Koh Tao: Suspects found guilty of murdering British backpackers

[fab99]

No, I wouldn't be happy with the sort of "support" I see at work here, in particular with the hate campaigns.

"using a hoe that the victims handled"

There goes another "fact"...

Here is a fact for you, not a "fact" :

Forensic Science Officer Worawee Waiyawuth, from the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) in Bangkok, which was charged with the re-testing, said their laboratory found most of the DNA on the handle of the hoe came from Ms Witheridge.

“She had obviously held the hoe for some time. Her DNA traces, which were not blood, were taken from the handle. Her blood was on the blade,” said Mr Waiyawuth.

A full DNA profile for David Miller, a 24 year-old graduate from Jersey, who was with Ms Witheridge when both were bludgeoned to death on Sairee Beach on the island of Koh Tao, was also found on the handle of the hoe, along with a partial profile for another unidentified male.

http://thailandjustice.com/burmese-men-defence-lawyers-challenge-thai-police-to-revise-murder-theory-after-victims-dna-found-on-murder-weapon/

It contradicts the scenario given during the trial, but motive or MO don't matter here it seems only the DNA "evidence" (see what I did here?) does...

That fact has already been debunked... by the expert the defense didn't call to testify, as shown over here.

The notion that finding DNA on the hoe proves that the victims held it is hogwash.

NO... Your link doesnt debunk it.

It says that the absence of the B2 DNA doesn't mean the accused haven't held the weapon, it doesnt say anywhere that the presence of the victims DNA doesnt mean they didn't held it.

There is a sensible difference.

How would you explain the victims DNA on the handle otherwise ?

[catsanddogs]

@AleG

Mon was arrested after evidence police collected and examined proved he was involved.

and

Mon and the village headman's son (presumably Nomsod and not his brother) were captured by CCTV

and

police HAD enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

And then another cop came along and none of that mattered anymore.

Put all that together and it would appear they would have had to be at the crime scene. Doesn't take much to figure that one out. There was likely more than one crime scene. CCTV might not have placed them at the beach where the bodies were found, but it might have captured them somewhere else, such as the Ocean View, the AC bar - possibilities are endless.

Edited January 6, 2016 by catsanddogs

[AleG]

It as already been supplied

Blond hair

Dna on murder weapon

Dna on right shoe and the presence of the shoe

The Earth is round.

Swiss cheese has holes.

William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066.

Random observations don't make an argument.

It is not an honest argument, you can't seriously say that

"Blond hair

Dna on murder weapon

Dna on right shoe and the presence of the shoe"

are random observations, they are obviously related to the case, infinitely more so than your swiss cheese and Bill...

Am I supposed to assemble rockingrobin's argument out of that list?

[fab99]

Your logic is flawed, therefore false.

You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so, and then compound that mistake to use it as the premise to support the conclusion that Nomsod wasn't in Bangkok.

The police say the B2 did it, therefore that is so. End of discussion.

You like that?

Yes AleG, out of hundreds of incoherent posts this one actually makes sense.

You're saying that because the Police has said and done many things incorrectly (they were incompetent) , they could have incorrectly stated what they have about the initial suspects.

That's fine we can accept that logic. However, that doesn't do your cause too much good either, because it comes back to a flawed incompetent investigation that had a lot of weight during a trial which ended in two people being given the death sentences.

So, either way you twist it, AleG, it doesn't look too good does it?

But thank you for clarifying that the Police is lying ("You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so").

Except that my view is that the evidence about those two is compelling enough even taking into account police blunders.

You can't go oopsie! and there's a DNA match.

You can't go oopsie! and nab two scapegoats that just by sheer coincidence had Miller's phone since day one.

And finally the obvious cop-out of an alibi by the B2 had nothing to do with the police.

If you believe the DNA was properly tested, then yes, I guess it is compelling,

But many experts seem to disagree on this and have denounced the lack of professionalism of these tests (originals not avaliable, chain of custody incomplete, written corrections, errors on the date, incredibly fast results...)

