Koh Tao: Suspects found guilty of murdering British backpackers

[catsanddogs]

I don't trust the story of the phone. We all know that there were photos of items of clothing scattered over the beach leaked out before the official police photos circulated on the web. The official photos showed the clothes in a neat pile minus some that were clearly present on the beach. They were placed as though Hannah and David might have taken them off themselves in order to get intimate. But this is clearly not the truth. The pre police photos would appear to show a struggle took place and that the clothes were ripped off the deceased while alive or dead. Someone got to the scene and changed it. No doubt they found a phone or two as well. Now why should we believe that the phone found at the B2's accommodation belonged David Miller when all the police have come up with is that the number provided by David's father matches? The phone that was found on the beach could have been anyone's phone. God knows the RTP had long enough to get their story together with the B2 conveniently silenced behind a glass screen with constant police presence when their lawyers were talking with them. When a phone gets smashed the information on the sim card is still available. Why didn't the police prove it was David's phone? Why no fingerprints? No fingerprints anywhere it seems. Did police say they didn't test the hoe for fingerprints?! Maybe it's time for police to take a few minutes now and look at that CCTV footage of the pier that they didn't think important last year. Surely they wouldn't have destroyed it ?

We know that David's iphone was in the possession of the B2 because they admitted it in court. They said they found it on an unlit beach in the middle of the night, and then asked a friend to destroy it when they heard of the murders. Suspicious behaviour, I suggest.

IMEI's are unique to the handset and David's father supplied the IMEI number from the UK which matched the number of the handset in the possession of the B2.

Therefore, we can be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that the police have proved the phone in the possession of the B2 belonged to David.

The B2 are the only people where there is hard evidence pointing to them being on the beach around the time of the murders. There's no evidence indicating anyone else was there. And in all the posts on all the threads in all the social media that surround this case I haven't seen any solid, irrefutable evidence pointing to anyone else being on the beach around the time of the murders. I would like to be proved wrong but in twelve months there really is nothing.

We know that David's iphone was in the possession of the B2 because they admitted it in court.

We don't know this. The B2 didn't admit that they found 'David's' iphone. The police said it was the phone belonging to David. The police also said there would be no scape-goating. Go figure.

Edited December 29, 2015 by catsanddogs

[JLCrab]

Whilst digging out the info about Wei's statement about the phone I came across a guardian article (which is no rag newspaper) written 6 weeks after the murder by someone seemingly on location in Koh Tao at the time of writing .

It includes the following:

"The biggest contradiction centres around the deaths of Witheridge, 23, and Miller, 24 – the British backpackers brutally beaten on the head yards from their hotel, the former also raped, the latter left to drown in shallow surf. Just about everyone on Koh Tao insists visitors are safe, but many also agree, quietly, that the Burmese migrant workers arrested for the murders are innocent – meaning the real killer or killers remain at large."

I did hear (fairly directly) that there was 'talk' from Sairee the morning after the murder about what had happened. I wonder if it was this 'talk' that made the 'many' agree that the B2 were innocent. Who were the 'many', why did they believe B2 to be innocent?

Content further on in the article may relate to the 'talk':

"There are several counter theories circulating on Koh Tao about who killed Witheridge and Miller. Most centre around men associated with a dominant Thai family on the island, one of several that run dive schools, resorts and bars. A version recounted repeatedly - without any evidence - is that Witheridge had an argument with one of them at a beachside bar run by the family, shortly before the killings."

and there is much more interesting info in the article, a lot of which sounds like it came first hand to the reporter

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Yes. And note from the above: Without an evidence. Minor technicality.

Edited December 29, 2015 by JLCrab

[phuketandsee]

I think it is time we all ignored Lucky11 and shortened this thread. Clearly no amount of reason is going to change his view.

Add AleG to that list.

I did that several months ago and it has saved so much time and space.

[bunglebag]

Whilst digging out the info about Wei's statement about the phone I came across a guardian article (which is no rag newspaper) written 6 weeks after the murder by someone seemingly on location in Koh Tao at the time of writing .

