trip. We want the autopsy to be done in the UK and not Thailand.

“We are worried they could cover something up – especially after the murders last year."

She is also now carrying out her own private investigations from the latest report so it looks like her opinion has not changed.

But back on topic, I'm afraid if you are going to accuse anyone of fitting facts around theories then you need look no closer than the prosecution case. There are prime examples of that throughout this farce and I'm happy to share but that would be going round in circles

Finding the truth has nothing to do with what you are doing, the latest report quotes her mother as saying her death was by natural causes

[aphuketinsider]

Why is it strange that he was there? the crime scene was practically at his business doorstep, he was called to it and what you want to imply as suspicious beheaviour is that he made an attempt at preserving the crime scene and that he confronted Sean after he was incorrectly informed that he was seen with blood on him on the night of the murders. If he would not have done any of those things you'd be asking why he didn't instead, I guarantee it.

The reason why this threads go on and on in circles is because the "Internet Sleuths" keep trying to make the facts fit around their theories, and the facts don't line up, so they try this angle, and they try that angle and it just doesn't work; it's a complete waste of time and it would just be sad to witness but you (plural you) keep dragging people into it and putting words in people's mouths (as in the case of Ms. Annesley mother) or flinging baseless accusations left right and center; these are real people, not things to play with.

Really I fear the reason why the threads go on are to do with finding the truth:

"Christina’s mother Margaret, 55, has called for the full autopsy to be carried out in the UK. Mrs Annesley said she and her husband Boyne, 63, could not face flying out to Thailand. She said: “I don’t want to fly out there, I don’t think I can face the trip. We want the autopsy to be done in the UK and not Thailand.

“We are worried they could cover something up – especially after the murders last year."

She is also now carrying out her own private investigations from the latest report so it looks like her opinion has not changed.

But back on topic, I'm afraid if you are going to accuse anyone of fitting facts around theories then you need look no closer than the prosecution case. There are prime examples of that throughout this farce and I'm happy to share but that would be going round in circles

Finding the truth has nothing to do with what you are doing, the latest report quotes her mother as saying her death was by natural causes

You've either misread the report or are deliberately spreading misinformation. The reference you made was days after her death. In which she also made the statement that I linked to in my post. In the latest reports this is what she said

"Today her devastated parents told an inquest at Croydon Coroner's Court that they had been left to carry out their own investigations after authorities on the island failed to look into leads."

They have also located a new witness and the coroner is also concerned about conflicting emails on information to do with the medication she was taking.

[jcsmith]

@Aleg: Mon and Dodo became the prime suspects based on reports and CCTV footage. The press prior to that about local mafia influences though came before that, along with reports of the conflict at the AC Bar. But as he said, they stopped being suspects after the change in personnel, which is certainly fishy. Equally fishy is his involvement at the crime scene, and the fact that he claimed the running man footage was him. Why would he do that if it was not? The only reason that I can imagine is that he was covering for someone else...

This entire case is based on trusting statements which the police have given. Trusting DNA which can not be verified from the original sources. And it is also heavily tainted by missing pieces of evidence. Either this is a gross case of police negligence or incompetence (possibly), or a deliberate cover up (more likely).

[StealthEnergiser]

Why is it strange that he was there? the crime scene was practically at his business doorstep, he was called to it and what you want to imply as suspicious beheaviour is that he made an attempt at preserving the crime scene and that he confronted Sean after he was incorrectly informed that he was seen with blood on him on the night of the murders. If he would not have done any of those things you'd be asking why he didn't instead, I guarantee it.

The reason why this threads go on and on in circles is because the "Internet Sleuths" keep trying to make the facts fit around their theories, and the facts don't line up, so they try this angle, and they try that angle and it just doesn't work; it's a complete waste of time and it would just be sad to witness but you (plural you) keep dragging people into it and putting words in people's mouths (as in the case of Ms. Annesley mother) or flinging baseless accusations left right and center; these are real people, not things to play with.

Really I fear the reason why the threads go on are to do with finding the truth:

"Christina’s mother Margaret, 55, has called for the full autopsy to be carried out in the UK. Mrs Annesley said she and her husband Boyne, 63, could not face flying out to Thailand. She said: “I don’t want to fly out there, I don’t think I can face the trip. We want the autopsy to be done in the UK and not Thailand.

