Koh Tao: Suspects found guilty of murdering British backpackers

[Darkknight666]

These guys are comical, Twitter is hard for some to grasp.

Funny they skip posts they can't refute.

[JLCrab]

Across 2 Twitter posts 29 DEC 2015 Jonathan Head wrote:

"For Koh Tao key is to read verdict. Judges admitted lots of flaws in investigation. But stated DNA match overrides all those concerns. If the DNA match is sound, so is the verdict. It's that simple. That's why it was so bizarre that defence lawyers did not challenge DNA methods"

So I will assume what he is describing is the Judges conclusions that "If the DNA match is sound, so is the verdict" and that Mr. head would have wanted the defence to challenge that the DNA is in fact sound.

Edited December 31, 2015 by JLCrab

[Islandlife]

Mons been threatening the csi la guy on FB.

link ?

Against the rules im afraid. Its right there on csi la fb page.

just checked and by looks of its hes made up threat so he could at lest hold on to hes dying fan base.wich he has done hole time spreading rumours. Edited December 31, 2015 by Islandlife

[StealthEnergiser]

Is he the land owner?

I thought he and his family were tennants.

Are the islands not owned by people who can't be spoken of?

Mon wasn't just walking around the crime scene he was rearranging stuff around the murder weapon being a fine example, he was probably handling clothes touching the bodies leaving footprints speading his dna all over the place in front of the police and cameras, then he became a suspect - good luck dna testing anything around there he was all over it

But the hoe is the best of them all, how on earth did he know it was the murder weapon and that it had been moved, it was at least 60m away from the bodies when he finally got the person who moved it to put it back under the tree.......seriously!!!!!!!!!!!

why would he want them to find the hoe ? because it was wiped down and both victims dna was put all over it, the simplistic idea is that Hannah and David killed each other - thought up by a couple of geniuses

So you haven't thought that since Mon wasn't the first person at the scene, someone that arrived had arrived earlier had noticed the hoe before it was moved, they knew who it belonged to (as people in a small community would) so they knew who to look for to see where it went?

Or is that explanation less likely than the scenario that they carefully staged the crime scene at their business's door to drive suspicions away from them.

Who was with mon that didn't testify ?

Why did Mon take almost an hour to call police , who was the policeman with him if Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao testified he was first.

Timeline

1.00 am MM was seen on CCTV on the motorbike at 1am

1.26am David is recorded walking from the club AC

1.56am Returns to Club AC

3am-4am Friends say David & Hannah left club according to police.

3.44am running man

4.00 am WP testified that he was out looking for his clothes

4.30 am MM is seen on CCTV

4.49 am Running Man

4.51 .25 big beard man with woman

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

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

6.10 am O 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.

6.30am Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao, said he received a call by a fellow officer.

6.35am Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao arrived at the beach and swiftly cordoned off the area.

8.00 am Dr Chasit Yoohat comes to the scene.

9.00 am Dr Chasit Yoohat left the scene

10am Dr Chasit Yoohat returned when he examined the bodies.

[AGareth2]

Lucky given your desire to only tell the truth

you best go back and delete your post

What say you

you have made a mistake

no harm in apologising

[cathy edge]

Shamefull

[lucky11]

Breaking news Jonathan Head now backing verdict

https://mobile.twitter.com/pakhead/status/682102623546118144?p=v

He reported on the trial straight after the verdict and all he kept on saying was "why didn't the defence capitalise on the DNA evidence". He seemed flabbergasted at how weak the defence teams case was, almost let down by it.

Do you know what, as all reporters do, he has clearly probed a bit deeper into this and it seems that he has turned up something absolutely compelling that shows that they were the rapists and probable murderers.

C'mon Andy, you are not going to be left behind in all this surely. I hope that J Head and A Hall are associates as he can be let in on the newly acquired info that J Head is privy to.

No wonder the UK accepted the decision immediately, they must have known the outcome based on the evidence before the judge read it out!!