It includes the following:

"The biggest contradiction centres around the deaths of Witheridge, 23, and Miller, 24 – the British backpackers brutally beaten on the head yards from their hotel, the former also raped, the latter left to drown in shallow surf. Just about everyone on Koh Tao insists visitors are safe, but many also agree, quietly, that the Burmese migrant workers arrested for the murders are innocent – meaning the real killer or killers remain at large."

I did hear (fairly directly) that there was 'talk' from Sairee the morning after the murder about what had happened. I wonder if it was this 'talk' that made the 'many' agree that the B2 were innocent. Who were the 'many', why did they believe B2 to be innocent?

Content further on in the article may relate to the 'talk':

"There are several counter theories circulating on Koh Tao about who killed Witheridge and Miller. Most centre around men associated with a dominant Thai family on the island, one of several that run dive schools, resorts and bars. A version recounted repeatedly - without any evidence - is that Witheridge had an argument with one of them at a beachside bar run by the family, shortly before the killings."

and there is much more interesting info in the article, a lot of which sounds like it came first hand to the reporter

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Yes. And note from the above: Without an evidence. Minor technicality.

Yes noted. Shame there was no cctv made available from ac bar eh? or customers taking photographs of an argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What caught my attention was that it sounded like it was not just one or two people saying this but quite a number.

[AleG]

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

There were 3 phones: Hannah's i phone (before the ruder she had asked a friend to hold on to it for a while - David's old Samusng with Thai SIM and David's i-phone (with UK Sim). David had left the Samsung in his room and was brought in by a friend.

And yes it can be very dark on a beach unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find a phone lying in the sand...

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

The first image is from an article were it clearly says that the CCTV frame has been manipulated by superimposing elements on it, in plain English it means that "phone" was pasted on.

The second picture is one of the phones found at the lodgings of the 3 Burmese men first questioned by the police.

Thank you for illustrating the sort of misinformation that is gleefully bandied around by the people that claim to know best what happened.

[bunglebag]

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

There were 3 phones: Hannah's i phone (before the ruder she had asked a friend to hold on to it for a while - David's old Samusng with Thai SIM and David's i-phone (with UK Sim). David had left the Samsung in his room and was brought in by a friend.

And yes it can be very dark on a beach unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find a phone lying in the sand...

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

The first image is from an article were it clearly says that the CCTV frame has been manipulated by superimposing elements on it, in plain English it means that "phone" was pasted on.

The second picture is one of the phones found at the lodgings of the 3 Burmese men first questioned by the police.

Thank you for illustrating the sort of misinformation that is gleefully bandied around by the people that claim to know best what happened.

Proof of your assertions please

[HUH]

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

The first image is from an article were it clearly says that the CCTV frame has been manipulated by superimposing elements on it, in plain English it means that "phone" was pasted on.

The second picture is one of the phones found at the lodgings of the 3 Burmese men first questioned by the police.

Thank you for illustrating the sort of misinformation that is gleefully bandied around by the people that claim to know best what happened.

The only one "gleefully" spreading misinformation here is AleG. Where do you get your "plain English" conclusion that the phone was pasted on, here's what the accompanying text says about the image, no mention about a phone being pasted on, thats your own conclusion not based on facts:

Police have used superimposition, a specialised forensic medical technique, to compare an image of a man captured by a surveillance camera with the pictures of suspects and expect to find the murderers of two British tourists on Ko Tao in a few days. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

The Glee club at is finest!!

Edited December 30, 2015 by HUH

[ttthailand]

Was it ever reported how the 2B acted when their sentence was read ? Were they crying, looked upset or just no reaction ?

[AleG]

There were 3 phones: Hannah's i phone (before the ruder she had asked a friend to hold on to it for a while - David's old Samusng with Thai SIM and David's i-phone (with UK Sim). David had left the Samsung in his room and was brought in by a friend.

And yes it can be very dark on a beach unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find a phone lying in the sand...

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

The first image is from an article were it clearly says that the CCTV frame has been manipulated by superimposing elements on it, in plain English it means that "phone" was pasted on.

The second picture is one of the phones found at the lodgings of the 3 Burmese men first questioned by the police.

Thank you for illustrating the sort of misinformation that is gleefully bandied around by the people that claim to know best what happened.

Proof of your assertions please

Just to stay in focus, lets remember that this argument began with smeldy claiming the police were showing photos of a phone found at the crime scene on TV.