[AleG]

Below is a post from Myanmar says workers innocent from Britons On Khao Tao

Post No.498

Where he agrees Mon is caught on cctv

rockingrobin

Posted 2015-01-26 21:37:15

AleG, on 26 Jan 2015 - 14:16, said:

rockingrobin, on 26 Jan 2015 - 13:34, said:

AleG, on 26 Jan 2015 - 02:42, said:

You are confused because you assume that "Police have confirmed that Montriwat is the man appeared in the CCTV video footage near the scene" means the same CCTV video as the one the police were later on asking for help in identifying a man.

AleG

I understand what you are saying about Mon and cctv picture.

Do we agree that at some point in time Mon was on a surveilence camera going to the scene of crime

Yes, but that fact has relevance only if put into context, for example, the time he appears on camera, the location and direction he was going.

Besides that, since there is no CCTV footage of the immediate area of the crime scene at most what could be said is that some footage shows him going towards the direction of the crime scene.

Robert Heinlein, in his novel Stranger on a Strange Land had some characters, called Fair Witnesses, trained to provide credible testimony at trials, one of them, sitting as a witness is asked to look at a house on a hill, she is asked what colour it is, she answers "It's white, on this side"

The morality of the story is, if you want to find the truth, you have to acknowledge the limits of the available evidence, speculation that can't be checked against facts only leads to confusion.

Aleg

First of all thanks for your thoughts, but your analogy with novels was a bit ott

So?

[catsanddogs]

You said there was CCTV of them at the crime scene, "fact".

Is that a fact yes or no?

Maybe. You are I cannot say for sure but based on Panya's statement saying that they were definitely involved in the crime I would say probably yes.

Now.answer my question. "Both suspects were captured by CCTV". So Nomsod was not in Bangkok as he claimed was he?

I'm prepared to accept your entire argument of the B2's guilt but only on the basis that there were other people involved from Koh Tao. Are you?

You said it was a fact... was that like the other facts you know about this case? the ones that make it impossible for you to contemplate anything but a scenario where other people were involved?

I already said I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence, just because the police said they were sure about something doesn't make it true, and it boggles the mind that "the police said so" is used as the be-all and end-all argument regarding this very specific point by the people that otherwise characterize the entirety of their work as a pack of lies and deceptions. This is nothing but cognitive dissonance at work and if you would apply a minimum of self examination on what you are doing you could see it too.

As I have already shown the police was wrong just a few days before when they said in no uncertain terms that Chris Ware was responsible for the murders, and then had to backtrack on that the next day.

Police said Chris Ware was responsible for the murders - did they? Link please.

[lkv]

Your logic is flawed, therefore false.

You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so, and then compound that mistake to use it as the premise to support the conclusion that Nomsod wasn't in Bangkok.

The police say the B2 did it, therefore that is so. End of discussion.

You like that?

Yes AleG, out of hundreds of incoherent posts this one actually makes sense.

You're saying that because the Police has said and done many things incorrectly (they were incompetent) , they could have incorrectly stated what they have about the initial suspects.

That's fine we can accept that logic. However, that doesn't do your cause too much good either, because it comes back to a flawed incompetent investigation that had a lot of weight during a trial which ended in two people being given the death sentences.

So, either way you twist it, AleG, it doesn't look too good does it?

But thank you for clarifying that the Police is lying ("You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so").

Except that my view is that the evidence about those two is compelling enough even taking into account police blunders.

You can't go oopsie! and there's a DNA match.

You can't go oopsie! and nab two scapegoats that just by sheer coincidence had Miller's phone since day one.

And finally the obvious cop-out of an alibi by the B2 had nothing to do with the police.

Oh well, if one remembers previous cases involving RTP where people were told to masturbate so that evidence could be planted, otherwise their families will be killed (do you want links again? see Anonymous video, see Mike's blog), then excuse one's skepticism here. Oopsie!

The phone? That can be either found, stolen, or planted. Does not prove murder. Oopsie! (2)

Alibi? The fact that their story did not make sense? After torture and hours of investigation with a bag over your head, reality gets distorted trust me. You don't remember what you've said before, it probably stops the oxygen a little as well going to your brain I would assume although I'm not a doctor. Oopsie (3).

[Chetzee]

Your logic is flawed, therefore false.

You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so, and then compound that mistake to use it as the premise to support the conclusion that Nomsod wasn't in Bangkok.

The police say the B2 did it, therefore that is so. End of discussion.

You like that?

Yes AleG, out of hundreds of incoherent posts this one actually makes sense.