[Artisi]

Across 2 Twitter posts 29 DEC 2015 Jonathan Head wrote:

For Koh Tao key is to read verdict. Judges admitted lots of flaws in investigation. But stated DNA match overrides all those concerns. If the DNA match is sound, so is the verdict. It's that simple. That's why it was so bizarre that defence lawyers did not challenge DNA methods

Don't take away the fun from the Village Glee Club members, seem they were starting to get their jollies into full swing with that little snippet of nonsense.... Edited December 31, 2015 by Artisi

[AGareth2]

Breaking news Jonathan Head now backing verdict

https://mobile.twitter.com/pakhead/status/682102623546118144?p=v

He reported on the trial straight after the verdict and all he kept on saying was "why didn't the defence capitalise on the DNA evidence". He seemed flabbergasted at how weak the defence teams case was, almost let down by it.

Do you know what, as all reporters do, he has clearly probed a bit deeper into this and it seems that he has turned up something absolutely compelling that shows that they were the rapists and probable murderers.

C'mon Andy, you are not going to be left behind in all this surely. I hope that J Head and A Hall are associates as he can be let in on the newly acquired info that J Head is privy to.

No wonder the UK accepted the decision immediately, they must have known the outcome based on the evidence before the judge read it out!!

you have totally blown your credibility

lol

[seedy]

Posts Hidden - Posts Edited - Troll / Flaming / Royal Comments / Personal Attacks

[lucky11]

Lucky given your desire to only tell the truth

you best go back and delete your post

What say you

you have made a mistake

no harm in apologising

Don't know what you are referring to!!

[Artisi]

Lucky given your desire to only tell the truth

you best go back and delete your post

What say you

you have made a mistake

no harm in apologising

Are you a comedian by any chance ☺☺☺☺

[smedly]

Is he the land owner?

I thought he and his family were tennants.

Are the islands not owned by people who can't be spoken of?

Mon wasn't just walking around the crime scene he was rearranging stuff around the murder weapon being a fine example, he was probably handling clothes touching the bodies leaving footprints speading his dna all over the place in front of the police and cameras, then he became a suspect - good luck dna testing anything around there he was all over it

But the hoe is the best of them all, how on earth did he know it was the murder weapon and that it had been moved, it was at least 60m away from the bodies when he finally got the person who moved it to put it back under the tree.......seriously!!!!!!!!!!!

why would he want them to find the hoe ? because it was wiped down and both victims dna was put all over it, the simplistic idea is that Hannah and David killed each other - thought up by a couple of geniuses

So you haven't thought that since Mon wasn't the first person at the scene, someone that arrived had arrived earlier had noticed the hoe before it was moved, they knew who it belonged to (as people in a small community would) so they knew who to look for to see where it went?

Or is that explanation less likely than the scenario that they carefully staged the crime scene at their business's door to drive suspicions away from them.

you read my post you work it out

might be an idea to check and see when the police found the hoe and concluded it was the murder weapon, it was no where near the bodies and not something standing out laying on the beach, it was in that tiny garden propped up against a tree and fence, if you think police looked at the bodies and immediately concluded that the murder weapon was a hoe and went looking for one you really are challenged

[fayou]

number 9 is at .30

1. Swing your arms 'lavishly' 2. Hold up your left hand like a rabbit 3. Let the right hand fly behind your back....

[lucky11]

Lucky given your desire to only tell the truth

you best go back and delete your post

What say you

you have made a mistake

no harm in apologising

Are you a comedian by any chance ☺☺☺☺

Not a very good one if you ask me.

Seems that losing one of their poster boys has destroyed their morale.

[JLCrab]

Across 2 Twitter posts 29 DEC 2015 Jonathan Head wrote:

For Koh Tao key is to read verdict. Judges admitted lots of flaws in investigation. But stated DNA match overrides all those concerns. If the DNA match is sound, so is the verdict. It's that simple. That's why it was so bizarre that defence lawyers did not challenge DNA methods

Don't take away the fun from the Village Glee Club members, seem they were starting to get their jollies into full swing with that little snippet of nonsense....