In support of that MrTee posted one image that has been manipulated, no indication that the phone in it is even real let alone that it was found at the crime scene:

Police use superimposition technique to identify killers

The second image is taken from a news report that shows one phone taken from lodgings of three Burmese suspects interrogated on the 16th of September and cleared by next day, this is an article covering the same even:

Three Myanmar workers nabbed in connection with death of two British nationals

"The police confiscated four mobile phones from the suspects, one of which was a broken iPhone, and will examine them to determine if any of the phones belonged to the murdered victims."

Now if MrTee, (or whoever mislead him with that screenshot) would link to the actual video it would confirm what I said.

Still waiting for smedly's apology too.

[AleG]

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

The first image is from an article were it clearly says that the CCTV frame has been manipulated by superimposing elements on it, in plain English it means that "phone" was pasted on.

The second picture is one of the phones found at the lodgings of the 3 Burmese men first questioned by the police.

Thank you for illustrating the sort of misinformation that is gleefully bandied around by the people that claim to know best what happened.

The only one "gleefully" spreading misinformation here is AleG. Where do you get your "plain English" conclusion that the phone was pasted on, here's what the accompanying text says about the image, no mention about a phone being pasted on, thats your own conclusion not based on facts:

Police have used superimposition, a specialised forensic medical technique, to compare an image of a man captured by a surveillance camera with the pictures of suspects and expect to find the murderers of two British tourists on Ko Tao in a few days. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

The Glee club at is finest!!

I just addressed that, MrTee posted that image in support of the assertion that the police was showing photos of a phone found at the crime scene on TV, the assertion is false, end of story.

Again with the Glee Club? That is so 2014.

[bunglebag]

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

The first image is from an article were it clearly says that the CCTV frame has been manipulated by superimposing elements on it, in plain English it means that "phone" was pasted on.

The second picture is one of the phones found at the lodgings of the 3 Burmese men first questioned by the police.

Thank you for illustrating the sort of misinformation that is gleefully bandied around by the people that claim to know best what happened.

Proof of your assertions please

Just to stay in focus, lets remember that this argument began with smeldy claiming the police were showing photos of a phone found at the crime scene on TV.

In support of that MrTee posted one image that has been manipulated, no indication that the phone in it is even real let alone that it was found at the crime scene:

Police use superimposition technique to identify killers

The second image is taken from a news report that shows one phone taken from lodgings of three Burmese suspects interrogated on the 16th of September and cleared by next day, this is an article covering the same even:

Three Myanmar workers nabbed in connection with death of two British nationals

"The police confiscated four mobile phones from the suspects, one of which was a broken iPhone, and will examine them to determine if any of the phones belonged to the murdered victims."

Now if MrTee, (or whoever mislead him with that screenshot) would link to the actual video it would confirm what I said.

Still waiting for smedly's apology too.

There does not appear to be any mention of phone superimposition in that article. It talks about superimposing the suspects onto the cctv image, not a phone as you claim (in your plain English example). Are you deliberately trying to mislead? It's a good article though, from the time when some proper police work was being done initially, before the guy getting somewhere was replaced.

and the second article you link to does not show any phones, so how have you reached the conclusion that the original image provided was one of these?

Edited December 30, 2015 by bunglebag

[JLCrab]

< snip>

"There are several counter theories circulating on Koh Tao about who killed Witheridge and Miller. Most centre around men associated with a dominant Thai family on the island, one of several that run dive schools, resorts and bars. A version recounted repeatedly - without any evidence - is that Witheridge had an argument with one of them at a beachside bar run by the family, shortly before the killings."

and there is much more interesting info in the article, a lot of which sounds like it came first hand to the reporter

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Yes. And note from the above: Without an evidence. Minor technicality.

Yes noted. Shame there was no cctv made available from ac bar eh? or customers taking photographs of an argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What caught my attention was that it sounded like it was not just one or two people saying this but quite a number.

Yes -- quite a number... and still not one piece of corroborable evidence that such an event ever took place.