You're saying that because the Police has said and done many things incorrectly (they were incompetent) , they could have incorrectly stated what they have about the initial suspects.

That's fine we can accept that logic. However, that doesn't do your cause too much good either, because it comes back to a flawed incompetent investigation that had a lot of weight during a trial which ended in two people being given the death sentences.

So, either way you twist it, AleG, it doesn't look too good does it?

But thank you for clarifying that the Police is lying ("You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so").

Except that my view is that the evidence about those two is compelling enough even taking into account police blunders.

You can't go oopsie! and there's a DNA match.

You can't go oopsie! and nab two scapegoats that just by sheer coincidence had Miller's phone since day one.

And finally the obvious cop-out of an alibi by the B2 had nothing to do with the police.

Oh well, if one remembers previous cases involving RTP where people were told to masturbate so that evidence could be planted, otherwise their families will be killed (do you want links again? see Anonymous video, see Mike's blog), then excuse one's skepticism here. Oopsie!

The phone? That can be either found, stolen, or planted. Does not prove murder. Oopsie! (2)

Alibi? The fact that their story did not make sense? After torture and hours of investigation with a bag over your head, reality gets distorted trust me. You don't remember what you've said before, it probably stops the oxygen a little as well going to your brain I would assume although I'm not a doctor. Oopsie (3).

Oopsie ! pms laughing there ......... 6th of jan and we're already being dazzled by your linguistic skills !

[AleG]

@AleG

Mon was arrested after evidence police collected and examined proved he was involved.

and

Mon and the village headman's son (presumably Nomsod and not his brother) were captured by CCTV

and

police HAD enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

And then another cop came along and none of that mattered anymore.

Put all that together and it would appear they would have had to be at the crime scene. Doesn't take much to figure that one out. There was likely more than one crime scene. CCTV might not have placed them at the beach where the bodies were found, but it might have captured them somewhere else, such as the Ocean View, the AC bar - possibilities are endless.

"would appear that it would have to... " "There was likely..." you are simply making assumptions and yes, then possibilities are endless, therefore leading nowhere.

"police HAD enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

And then another cop came along and none of that mattered anymore. "

Except that they were cleared before another cop came along.

And a few days before:

"Officers previously reported that they had 'strong evidence' linking the Burmese workers to the deaths of Miller and Witheridge, after blood stains were found on the clothes of some of the migrants"

And the day after: "A local police commander said today he believes a British man being held by police was responsible for the brutal murders of two young tourists on Koh Tao."

I'm sure you have no problem in accepting those were screw ups, but with Mon and Nomsod you choose to believe something fishy happened, because "another cop came along and none of that mattered anymore. " even though they were cleared days before that happened...

[AleG]

That fact has already been debunked... by the expert the defense didn't call to testify, as shown over here.

The notion that finding DNA on the hoe proves that the victims held it is hogwash.

NO... Your link doesnt debunk it.

It says that the absence of the B2 DNA doesn't mean the accused haven't held the weapon, it doesnt say anywhere that the presence of the victims DNA doesnt mean they didn't held it.

There is a sensible difference.

How would you explain the victims DNA on the handle otherwise ?

I'm sure that the expert saying they don't know what they are talking about regarding the issue of DNA transfer constitutes a debunking.

But hey, if there's DNA on the handle they must have "handled it" right? It can't be that it got there when they were bashed with the hoe, nope, must have handled it; it that's the only possibility.

[Khun Han]

And on and on and on it goes with one particular poster splitting the atom and being a philosopher at the same time to 'prove' that black can, in fact, be white, so the he can keep up his charade defending the indefensible .

[rockingrobin]

"Police have been made aware of reports that Hannah and David had a fight in a bar with a Thai man before they were killed, but cannot confirm if they are true."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29300765

[lkv]

Oopsie ! pms laughing there ......... 6th of jan and we're already being dazzled by your linguistic skills !

Well listen don't worry about my linguistic skills I am glad that I could provide some entertainment, people laughed enough after AleG's comments, I felt marginalized and had to take some action.

If I was you I'd worry more ending up in a similar situation of being slaughtered if I happened to reside or travel to a place where I had a feeling everything is Mafia controlled and law enforcement paid off.

[AleG]

Except that my view is that the evidence about those two is compelling enough even taking into account police blunders.