“We are worried they could cover something up – especially after the murders last year."

She is also now carrying out her own private investigations from the latest report so it looks like her opinion has not changed.

But back on topic, I'm afraid if you are going to accuse anyone of fitting facts around theories then you need look no closer than the prosecution case. There are prime examples of that throughout this farce and I'm happy to share but that would be going round in circles

Finding the truth has nothing to do with what you are doing, the latest report quotes her mother as saying her death was by natural causes

Other posters have already answered this and said that your report is old they have even quoted the news update with a link .

[peko]

Not only are two pieces of Hannah's clothing missing, but also a pair of black trousers which police found at the crime scene when they first arrived. Any one of those items could harbor DNA which would ID the actual culprits. It's no surprise why they're now 'missing.'

and the mobile phone found at the crimesecene, what happened to that ? I personally believe it was Davids phone and this was verified by checking the EMEI number through the parents in the UK although the police claim this phone was found behind the accused residence

....or a mobile phone belonging to someone who can't be mentioned.

Either this is a gross case of police negligence or incompetence (possibly), or a deliberate cover up (more likely).

All three, and equally as blundering.

[HUH]

Re time of death.

Whilst the time of death of Hannah is not known it might be possible to arrive at a more precise time of when she was bludgeoned using the crime scene photos.

Hannah was already dead or unconscious when bludgeoned. You can’t hit a moving target dead centre with a heavy hoe. And she would have defended herself with her hands. She was not held down, how do you hold someone whilst another strikes her face with a hoe without being in the way and how do you hold their head straight? In any event she could not have been held down from the side as the rocks are too close.

High tide was around 02:19am (1.55m) and low tide 07:33am (1.22m) on Monday 15/09/2014. This is only a 330mm! (13”) tide which won’t help but Hannah’s feet and lower left leg were in the water but not her elbows.

So observation of the crime scene on a similar tide might give a much more precise time than has been speculated to date.

The Koh Tao doctor got there at 8am, he then observed the scene for an hour, then left and returned to examine the bodies at 10am, 2 hours later! To discover the time of death then immediate examination is required, normally by a thermometer to check the temperature of the bodies.

Yet the doctor then goes on to testify in court that the time of death was 5.30am? How could he come to this conclusion, perhaps that fitted in with other matters.

[StealthEnergiser]

Timeline

5.40am "O testified he found bodies must have called Mon

5.30am Doctor Testified this was the estimated time of the deaths.

Mon was at scene well before police not sure how long .

6.35am police came "why 1 hour later to a double murder scene ? he was called at 6.30 AM.

These reports are saying that Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao, was the second police officer at the scene , he was the first going by other reports below.

8.00 am The doctor comes to the scene.

In later testimony local doctor Chasit Yoohat, who examined the bodies on the beach, told the court that Witheridge had recently had sex and suffered traumatic head injuries while Miller's body was found naked and had been struck, but without the same level of injury. He estimated the time of death for both was around 5.30 am.

http://www.haveeru.com.mv/myanmar/61098

The testimony came from a Myanmar migrant worker called O who worked at a resort closest to the crime scene. The owner of the resort was briefly named by police as a potential suspect in the killings.

Police believe a garden hoe which came from the resort and was found leaning against a tree near the crime scene, was used to bludgeon both victims.

After arriving at the crime scene around 5.40am O admitted removing the hoe from next to the tree and taking it back to a vegetable garden inside the resort where he worked.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/key-dna-evidence-finished/1972132.html

Police believe a garden hoe which came from the resort and was found leaning against a tree near the crime scene, was used to bludgeon both victims.

After arriving at the crime scene around 5.40am O admitted removing the hoe from next to the tree and taking it back to a vegetable garden inside the resort where he worked.

Around half an hour later he said he was approached by the resort’s boss and a policeman who told him to put on a pair of gloves and return it to the scene, which he did.

- See more at: http://www.mizzima.c...L.z6wn9MP5.dpuf

Jakkapan's testimony was followed by Dr Chasit Yoohat, who said he arrived at the beach at 8am and observed the scene for an hour before leaving and then returning at 10am when he examined the bodies.