Edited December 30, 2015 by JLCrab

[bunglebag]

< snip>

"There are several counter theories circulating on Koh Tao about who killed Witheridge and Miller. Most centre around men associated with a dominant Thai family on the island, one of several that run dive schools, resorts and bars. A version recounted repeatedly - without any evidence - is that Witheridge had an argument with one of them at a beachside bar run by the family, shortly before the killings."

and there is much more interesting info in the article, a lot of which sounds like it came first hand to the reporter

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Yes. And note from the above: Without an evidence. Minor technicality.

Yes noted. Shame there was no cctv made available from ac bar eh? or customers taking photographs of an argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What caught my attention was that it sounded like it was not just one or two people saying this but quite a number.

Yes -- quite a number... and still not one piece of corroborable evidence that such an event ever took place.

By corroborable do you mean video or photograph?

[technologybytes]

The brother of one of the victims was in court, he is satisfied that guilt was proven. As none of us were in court, why do so many posters feel they know more than the people who were in court and actually saw the case against these two. ??

and that means what exactly, this case has been followed very closely in the media and through other information sources, the brother has simply passed his laymans opinion - nothing more than that and it means nothing more than that, as I have said before, I suggest the MIllar family consult with an expert back home who might be able to give them some unbiased expert guidence before they make any more public statements, and I say that with the utmost sympathy and can not imagine what pain they are experiencing right now

I accept that the brother is a layman and not an expert in Thai law, but neither are all the comments on this forum from people who were not in court and just "know" the truth about this case.

The big legal questions are "were the suspects tortured by the police" and "did the police handle DNA samples properly". I guess its easy to forget the real question should be "did they kill the couple on the beach"... Im guessing the family will be less concerned with the former and more concerned with the latter. Legal experts may be concentrating on the former in an attempt to ignore the latter.

[AleG]

The first image is from an article were it clearly says that the CCTV frame has been manipulated by superimposing elements on it, in plain English it means that "phone" was pasted on.

The second picture is one of the phones found at the lodgings of the 3 Burmese men first questioned by the police.

Thank you for illustrating the sort of misinformation that is gleefully bandied around by the people that claim to know best what happened.

Proof of your assertions please

Just to stay in focus, lets remember that this argument began with smeldy claiming the police were showing photos of a phone found at the crime scene on TV.

In support of that MrTee posted one image that has been manipulated, no indication that the phone in it is even real let alone that it was found at the crime scene:

Police use superimposition technique to identify killers

The second image is taken from a news report that shows one phone taken from lodgings of three Burmese suspects interrogated on the 16th of September and cleared by next day, this is an article covering the same even:

Three Myanmar workers nabbed in connection with death of two British nationals

"The police confiscated four mobile phones from the suspects, one of which was a broken iPhone, and will examine them to determine if any of the phones belonged to the murdered victims."

Now if MrTee, (or whoever mislead him with that screenshot) would link to the actual video it would confirm what I said.

Still waiting for smedly's apology too.

There does not appear to be any mention of phone superimposition in that article. It talks about superimposing the suspects onto the cctv image, not a phone as you claim (in your plain English example). Are you deliberately trying to mislead?

and the second article you link to does not show any phones, so how have you reached the conclusion that the original image provided was one of these?

Seems that it's Obfuscation Time once again, MrTee claimed that both images showed "The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach."

This is false, completely. The police displayed no phone found on the beach on the 16th of September.

[AleG]

Yes noted. Shame there was no cctv made available from ac bar eh? or customers taking photographs of an argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What caught my attention was that it sounded like it was not just one or two people saying this but quite a number.

Yes -- quite a number... and still not one piece of corroborable evidence that such an event ever took place.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing, on one hand they cling like limpets to stale rumors that have never been substantiated in any credible way, on the other they can't ran away fast enough from actual, verifiable facts that go against what they want to believe.

[bunglebag]

Just to stay in focus, lets remember that this argument began with smeldy claiming the police were showing photos of a phone found at the crime scene on TV.

In support of that MrTee posted one image that has been manipulated, no indication that the phone in it is even real let alone that it was found at the crime scene:

Police use superimposition technique to identify killers

The second image is taken from a news report that shows one phone taken from lodgings of three Burmese suspects interrogated on the 16th of September and cleared by next day, this is an article covering the same even:

Three Myanmar workers nabbed in connection with death of two British nationals

"The police confiscated four mobile phones from the suspects, one of which was a broken iPhone, and will examine them to determine if any of the phones belonged to the murdered victims."