You can't go oopsie! and there's a DNA match.

You can't go oopsie! and nab two scapegoats that just by sheer coincidence had Miller's phone since day one.

And finally the obvious cop-out of an alibi by the B2 had nothing to do with the police.

Oh well, if one remembers previous cases involving RTP where people were told to masturbate so that evidence could be planted, otherwise their families will be killed (do you want links again? see Anonymous video, see Mike's blog), then excuse one's skepticism here. Oopsie!

The phone? That can be either found, stolen, or planted. Does not prove murder. Oopsie! (2)

Alibi? The fact that their story did not make sense? After torture and hours of investigation with a bag over your head, reality gets distorted trust me. You don't remember what you've said before, it probably stops the oxygen a little as well going to your brain I would assume although I'm not a doctor. Oopsie (3).

I see, because 15 years ago an attempt to fake evidence failed then these two must had been framed the same way, never mind that they never mentioned any such shenanigans.

The phone provides credibility to the police work, they arrested the men that turned out to have the victim's phone since the day of the murders (sad attempts to stick to the "it was planted!" meme notwithstanding) therefore it indicates that they followed a solid lead.

They had over a year to come up with a better alibi after they had already recanted their confessions as being the result of torture.

[JusticeKT]

You said there was CCTV of them at the crime scene, "fact".

Is that a fact yes or no?

Maybe. You are I cannot say for sure but based on Panya's statement saying that they were definitely involved in the crime I would say probably yes.

Now.answer my question. "Both suspects were captured by CCTV". So Nomsod was not in Bangkok as he claimed was he?

I'm prepared to accept your entire argument of the B2's guilt but only on the basis that there were other people involved from Koh Tao. Are you?

You said it was a fact... was that like the other facts you know about this case? the ones that make it impossible for you to contemplate anything but a scenario where other people were involved?

I already said I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence, just because the police said they were sure about something doesn't make it true, and it boggles the mind that "the police said so" is used as the be-all and end-all argument regarding this very specific point by the people that otherwise characterize the entirety of their work as a pack of lies and deceptions. This is nothing but cognitive dissonance at work and if you would apply a minimum of self examination on what you are doing you could see it too.

As I have already shown the police was wrong just a few days before when they said in no uncertain terms that Chris Ware was responsible for the murders, and then had to backtrack on that the next day.

I am lost with this kind of ever increasing contradictory, to the point of emotional and biased argumentation..... there is something not right here! And this has to do with logic thinking as opposed to becoming obviously desperate. As a new chap here, I observe something quite odd and striking: there is a lot of "defending" from certain corners centered strongly around Nomsod and Mon which, yes, looks very desperate but is - in its desperation as we can see from all those posts- losing the facts and all credibility on the way... .

[choff56]

I've said that I will accept that the B2 are guilty, but only in the case that they are not alone. It's the only scenario that fits with your evidence against the B2 which you are adamant about and all of the evidence against Mon and Nomsod.

Why do you refuse to accept that Mon and Nomsod could have been involved? You dont think that they would have lied because when were accused of murdering 2 people? That's what you are basing your argument on, the word of 2 accused murderers??

What part of "I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence" is so difficult to grasp?

The problem is that when asking for it I get things like your "fact" that they were caught at the crime scene by CCTV, wishful thinking like "they could be involved", non-sequitors like "x amount of people agree with me" or convoluted, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

It as already been supplied

Blond hair

Dna on murder weapon

Dna on right shoe and the presence of the shoe

The Earth is round.

Swiss cheese has holes.

William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066.

Random observations don't make an argument.

Yes they do. The Earth is an oblate spheroid.

[TheLobster]

Someone kindly posted previously about the DNA findings in response to my question about methods, data, analysis - not really answering my question, but interesting all the same.

STR vWA analysis: DNA from rectum of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Zaw Lin (Zoren) & 16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR vWA analysis: DNA from vagina of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR D2S1338 analysis: DNA from right nipple of Hannah Witheridge

Positive match to Wai Phyo (Win), loci 20 & 25 missing

16 Matching loci on only the vWA Core Locus .. probability of 0.21 - that is just over one in five. 21 out of 100 people.

really.. not the whole geonome? to have a statistically meaningful identification you need to match on 13 locus (US)

Completely meaningless when there is zero documentation on how the samples were processed.. I simply do not believe that the DNA found on Hannah was correctly processed.