And I subsequebtly added to that:

So I (JLCrab) will assume what he is describing is the Judges conclusions that "If the DNA match is sound, so is the verdict" and that Mr. head would have wanted the defence to challenge that the DNA is in fact sound.

[Islandlife]

Is he the land owner?

I thought he and his family were tennants.

Are the islands not owned by people who can't be spoken of?

Mon wasn't just walking around the crime scene he was rearranging stuff around the murder weapon being a fine example, he was probably handling clothes touching the bodies leaving footprints speading his dna all over the place in front of the police and cameras, then he became a suspect - good luck dna testing anything around there he was all over it

But the hoe is the best of them all, how on earth did he know it was the murder weapon and that it had been moved, it was at least 60m away from the bodies when he finally got the person who moved it to put it back under the tree.......seriously!!!!!!!!!!!

why would he want them to find the hoe ? because it was wiped down and both victims dna was put all over it, the simplistic idea is that Hannah and David killed each other - thought up by a couple of geniuses

So you haven't thought that since Mon wasn't the first person at the scene, someone that arrived had arrived earlier had noticed the hoe before it was moved, they knew who it belonged to (as people in a small community would) so they knew who to look for to see where it went?

Or is that explanation less likely than the scenario that they carefully staged the crime scene at their business's door to drive suspicions away from them.

you read my post you work it out

might be an idea to check and see when the police found the hoe and concluded it was the murder weapon, it was no where near the bodies and not something standing out laying on the beach, it was in that tiny garden propped up against a tree and fence, if you think police looked at the bodies and immediately concluded that the murder weapon was a hoe and went looking for one you really are challenged

^what he said.[emoji108]

[AleG]

Activist group in Burma Face book page[/size]

number9.jpg

Sean McAnna never said what they claim he said, it's a complete falsehood.

The rest is just more the the unsubstantiated rumors, gossip and made up "facts" that constitutes the bread and butter of the narrative that Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin didn't murder Hannah Witheridge and David Miller.

No wonder you all think the Burmese are scapegoats, that seems to be your preferred method for solving crimes, find someone you don't like and then try to frame them for something, just make up a story, any story and run with it; never check the sources, never question the "facts", never corroborate. If it goes against the Burmese being guilty it's all good and welcome.

You are the ones looking for scapegoats, you've always been.

There is actually a screenshot of McAnna saying who he believes did it on an FB post..

are you saying its false?

If so how?

forged?

Not McAnna's FB ?

No, there isn't.

There's a screen shot showing the text "the owner of ac bar did it", which is readily exploited by people that either don't know what the context for the message was or are deliberately misrepresenting it to mean that he was referring to murders of Miller and Witheridge.

The preceding messages made clear what "it" referred to, he had been followed into the 7/11 and allegedly threatened, that the AC Bar owner did it, the chase/threats, not the murders.

And here you are backslapping each other over Twitter post taken out of context, you've been doing nothing but taking things out of context all this time.

Edited December 31, 2015 by AleG

[lucky11]

Across 2 Twitter posts 29 DEC 2015 Jonathan Head wrote:

For Koh Tao key is to read verdict. Judges admitted lots of flaws in investigation. But stated DNA match overrides all those concerns. If the DNA match is sound, so is the verdict. It's that simple. That's why it was so bizarre that defence lawyers did not challenge DNA methods

Don't take away the fun from the Village Glee Club members, seem they were starting to get their jollies into full swing with that little snippet of nonsense....

And I subsequebtly added to that:

So I (JLCrab) will assume what he is describing is the Judges conclusions that "If the DNA match is sound, so is the verdict" and that Mr. head would have wanted the defence to challenge that the DNA is in fact sound.