Now if MrTee, (or whoever mislead him with that screenshot) would link to the actual video it would confirm what I said.

Still waiting for smedly's apology too.

There does not appear to be any mention of phone superimposition in that article. It talks about superimposing the suspects onto the cctv image, not a phone as you claim (in your plain English example). Are you deliberately trying to mislead?

and the second article you link to does not show any phones, so how have you reached the conclusion that the original image provided was one of these?

Seems that it's Obfuscation Time once again, MrTee claimed that both images showed "The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach."

This is false, completely. The police displayed no phone found on the beach on the 16th of September.

AleG, you're now trying to move us on without backing up your original assertions. The links you have provided thus far have not backed up your assertions.

[JLCrab]

As note to the overly nested post above as to whether the late Ms. Witheridge had some altercation verbal or otherwise that evening, by 'corroborable' I mean some piece of verifiable evidence which would also include persons who witnessed first-hand such an event including those who were only visitors and have since returned to UK or elsewhere.

[bunglebag]

Yes noted. Shame there was no cctv made available from ac bar eh? or customers taking photographs of an argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What caught my attention was that it sounded like it was not just one or two people saying this but quite a number.

Yes -- quite a number... and still not one piece of corroborable evidence that such an event ever took place.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing, on one hand they cling like limpets to stale rumors that have never been substantiated in any credible way, on the other they can't ran away fast enough from actual, verifiable facts that go against what they want to believe.

I think you should have said 'investigated' where you said 'substantiated'!

Any link for the phone superimposition you claimed yet?

Edited December 30, 2015 by bunglebag

[boomerangutang]

Yes noted. Shame there was no cctv made available from ac bar eh? or customers taking photographs of an argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What caught my attention was that it sounded like it was not just one or two people saying this but quite a number.

Yes -- quite a number... and still not one piece of corroborable evidence that such an event ever took place.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing, on one hand they cling like limpets to stale rumors that have never been substantiated in any credible way, on the other they can't ran away fast enough from actual, verifiable facts that go against what they want to believe.

Here are a modicum of AleG's " rumors that have never been substantiated in any credible way" .....

>>> Police officer in court saying he didn't look at crucial CCTV because none of his buddies thought it was important.

>>> Police officer saying there were 60 hours of CCTV, but only about a minute was worthy of releasing to public. The other 59 hours and 59 minutes? ....probably destroyed, but certainly not shown to anyone without an agenda to shield the real criminals.

>>> CCTV of entry to AC bar shows David just past midnight. But (surprise!) that camera seized to function after that moment.

>>> Hannah's clothing ....LOST!

>>> The hair .....LOST!

>>> Any and all other CCTV from AC bar....? Mon says it's his personal footage, so he can destroy it. Who's going to stand up to Mon? Certainly not any Thai officials.

.....and that's just a small % of the evidence which was hidden, destroyed, not looked at, mis-diagnosed or denied by those shielding the Headman's people.

a joke for AleG: Knock Knock

who's there?

Orange

Orange who?

Orange you glad I'm back ?!

[AleG]

Seems that it's Obfuscation Time once again, MrTee claimed that both images showed "The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach."

This is false, completely. The police displayed no phone found on the beach on the 16th of September.

AleG, you're now trying to move us on without backing up your original assertions. The links you have provided thus far have not backed up your assertions.

I already backed them up, you are simply in denial; MrTee was wrong, let's see if can provide a link to the full video were the screen grab came from to confirm I am right... any time soon I'm sure.

[AleG]

The two Burmese testified that they went for a swim (drunk, in the middle of the night with bad weather ) and when they came back someone had stolen their clothes and the guitar; Wei Phyo testified that we went back two hours later and found the guitar where they had left it.

Yes, we are supposed to believe that someone came along, stole the clothes and the guitar, then came back to return the guitar to the same place but kept the clothes.

We can safely file that one under C for "Cockamamie"

S is for ?

I don't know, some word that begins with S and means "I said I was going to put this guy on ignore but I just can't help myself"?