If the Samples were correctly processed then simple response is PROVE IT!

It is not enough just say there are 16 matches on a single locus. its is meaningless. Show you methods and your working out. Science 101!

PS do not shoot the messenger - personally I was grateful to STE for posting this information

The forum DNA expert will be along soon to confirm in very technical detail that DNA matched B2, if he ignores your post (very likely) I will summarise what he will say.

The Judge (scientific expert) ruled the DNA (that was never physically produced) matched the accused because police claim it does.

The highly qualified scientific criminal expert Millar family also confirmed this (sorry Millar family but you are not qualified or have experience to make that call) which is of little relevance

The motive for the murders was rape which the UK coroner report says did not happen so where did the claimed non presented DNA evidence originate ? was it made up or was it the saliva samples tested against themselves, no chain of custody presented so impossible to determine what was tested against what and where it came from even if tests actually took place.

A very robust case in every respect......right

Have you read the court report?

Please provide a citation were it says that the actual physical DNA evidence needs to be presented to the court to have the analysis results accepted as valid.

You have repeatedly portrayed yourself as an expert on court proceedings, it should be easy.

Here's a good debunking of the misinformation regarding this issue:

"Let’s look at the actual facts about the Koh Tao Murder Trial regarding the DNA evidence and subsequent analysis:

1) The DNA analysis used in the Koh Tao trial was a 16 STR loci analysis. These results can can displayed as a simplistic, one page table. But just because the table is simplistic doesn’t mean the analysis was. Due to its statistical power of discrimination, STR analysis is the gold standard in forensic DNA testing across the globe. [1,2,3] Relating to the hand written amendments, changes, and alterations, ISO/IEC 17025 clearly states that “when mistakes occur in records, each mistake shall be crossed out, not erased, made illegible or deleted, and the correct value entered alongside.” In court, this also relates to the integrity of the evidence, as well as its transparency and accountability. Both the original and amended laboratory reports (whether hand written or typed) are considered legal documents. [4,5] Any statement about what ‘would or wouldn’t’ be admissible in another court is pure speculation and not based on any facts. The admittance or exclusion of evidence is a discretionary decision made by the trial judge, in any courtroom. [5]

2) ISO/IEC 17025 does not list any specific requirements for ‘chain of custody’ records. Nor does it require any lab to do statistical calculations based on “validated population data bases” of any kind. It is simply a document that lists the “general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories”. ISO standards are intentionally broad and general in nature as they are meant for international use. Each lab will develop its own policies and practice procedures regarding ‘chain of custody’ records. The laboratories that sampled and analyzed the DNA samples in the Koh Tao trial were found to have been following their written ‘chain of custody’ procedures and practices and thus were in compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. [1,4]

3) Because STR analysis data is so readily inferred from the genotyping data and easily interpreted, it may seem oversimplified to someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of molecular biology. In STR analysis, DNA is extracted from a sample, quantified, and then amplified. After amplification, the separation and detection of specific STR regions occurs. After detecting these STR regions or alleles, the number of repeats is determined. This process is called sample genotyping. The resulting DNA profile, which is a combination of individual STR genotypes, is then used for comparison between two samples. The results are often displayed as a simplistic table, comparing the number of repeats at each STR loci between the two samples. [2,3]

4) It is not essential to do a statistical analysis based on allelic frequency to determine the probability due to the large literature base of published studies on STR analysis. One famous study found that “the average match probability for the combined 13 loci is rarer than one in a trillion, even in the population with the most reduced genetic variation” and “there has been no case to date where two people have been found to have matching STR markers in all 13 areas used for comparison (except identical twins)”. The probability of a 16 STR loci match (which was found for both of the defendants in the Koh Tao trial) being a random match would be even less than these reported probabilities. [3,6,7]

5) Again, STR analysis is the standard in forensic DNA testing across the globe. STR regions are highly variable between individuals, which is why they are used in forensic testing. Even using DNA-17, the 10 STR loci analysis used by UK law enforcement, a 10 STR loci match “has a match probability estimated in the order of 1 in a billion”. In the Koh Tao trial, the DNA profiles extracted from semen found in one victim were a 16 STR loci match to the DNA profiles extracted from cheek swabs from both of the defendants. The probability of a 16 STR loci match being a random match is less than 0.0000000001%. [1,3,8]

REFERENCES:

[1] Koh Samui Court Report (available to read on BlindJusticeKohTao’s Facebook page)

[2] Perlin, MW. Easy Reporting of Hard DNA: Computer Comfort in the Courtroom. Forensic Magazine; 2012. http://www.forensicmag.com/…/easy-reporting-hard-dna-comput… (accessed 6 January 2016).