You've hit the nail on the head JL - I was wondering whether his wavering was was going to get the better of him. Initially, He stuck his awe in and went full swing into trying to prove their innocence. He has now realised the truth behind why they tried to muddy the waters with this Porntip/Tauvin spat and hide the fact that the DNA evidence was so rock solid that they couldn't challenge the evidence!!

The prosecution didn't need the confessions, didn't need the DNA on the hoe question and because of this, the defence had no other option than to concede defeat and give up the ghost on their 'little angels'.

Now, stop these nonsense protests in Myanmar and on the Thai border and wait for the appeal, not that it's going to do them any good!!

[sartoric]

Activist group in Burma Face book page[/size]

number9.jpg

Sean McAnna never said what they claim he said, it's a complete falsehood.

The rest is just more the the unsubstantiated rumors, gossip and made up "facts" that constitutes the bread and butter of the narrative that Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin didn't murder Hannah Witheridge and David Miller.

No wonder you all think the Burmese are scapegoats, that seems to be your preferred method for solving crimes, find someone you don't like and then try to frame them for something, just make up a story, any story and run with it; never check the sources, never question the "facts", never corroborate. If it goes against the Burmese being guilty it's all good and welcome.

You are the ones looking for scapegoats, you've always been.

There is actually a screenshot of McAnna saying who he believes did it on an FB post..

are you saying its false?

If so how?

forged?

Not McAnna's FB ?

No, there isn't.

There's a screen shot showing the text "the owner of ac bar did it", which is readily exploited by people that either don't know what the context for the message was or are deliberately misrepresenting it to mean that he was referring to murders of Miller and Witheridge.

The preceding messages made what "it" referred to, he had been followed into the 7/11 and allegedly threatened, that the AC Bar owner did it, the chase/threats, not the murders.

And here you are backslapping each other over Twitter post taken out of context, you've been doing nothing but taking things out of context all this time.

I agree that McAnna was referring to his own threats, I was following on FB that night, he was terrified.

Why would some innocent and innocuous local resort manager do that ?

[MrTee]

I too find it strange that the DNA methods were not challenged by the defence.

Can someone remind me what the "methods" were?

was it PCR, STR or did they use AmpFLP? What method was used to create a distinction between Hannah's and the other DNA was it differential lysis or mtDNA?

How many runs were made on each sample?

How did the lab ensure there was no contamination?

Were each person's samples sent to separate labs? because clearly one labs wouldn't be expected to process all samples, without adequate time periods to remove the possibility of contamination?

Where are the results of the negative control runs - and the contamination logs?

And what about the Electropherograms (E-grams) - I mean the lab reports had all of this information right?

Edited December 31, 2015 by MrTee

[AGareth2]

Across 2 Twitter posts 29 DEC 2015 Jonathan Head wrote:

For Koh Tao key is to read verdict. Judges admitted lots of flaws in investigation. But stated DNA match overrides all those concerns. If the DNA match is sound, so is the verdict. It's that simple. That's why it was so bizarre that defence lawyers did not challenge DNA methods

Don't take away the fun from the Village Glee Club members, seem they were starting to get their jollies into full swing with that little snippet of nonsense....

And I subsequebtly added to that:

So I (JLCrab) will assume what he is describing is the Judges conclusions that "If the DNA match is sound, so is the verdict" and that Mr. head would have wanted the defence to challenge that the DNA is in fact sound.

You've hit the nail on the head JL - I was wondering whether his wavering was was going to get the better of him. Initially, He stuck his awe in and went full swing into trying to prove their innocence. He has now realised the truth behind why they tried to muddy the waters with this Porntip/Tauvin spat and hide the fact that the DNA evidence was so rock solid that they couldn't challenge the evidence!!

The prosecution didn't need the confessions, didn't need the DNA on the hoe question and because of this, the defence had no other option than to concede defeat and give up the ghost on their 'little angels'.

Now, stop these nonsense protests in Myanmar and on the Thai border and wait for the appeal, not that it's going to do them any good!!

I think the word you're looking for is 'oar" not "awe"

[AleG]

Is he the land owner?