He said Witheridge had suffered severe head injuries and there were signs that she had been sexually assaulted while Miller had been beaten.

http://www.ibtimes.c...ese-duo-1510025

A Thai police officer who was called to the scene of the killing of two British tourists on Koh Tao island in September 2014 testified on Wednesday, the first of dozens of witnesses who will appear in court during a three-month trial of two Burmese men.

Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao, the second police officer at the scene, said he found David Miller face down in the surf and Hannah Witheridge 12 metres away on the beach.

Questioned by the prosecution, he said he received a call at 6:30am on September 15, 2014 by a fellow officer. He arrived at the beach five minutes later and swiftly cordoned off the area.

http://www.theguardi...packer-killings

The court heard evidence from Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkhao, the first policeman to arrive at the scene at 6.35am.

He described finding the body of Ms Witheridge lying face up and semi-clothed behind some rocks splattered with blood. He said Mr Miller was lying face down about 12 yards away with seawater lapping around him

http://www.telegraph...rder-trial.html

[stephenterry]

I don't think we're any nearer in ascertaining what happened that night. So many imponderables, conflicting information, and missing evidence. IMO at least one of the b2 knows what happened but has been silenced by threats to his life. Also Mon knows what happened and so does Panya cop. And maybe others on the island who are keeping a low profile. I think it's important for Thailand that a not guilty verdict is reached, otherwise the country can never move on to a better place.

[HUH]

Contamination and in my opinion evidence manipulation commenced before the first official police officer got there at 6.30am. Why do I think this?

The bodies were found at an unknown time by the first female Burmese cleaner who did not testify in court as shes back in Burma. The second person being the male cleaner "O" at 5.40am. The next after that being Mon and possibly another unofficial policeman.

If we are to believe the testimony of the first official police officer Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao who said he arrived at 6.30am and that when he got there the victims clothes were piled neatly on a rock then this can only mean somebody moved them beforehand. However the big question being, how truthful is the testimony of Jakkapan?

Now the big problem for the judges here is that the prosecution did not supply any crime scene photos, but look all over the internet and the clothes were scattered all over the beach and not piled on a rock.

Before anyone comes along to say they were moved because of the tide coming in, please, the tide had receded some time before and the crime scene photos on the internet are testimony to that. Its not been disclosed what time the rescue workers arrived at the scene?

[AleG]

Finding the truth has nothing to do with what you are doing, the latest report quotes her mother as saying her death was by natural causes

Other posters have already answered this and said that your report is old they have even quoted the news update with a link .

People can read the article in full here, nowhere in it the people involved give even a hint of a suspicion that her death was intentional or that they are using a private detective to see if she had been murdered.

They found that last man that saw her alive and they are trying to establish exactly what prescription drugs she took, all the rest is tendentious embelishment.

But that doesn't fit on the narrative that Thailandchilli wants to push of a serial killer on the loose in Koh Tao, does it?

"Mrs Annesley, of Orpington in south east London, said: 'I just want this over with really. I just want some answers, that's all.'"

That is not what a mother looking for the supposed killer of her daughter sounds like, you keep using her, and others, as puppets that you can make say whatever you feel.

[Eirene]

The time of death is sometime before 3:44am unless the running man has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever. Perhaps he just likes to run around the island in the wee hours of the morning.

[DiscoDan]

BACKPACKER MURDER SUSPECT 'FREELY CONFESSED'.

http://news.sky.com/story/1538057/backpacker-murder-suspect-freely-confessed

In this article Zaw Lin says he hit David with the Hoe when he was on top of Hannah, and that he then jumped up and started to fight back, there is a good chance this is where the chest and wrist injury came from, as there is no report of injuries on WP.

This would also explain why Davids DNA was on the hoe.

[DiscoDan]

This is from the defenses closing statement.

(4) The DNA evidence allegedly matching the accused as well as all surrounding or circumstantial evidence in this case apparently showing the guilt of the accused is unreliable and should be inadmissible and not considered by the Court. All of this evidence was not collected, tested or analysed in accordance with internationally accepted standards such as ISO 17025. This evidence should not be considered as satisfying beyond reasonable doubt that the accused violently raped and murdered the female deceased or murdered the male deceased. This includes all evidence linking the accused to the alleged crime scene such as cigarette butts, theft of the male deceased’s mobile phone and sunglasses as well as a ‘running man’ caught on CCTV.