[3] Butler, JM. Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing. Maryland, USA. Academic Press; 2010. https://goo.gl/j4wJnB

[4] ISO/IEC 17025. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. http://www.dc.mahidol.ac.th/…/con…/ISO_Wada/iso17025_eng.pdf

[5] Munday, R. Evidence. 8th ed. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press; 2015. https://goo.gl/Imw4IS

[6] Chakraborty, R. et al. The utility of short tandem repeat loci beyond human identification: Implications for development of new DNA typing systems. Electrophoresis. 1999; 20(8): 1682-1696. https://www.msu.edu/user/msuhla/mod2_1.pdf

[7] National Forensic Science Technology Center. A Simplified Guide to DNA Evidence. Florida, USA. Bureau of Justice Assistance; 2013. http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/dna/DNA.pdf

[8] The Crown Prosecution Service.. DNA-17 Profiling. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/dna-17_profiling/… (accessed 6 January 2016)."

Unlike your constant denials that analysis cites sources, references actual court documents and doesn't resort to imaginary scenarios to make an argument.

I admire your research and efforts not sure why you would put so much work into posting on this forum? but again it is all misdirection.

I have over 20 years experience with ISO 17025 certification or equivalent and I would never ever present evidence such as this without a retained 'original' sample. End of story, end of misdirection? Please.

[choff56]

Social media killed (bludgeoned to death) the island Thai mafia star. My apologies to Trevor Horn, Geoff Downes and Bruce Wooley, The Bugles.

[lkv]

Here's the LOGIC of AleG. Also please note everybody else's logic is flawed:

Here's your argument in as simple a form as I can put it:

-Is he guilty?

-Yes!

-Why?

-Because he did X (being supposedly hiding since the day of the murders)

-Why did he do X?

-Because he was guilty!

-Was he hiding?

-Yes!

-How do you know he was hiding?

-Because he is guilty!

-How do you know he is guilt?

-Because he was hiding!

But it's worse than just using flawed circular logic, when it comes to to the B2 you simply substitute the assumption of guilt for innocence:

So here, AleG is advising us not to use a flawed circular logic.

Your logic is flawed, therefore false.

You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so, and then compound that mistake to use it as the premise to support the conclusion that Nomsod wasn't in Bangkok.

The police say the B2 did it, therefore that is so. End of discussion.

You like that?

Here, AleG is suggesting that not everything the Police says should be taken for granted, implying that the Police is lying.

I see, because 15 years ago an attempt to fake evidence failed then these two must had been framed the same way, never mind that they never mentioned any such shenanigans.

The phone provides credibility to the police work, they arrested the men that turned out to have the victim's phone since the day of the murders (sad attempts to stick to the "it was planted!" meme notwithstanding) therefore it indicates that they followed a solid lead.

They had over a year to come up with a better alibi after they had already recanted their confessions as being the result of torture.

And here, AleG is telling us that the phone provides credibility to the police work.

So AleG is using the same type of flawed circular logic that he is advising others not to use.

Hmmm....what? Have you been smoking something?

Edited January 6, 2016 by lkv

[rockingrobin]

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/18341-masked-man-at-koh-tao-rally-demands-meet-with-interpol.html

A masked vigilante yesterday stood up in a swell of protesters and said he has evidence that can prove the innocence of two Myanmar men sentenced to death in Thailand.

Edited January 6, 2016 by rockingrobin

[balo]

This thread is like hitting the repeat button . Would be nice with some new information.

[TheLobster]

Answering to a pertinent question by another one...

No, I guess you can't say that we know for sure the CCTV is from the crime scene (as only a small part of the cctv has been shared with the public), but it sure is interesting to note the implications of the police stong suspicions, that you keep trying to present as irrelevant. Only a minority is convinced that Mon was really in Bangkok, the evidences were not convincing enough, the lack of transparency in this case doesnt help and makes people suspicious, it's easy to comprehend.