I thought he and his family were tennants.

Are the islands not owned by people who can't be spoken of?

Mon wasn't just walking around the crime scene he was rearranging stuff around the murder weapon being a fine example, he was probably handling clothes touching the bodies leaving footprints speading his dna all over the place in front of the police and cameras, then he became a suspect - good luck dna testing anything around there he was all over it

But the hoe is the best of them all, how on earth did he know it was the murder weapon and that it had been moved, it was at least 60m away from the bodies when he finally got the person who moved it to put it back under the tree.......seriously!!!!!!!!!!!

why would he want them to find the hoe ? because it was wiped down and both victims dna was put all over it, the simplistic idea is that Hannah and David killed each other - thought up by a couple of geniuses

So you haven't thought that since Mon wasn't the first person at the scene, someone that arrived had arrived earlier had noticed the hoe before it was moved, they knew who it belonged to (as people in a small community would) so they knew who to look for to see where it went?

Or is that explanation less likely than the scenario that they carefully staged the crime scene at their business's door to drive suspicions away from them.

you read my post you work it out

might be an idea to check and see when the police found the hoe and concluded it was the murder weapon, it was no where near the bodies and not something standing out laying on the beach, it was in that tiny garden propped up against a tree and fence, if you think police looked at the bodies and immediately concluded that the murder weapon was a hoe and went looking for one you really are challenged

"you read my post you work it out"

No, why don't you try to flesh out your scenarios to see how far you go until you realize it doesn't make sense?

Yes, it's very strange how they made the connection between a hoe covered in blood and the nearby crime scene with two people bashed to death. Yep, that should be investigated thoroughly, something fishy for sure.

Edited December 31, 2015 by AleG

[lucky11]

I actually realised that too late and couldn't edit it. Must have been thinking about the 'shock and awe' tactics used by the Yanks at the time!!

[AleG]

No, there isn't.

There's a screen shot showing the text "the owner of ac bar did it", which is readily exploited by people that either don't know what the context for the message was or are deliberately misrepresenting it to mean that he was referring to murders of Miller and Witheridge.

The preceding messages made what "it" referred to, he had been followed into the 7/11 and allegedly threatened, that the AC Bar owner did it, the chase/threats, not the murders.

And here you are backslapping each other over Twitter post taken out of context, you've been doing nothing but taking things out of context all this time.

I agree that McAnna was referring to his own threats, I was following on FB that night, he was terrified.

Why would some innocent and innocuous local resort manager do that ?

Most likely because a few days before he saw that two young people had been brutally murdered practically at his doorsteps and then he was told, incorrectly, that McAnna sought help for cuts the day after the murders which led him to believe that Sean McAnna had something to do with it.

Mon jumped the gun, obviously.

[smedly]

Is he the land owner?

I thought he and his family were tennants.

Are the islands not owned by people who can't be spoken of?

Mon wasn't just walking around the crime scene he was rearranging stuff around the murder weapon being a fine example, he was probably handling clothes touching the bodies leaving footprints speading his dna all over the place in front of the police and cameras, then he became a suspect - good luck dna testing anything around there he was all over it

But the hoe is the best of them all, how on earth did he know it was the murder weapon and that it had been moved, it was at least 60m away from the bodies when he finally got the person who moved it to put it back under the tree.......seriously!!!!!!!!!!!

why would he want them to find the hoe ? because it was wiped down and both victims dna was put all over it, the simplistic idea is that Hannah and David killed each other - thought up by a couple of geniuses

So you haven't thought that since Mon wasn't the first person at the scene, someone that arrived had arrived earlier had noticed the hoe before it was moved, they knew who it belonged to (as people in a small community would) so they knew who to look for to see where it went?