They say the DNA should not be used as it does not meet IS0 17025 standards

If they had done a bit of research they would of found that even the British police force in house forensics are not ISO 17025 standard,

102. As already noted, all FSPs providing services for the police must be accredited to ISO 17025—this is a requirement under the current procurement strategy. However, police in-house forensic services are currently not subject to the same requirement.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/855/85506.htm

[TheLobster]

ISO/IEC 17025:2005 is for use by laboratories in developing their management system for quality, administrative and technical operations.

If a sample is received that is labelled with the incorrect name etc. then a certified laboratory will produce an incorrect result.

[StealthEnergiser]

Finding the truth has nothing to do with what you are doing, the latest report quotes her mother as saying her death was by natural causes

Other posters have already answered this and said that your report is old they have even quoted the news update with a link .

People can read the article in full here, nowhere in it the people involved give even a hint of a suspicion that her death was intentional or that they are using a private detective to see if she had been murdered.

They found that last man that saw her alive and they are trying to establish exactly what prescription drugs she took, all the rest is tendentious embelishment.

But that doesn't fit on the narrative that Thailandchilli wants to push of a serial killer on the loose in Koh Tao, does it?

"Mrs Annesley, of Orpington in south east London, said: 'I just want this over with really. I just want some answers, that's all.'"

That is not what a mother looking for the supposed killer of her daughter sounds like, you keep using her, and others, as puppets that you can make say whatever you feel.

This has been answered many times you really need to read it carefully .

but you did miss something a few pages back I was asking why would the police lie when under oath ? and do you believe everything the police say. ???

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningne...rce=twitterfeed

[StealthEnergiser]

This is from the defenses closing statement.

(4) The DNA evidence allegedly matching the accused as well as all surrounding or circumstantial evidence in this case apparently showing the guilt of the accused is unreliable and should be inadmissible and not considered by the Court. All of this evidence was not collected, tested or analysed in accordance with internationally accepted standards such as ISO 17025. This evidence should not be considered as satisfying beyond reasonable doubt that the accused violently raped and murdered the female deceased or murdered the male deceased. This includes all evidence linking the accused to the alleged crime scene such as cigarette butts, theft of the male deceased’s mobile phone and sunglasses as well as a ‘running man’ caught on CCTV.

They say the DNA should not be used as it does not meet IS0 17025 standards

If they had done a bit of research they would of found that even the British police force in house forensics are not ISO 17025 standard,

102. As already noted, all FSPs providing services for the police must be accredited to ISO 17025—this is a requirement under the current procurement strategy. However, police in-house forensic services are currently not subject to the same requirement.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/855/85506.htm

The police say that DNA found on the female victim's body will show the truth. But the defence has not been allowed to analyse that DNA, the police lab is not ISO-certified to analyse DNA samples, and having their own lab test the DNA is clearly a conflict of interest.

The cops haven't shown that they've followed S134/4, they haven't let the defence analyse the victim's DNA, the police lab wasn't internationally certified to analyse DNA, and they should have used a neutral, fully qualified lab.

The accused might well be guilty of the rape and murder, but the evidence presented doesn't prove it. To show that justice has been done, and thus preserve Thailand's image, both defendants must be freed.

Burin Kantabutra

http://www.nationmul...l-30270711.html

[StealthEnergiser]

BACKPACKER MURDER SUSPECT 'FREELY CONFESSED'.

http://news.sky.com/story/1538057/backpacker-murder-suspect-freely-confessed

In this article Zaw Lin says he hit David with the Hoe when he was on top of Hannah, and that he then jumped up and started to fight back, there is a good chance this is where the chest and wrist injury came from, as there is no report of injuries on WP.

This would also explain why Davids DNA was on the hoe.

I am not sure why you need to bring up old articles they were tortured and withdrew their confessions .

12 October 2015,

SURAT THANI — The final testimony in the three-month trial of two men accused of double-murder on Koh Tao was heard yesterday with the accused taking the stand to detail crude torture they allege was used to obtain false confessions.