[fayou]

The iPhone found 16Sept. 2014 does not belong to David Miller.
David's friend confirm that he got iPhone 4s not iPhone 4.
The big question still remains: : To who belongs the iphone the police found first?

Edited December 30, 2015 by fayou

[JLCrab]

<snip >

a joke for AleG: Knock Knock

who's there?

Orange

Orange who?

Orange you glad I'm back ?!

I am -- it's hard to grasp what's going on without one of your analogies.

Edited December 30, 2015 by JLCrab

[boomerangutang]

As note to the overly nested post above as to whether the late Ms. Witheridge had some altercation verbal or otherwise that evening, by 'corroborable' I mean some piece of verifiable evidence which would also include persons who witnessed first-hand such an event including those who were only visitors and have since returned to UK or elsewhere.

There was the other Maung Maung (not one of the B3) who was a DJ and claims he was at AC bar the night of the crime. He said he witnessed up close some tension between Nomsod (and others) possibly re; Hannah. It's hearsay, but it could possibly be corroborated. Not by David or Hannah, because they're both gone, but some others who were at the scene. MM/DJ split to Burma soon after the crime (similar of Sean, another possible witness) and similarly, MM/B3 is in Burma. All three of those men could potentially be useful witnesses, so it makes sense that Thai officialdom would not want them anywhere near the court.

In the bigger picture, neither Thai officials nor the prosecution wanted any mention of the AC bar scene from that night. They get what they want, so we didn't hear any mention at the trial. In any half-assed crime investigation would have to hear at least some testimony re; what the victims were doing prior to the crime. Not in Thailand. Plus, there was barely any mention of what went on at the beachside fire where the B2 and others were partying. That too could have been crucial, but again, Thai officialdom wanted no mention of that, so it wasn't mentioned.

There's only one reason why Thai officials stuffed any mention of those two venues: It would implicate the people they must shield.

.....so instead, the prosecution stammered on about an unused condom and a cig butt, neither of which are important to the case.

Edited December 30, 2015 by boomerangutang

[JLCrab]

The big picture is simple: The 2 accused have been convicted in Court. A request for appeal is due within 30 days of reading of the verdict. According to Section 193 of Thai Criminal Procedure (1934) an appeal must be based upon questions of fact and of Law.

All the rest is now side show.

[MorristheRunt]

If there was CCTV in the AC Bar and I have no doubt there is, where is the footage of that night?

Destroyed?....probably Why.....Possible motive for the later attack revealing suspects .

But again, why did the defence not ask these questions in the court? If CCTV was instaled in the AC Bar, the owner of the said bar should be in the witness box to explain where the recordings are. If I was defending the Burmese I would want to know exactly what has happened to these recordings.

Edited December 30, 2015 by MorristheRunt

[ttthailand]

Was it ever reported how the 2B acted when their sentence was read ? Were they crying, looked upset or just no reaction ?

the reason I wonder about their reaction is because it is possible that they were involved with others or were there during and are taking the fall for the group with the promise that they will be set free later and paid for their effort. No reaction to me would suggest something along these lines. Crying and being really upset would suggest a surprise and not taking a fall. Just wondering ....

[Bung]

Watched a great series on Pornthip Rojanasunand last night. Google "crime scene bangkok". Shows a lot what goes on with the investigative process in thailand, her battles with the police (for showing up their manipulation of crime scenes) and how she wants to have a medical forensic department that is seperate to the police who still today have control over criminal forensics.

They have their reasons of course but it would have made this case more "fair and transparent" as they say.

Remarkable woman, loved by millions who is a national hero for exposing flaws in criminal cases.

[MorristheRunt]

Watched a great series on Pornthip Rojanasunand last night. Google "crime scene bangkok". Shows a lot what goes on with the investigative process in thailand, her battles with the police (for showing up their manipulation of crime scenes) and how she wants to have a medical forensic department that is seperate to the police who still today have control over criminal forensics.

They have their reasons of course but it would have made this case more "fair and transparent" as they say.

Remarkable woman, loved by millions who is a national hero for exposing flaws in criminal cases.

Remarkable woman? maybe......but her reputation was destroyed because of the bomb detector scam....sad but true!