What I do find annoying on these forums is people that make posts that really don't know what they are talking about. What do you mean Mon in Bangkok?

[NCFC]

A team put together by the Myanmar embassy to assist the defence claimed early on that witnesses from the migrant community could prove the defendants’ innocence. But dozens of interviewed witnesses fled back to Myanmar for fear of being implicated in the case.

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/18341-masked-man-at-koh-tao-rally-demands-meet-with-interpol.html

Fled back because they were illegal

[TheLobster]

That fact has already been debunked... by the expert the defense didn't call to testify, as shown over here.

The notion that finding DNA on the hoe proves that the victims held it is hogwash.

NO... Your link doesnt debunk it.

It says that the absence of the B2 DNA doesn't mean the accused haven't held the weapon, it doesnt say anywhere that the presence of the victims DNA doesnt mean they didn't held it.

There is a sensible difference.

How would you explain the victims DNA on the handle otherwise ?

I'm sure that the expert saying they don't know what they are talking about regarding the issue of DNA transfer constitutes a debunking.

But hey, if there's DNA on the handle they must have "handled it" right? It can't be that it got there when they were bashed with the hoe, nope, must have handled it; it that's the only possibility.

That is logical, I can agree if the victims were hit with the hoe then their DNA would be on it, but why isn't the DNA of the B2 on the hoe?

[Krenjai]

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/18341-masked-man-at-koh-tao-rally-demands-meet-with-interpol.html

A masked vigilante yesterday stood up in a swell of protesters and said he has evidence that can prove the innocence of two Myanmar men sentenced to death in Thailand.

Yes, CSI LA also mentions that "A Burmese man claimed he saw everything on that night and who did it. He said he would give details to international police but not the Thai police." (video in Burmese on CSI LA FB)

I suspect this might be true, he probably waited to come forward because of serious safety concerns and also to see if the B2 got acquitted, now that they are on death row he wants to talk. I wonder if this eye-witness has proof and if he will be taken seriously. I bet Nomsod & Mon don't have a pleasant evening over this news!

Edited January 6, 2016 by Krenjai

[lkv]

A team put together by the Myanmar embassy to assist the defence claimed early on that witnesses from the migrant community could prove the defendants’ innocence. But dozens of interviewed witnesses fled back to Myanmar for fear of being implicated in the case.

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/18341-masked-man-at-koh-tao-rally-demands-meet-with-interpol.html

Fled back because they were illegal

They're all illegal, 500 baht plus 500 baht for motorbike per month not to "get caught" apparently.

So I would imagine they earn what? 5,000-7,000 baht per month?

For a Myanmar national to legally work in Thailand with a work permit, the minimum declared salary has to be 25,000 baht.

Yes, I know what some of the people reading must be thinking. "Lol"

So yeah, that's another angle to shut people up or abuse them, take advantage of those aspects. Some with no passports, some with no visas, some on overstay, some (all actually) without a WP.

Etc.

Edited January 6, 2016 by lkv

[smedly]

a lie is a lie

even when repeated a thousand times

the DNA findings might be true

but if they are they can be verified

if not then then they are at best a mistake

at worst.... well no need to say more

On the other hand it appears that if one stands up for the thousandth time to challenge a lie brought back for the thousandth time.. one is a troll.

The defense should have had the DNA retested and are getting flak even from people that believe the B2 are innocent for declining to do so and offering weak excuses as an explanation.

Having said that, the results can't be a mistake, there's no way to accidentally come up with not one but two matches; either they are genuine or they were deliberately altered which the judge dismissed as a possibility due to the way events unfolded during the investigation, as explained on the judgement report.

yes and still you know nothing about DNA evidence because you keep repeating this absolute nonsense, honestly - you made your point many months ago, why do you still keep going on, DNA evidence is physical evidence, it has to be produced just like a murder weapon otherwise it is .....................................hogwash, give it a rest - point made, we all got it over and over

[catsanddogs]

A team put together by the Myanmar embassy to assist the defence claimed early on that witnesses from the migrant community could prove the defendants’ innocence. But dozens of interviewed witnesses fled back to Myanmar for fear of being implicated in the case.