On Saturday and Sunday, Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo, both 22-year-old men from Myanmar, described to the court physical and mental abuse by police looking to extract confessions that they murdered two British tourists in November 2014; confessions they retracted soon after they were made.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1444633891

[StealthEnergiser]

BACKPACKER MURDER SUSPECT 'FREELY CONFESSED'.

http://news.sky.com/story/1538057/backpacker-murder-suspect-freely-confessed

In this article Zaw Lin says he hit David with the Hoe when he was on top of Hannah, and that he then jumped up and started to fight back, there is a good chance this is where the chest and wrist injury came from, as there is no report of injuries on WP.

This would also explain why Davids DNA was on the hoe.

Also if you are trying to show the the B2 are the killers by showing old links before there confession and you seem believe the police then why did they lie under oath doesn't that seem wrong to you ?

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningne...rce=twitterfeed

[StealthEnergiser]

The time of death is sometime before 3:44am unless the running man has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever. Perhaps he just likes to run around the island in the wee hours of the morning.

picture from Mcot news

[seahorse]

When talking about phones, posters always forget that Sean lost a phone. That's why he went into the 7/11 - to use a phone. Where is Sean's phone?

[HUH]

Finding the truth has nothing to do with what you are doing, the latest report quotes her mother as saying her death was by natural causes

Other posters have already answered this and said that your report is old they have even quoted the news update with a link .

People can read the article in full here, nowhere in it the people involved give even a hint of a suspicion that her death was intentional or that they are using a private detective to see if she had been murdered.

They found that last man that saw her alive and they are trying to establish exactly what prescription drugs she took, all the rest is tendentious embelishment.

But that doesn't fit on the narrative that Thailandchilli wants to push of a serial killer on the loose in Koh Tao, does it?

"Mrs Annesley, of Orpington in south east London, said: 'I just want this over with really. I just want some answers, that's all.'"

That is not what a mother looking for the supposed killer of her daughter sounds like, you keep using her, and others, as puppets that you can make say whatever you feel.

This has been answered many times you really need to read it carefully .

but you did miss something a few pages back I was asking why would the police lie when under oath ? and do you believe everything the police say. ???

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningne...rce=twitterfeed

Is this another example of perjury, the photo shows the clothes scattered, the time it was taken was without doubt after 6.30am but Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao said when he got there the clothes were in a neat pile on the rock. In the inset photo there is also a shot of this police officer with Mon

[StealthEnergiser]

I agree the photo is after 6.30am as Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao cordoned off the Area.

Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao, the second police officer at the scene, said he found David Miller face down in the surf and Hannah Witheridge 12 metres away on the beach.

Questioned by the prosecution, he said he received a call at 6:30am on September 15, 2014 by a fellow officer. He arrived at the beach five minutes later and swiftly cordoned off the area.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/thai-police-officer-describes-scene-at-site-of-british-backpacker-killings

He found a metal part of a shovel, a wooden stick, and three cigarette butts about 60m north of Miss Witheridge.

A used condom, grey pants with a belt, a pair of canvas shoes, and a pair of pink sandals were piled neatly nearby.

- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/koh-tao-policeman-challenged-over-killings-53125.php#sthash.y8KUird2.dpuf

[BritTim]

People can read the article in full here, nowhere in it the people involved give even a hint of a suspicion that her death was intentional or that they are using a private detective to see if she had been murdered.

They found that last man that saw her alive and they are trying to establish exactly what prescription drugs she took, all the rest is tendentious embelishment.

But that doesn't fit on the narrative that Thailandchilli wants to push of a serial killer on the loose in Koh Tao, does it?

"Mrs Annesley, of Orpington in south east London, said: 'I just want this over with really. I just want some answers, that's all.'"

That is not what a mother looking for the supposed killer of her daughter sounds like, you keep using her, and others, as puppets that you can make say whatever you feel.

As I acknowledged before, the Annesleys have not alleged murder. However, their recent actions do not suggest they are confident that this is a simple case of death by natural causes. My reading is that they now consider the death not fully explained. Fighting for a full and proper investigation while grieving for their daughter must be extremely distressing for them. If they had no doubts, they would not be doing it.