Or is that explanation less likely than the scenario that they carefully staged the crime scene at their business's door to drive suspicions away from them.

you read my post you work it out

might be an idea to check and see when the police found the hoe and concluded it was the murder weapon, it was no where near the bodies and not something standing out laying on the beach, it was in that tiny garden propped up against a tree and fence, if you think police looked at the bodies and immediately concluded that the murder weapon was a hoe and went looking for one you really are challenged

and just to add

Mon walks onto the beach puts his super detective chief inspector hat on and decides just like above that a hoe was the murder weapon, goes off to find it but it isn't where he expects it to be, goes and sees the gardener has a bloody hoe and immediately arrests the gardener as he is in possession of the murder weapon

lets keep this line of thought open please as it really is right on topic

[MrTee]

Activist group in Burma Face book page[/size]

number9.jpg

Sean McAnna never said what they claim he said, it's a complete falsehood.

The rest is just more the the unsubstantiated rumors, gossip and made up "facts" that constitutes the bread and butter of the narrative that Wei Phyo and Zaw Lin didn't murder Hannah Witheridge and David Miller.

No wonder you all think the Burmese are scapegoats, that seems to be your preferred method for solving crimes, find someone you don't like and then try to frame them for something, just make up a story, any story and run with it; never check the sources, never question the "facts", never corroborate. If it goes against the Burmese being guilty it's all good and welcome.

You are the ones looking for scapegoats, you've always been.

There is actually a screenshot of McAnna saying who he believes did it on an FB post..

are you saying its false?

If so how?

forged?

Not McAnna's FB ?

No, there isn't.

There's a screen shot showing the text "the owner of ac bar did it", which is readily exploited by people that either don't know what the context for the message was or are deliberately misrepresenting it to mean that he was referring to murders of Miller and Witheridge.

The preceding messages made clear what "it" referred to, he had been followed into the 7/11 and allegedly threatened, that the AC Bar owner did it, the chase/threats, not the murders.

And here you are backslapping each other over Twitter post taken out of context, you've been doing nothing but taking things out of context all this time.

I'm not saying I find him credible..

But he did post what you said, if there is some other "context" then feel free to post a link.

He did have a wound that matches those found on David.

And he did post pictures of 2 chaps in a store checking him out..

Now why would they be doing that?

And why would he be saying they are trying to kill him?

Why would the same chap be posting to CSI LA today?

[Artisi]

I too find it strange that the DNA methods were not challenged by the defence.

Can someone remind me what the "methods" were?

was it PCR, STR or did they use AmpFLP? What method was used to create a distinction between Hannah's and the other DNA was it differential lysis or mtDNA?

How many runs were made on each sample?

How did the lab ensure there was no contamination?

Were each person's samples sent to separate labs? because clearly one labs wouldn't be expected to process all samples, without adequate time periods to remove the possibility of contamination?

Where are the results of the negative control runs - and the contamination logs?

And what about the Electropherograms (E-grams) - I mean the lab reports had all of this information right?

Yeah sure, you already know the answer - "we, the BIB are expert in all these areas of forensic so there is no need to for us to consider anything - we know it all and can usually tell just by looking..... ,"

[DiscoDan]

Breaking news Jonathan Head now backing verdict

https://mobile.twitter.com/pakhead/status/682102623546118144?p=v

He reported on the trial straight after the verdict and all he kept on saying was "why didn't the defence capitalise on the DNA evidence". He seemed flabbergasted at how weak the defence teams case was, almost let down by it.

Do you know what, as all reporters do, he has clearly probed a bit deeper into this and it seems that he has turned up something absolutely compelling that shows that they were the rapists and probable murderers.

C'mon Andy, you are not going to be left behind in all this surely. I hope that J Head and A Hall are associates as he can be let in on the newly acquired info that J Head is privy to.

No wonder the UK accepted the decision immediately, they must have known the outcome based on the evidence before the judge read it out!!

you have totally blown your credibility

lol

I admit my mistake

so looks like Jonathan Head won't be getting any money from the slush fund will ask mods to remove my post as it could look like propaganda

[lucky11]

I actually realised this too late to edit it - must have been thinking about the 'shock and awe tactics' used by the Yanks at the time!!