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/18341-masked-man-at-koh-tao-rally-demands-meet-with-interpol.html

Fled back because they were illegal

Not if they backhander the police apparently.

[lkv]

A team put together by the Myanmar embassy to assist the defence claimed early on that witnesses from the migrant community could prove the defendants’ innocence. But dozens of interviewed witnesses fled back to Myanmar for fear of being implicated in the case.

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/18341-masked-man-at-koh-tao-rally-demands-meet-with-interpol.html

Fled back because they were illegal

Not if they backhander the police apparently.

No, no. You don't understand. There is no such thing as "backhandering", because the Police is Thai, Thais would not do such a thing to begin with, and if there was any sort of corruption or Mafia going on there the big Chief would already know about it.

So for the sake of tourism, let's stop spreading unsubstantiated rumours.

I also believe that all the Burmese are legit there, otherwise they would have been caught by Police by now.

Lol

The same type of circular logic AleG was advising me not to use.

I don't know what's wrong with me.

[Krenjai]

A message from the Anonymous group more or less sums it up, it should be posted and reposted every day until the B2 are free:

KOH SAMUI TRIAL:

1.Hannah's clothing untested for forensics and missing from evidence (obviously would have the murderer's DNA on them)

2.Both young Burmese men were allegedly tortured for a false confession. Their bruises seen by witnesses.

3.No valid DNA evidence was presented at the court.

4.According to Thai police DNA samples were contaminated or ‘used up’.

5.Thai police didn't test the alleged murder weapon for DNA. Dr. Pornthip, head of the Central Institute of Forensic Science stated in court that the DNA on the murder weapon does not match the defendants.

6.There are undisclosed discrepancies between Thai coroner’s report vs UK report.

7.Thai suspects DNA sample never received and tested.

8.CCTV footage at pier never checked despite an early morning boat leaving on the day of the murders.

9.Two actual eyewitnesses to the murders of Hannah and David too afraid to testify.

10.High ranking police gave very contradictory statements whilst testifying at court.

11.No "chain of custody" maintained with forensics.

12.No DNA evidence regarding cigarette butts given to the court.

13.Blonde hair found in Hannah's hand with root on it never forensically tested. now, missing from evidence.

14.Official questioning of the suspects was flawed and unprofessional. Questions were raised by the witnesses about ethnic biases on the part of the translators. The embassy interpreter, who said that he handled most translations for cases like this, said the quality of the work done by the two unofficial translators was low quality and unprofessional.

15.Mr Stephen Cole from Acume Forensics has confirmed that Wai Phyo could not be the so-called running man seen in the ‘selective’ CCTV footage collected by Koh Tao police.

and further:

22 year-old Zaw Lin said he was struck in the chest by a police officer, but also punched by the translator after he was asked questions about his religion and his ethnicity.

The prosecution maintains that Zaw Lin, and his co-accused Wei Phyo, also 22, confessed freely to raping and murdering 23 year-old Ms Witheridge, from Hemsby, and killing fellow British tourist David Miller from Jersey. Thai police have denied their confessions were extracted by torture.

Contradicting the testimony of numerous police officers, Zaw Lin claimed not only did police physically assault him, but they even gave him pain killing cream for the injury to his chest, which he claims an officer inflicted.

Both the accused are to give testimony this weekend in the final two days of this trial. Previously Zaw Lin described to the panel of three judges how he was stripped, blindfolded, and had numerous plastic bags placed over his head during questioning to force him to confess to the crimes. He also said he was told his body would be dismembered, burned and dumped at sea.

His DNA, now linking him to the crimes, was taken forcibly, he said.

In his latest testimony he explained that the Muslim Burmese translator, who came from the same region as him, Rakhine State, but was of a different religion, asked him if he had been in Myanmar during the recent ethnic and religious conflicts where Buddhists and Rohinga Muslims had taken part in retaliatory killings.

“I told him no. I said I was already in Thailand,” Zaw Lin said, “And then he punched me.”

Zaw Lin said the same translator also told him he would be killed if he did not follow police instructions at the public re-enactment of the crimes last October, or if he tried to speak to reporters who were present.

Zaw Lin said both he and Wei Phyo were instructed and guided by police in exactly what to do at internal police and public re-enactments.