Koh Tao debacle: Shoddy work from beginning to end

[JLCrab]

I don't know what I believe so how do you know what I believe? Another month for the Defense to put in their appeal request so maybe they'll give you a call to straighten them as to is who and what is what.

i stand corrected ..... and there was me thinking you knew where you were coming from

At this point I am content to hopefully ask the right questions and let others be concerned about the answers.

[iReason]

"The smashed iPhone, which was not previously submitted as evidence by the prosecution to the court, but was allegedly found near the lodgings of one of the defendants, was finally submitted yesterday,12 days into the trial."

“It arrived at the court along with documents showing that the Thai Attorney General had appealed to the head of the Metropolitan Police team, which compiled its own report on the murders,for information on who owned the mobile phone, but was told no help could be given unless the Thai government guaranteed not to apply the death penalty.”

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/owner_of_mobile_phone_linking_burmese_migrant_workers_to_hannah_witheridge_murder_never_established_1_4213643

Edited January 21, 2016 by iReason

[greenchair]

i'm pretty sure by now ( 18 months ) that all the tangible evidence has been analysed ...... i 'm on one side ....... others want to see 2 young ppl executed .

how would you feel about new photographic evidence showing a new focus of analysis ..... One we have not hear of .....

would that b of interest ? yes .... no ... maybe ......

Sounds like "What if I told you ..."

not so much .... "what if i told you ...."

as what if i showed you ......... i showed you more crucial evidence that the RTP chose to ignore . more evidence that the crime scene did not develop in the way you have chosen to believe .....

Is that a wine bottle in the picture.

How does this picture have anything to do with changing the way the crime developed? ??

[greenchair]

Come on Chetzee, cough it all up. Show us what you have. Never know, I might change camp again.

[balo]

Is it necessary to post a picture of the naked body of David Miller on page 21? Out of respect for the relatives I hope moderator will remove this. If you really want to see the pictures you can google them .

Edited January 21, 2016 by balo

[catsanddogs]

Without the phone, they probably would never have been a suspect.

Rubbish. They were suspects because they were seen on CCTV shopping in a store hours before the murders. And because they were not Thai of course.

[Chetzee]

Is it necessary to post a picture of the naked body of David Miller on page 21? Out of respect for the relatives I hope moderator will remove this. If you really want to see the pictures you can google them .

the photo was posted to show unaccounted for evidence at the crime scene .... get over yourself !

[jimmybkk]

I found myself recalling someone who, in the early days of the investigation, kept going on about a "jandal"... Did a quick search on Google for jandal koh tao and found this:

Hats off to berybert - you called it correctly almost a year ago to the day...

[Khun Han]

Come on Chetzee, cough it all up. Show us what you have. Never know, I might change camp again.

Operating as a 'plant' only works once.

[greenchair]

Without the phone, they probably would never have been a suspect.

Rubbish. They were suspects because they were seen on CCTV shopping in a store hours before the murders. And because they were not Thai of course.

Rubbish, they were arrested they were at the seen at the crime scene at 2am.

They left belongings at the scene.

They went back to the scene at 5am.

They stole the murdered victims phone.

They tried to destroy and conceal that phone.

All of this by their own testimony.

[greenchair]

Oh, lol Khun Han, haha give me a break. You are suffering from paranoia. Bless. lol.

[greenchair]

I found myself recalling someone who, in the early days of the investigation, kept going on about a "jandal"... Did a quick search on Google for jandal koh tao and found this:

Bingo!.jpg

Hats off to berybert - you called it correctly almost a year ago to the day...

As it turns out, there was a jandal left at the beach.

They went back looking for it at 5am. So there.

This thread by the way is for all who wish to contribute their views and try to make sense of a senseless brutal crime.

It may be discovered they truly are innocent. My hat will be off to all of you.

Not likely though.

[iReason]

October 3, 2014

“Jaktip Chaijinda, deputy head of national police, said a quick resolution of the case would result in a speedy recovery of tourist numbers.”

He went on: “Today the case should be finished. We want to clear it up as soon as possible so our tourist industry can bounce back.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/thailand-beach-murders-police-defend-4374673#ixzz3FAJYIY2b

[somo]

Without the phone, they probably would never have been a suspect.

Rubbish. They were suspects because they were seen on CCTV shopping in a store hours before the murders. And because they were not Thai of course.

Rubbish, they were arrested they were at the seen at the crime scene at 2am.

They left belongings at the scene.

They went back to the scene at 5am.

They stole the murdered victims phone.

They tried to destroy and conceal that phone.

All of this by their own testimony.

Rubbish, they were arrested they were at the seen at the crime scene at 2am.

I thought the time of death was later on

They left belongings at the scene

Not at the scene but nearby and hours before the event.

They went back to the scene at 5am.

To collect belongings left hours before the event.

They stole the murdered victims phone.

Only the RTP claim it was a victims phone without any confirmation

They tried to destroy and conceal that phone

I would have done the same thing if I thought it might implicate me in a crime I did not commit

None of the above has any relevance and at the very best is circumstantial.

Where is the hard evidence?.

Why did the RTP destroy/lose it all

These are the questions you should be asking

[greenchair]

Is it necessary to post a picture of the naked body of David Miller on page 21? Out of respect for the relatives I hope moderator will remove this. If you really want to see the pictures you can google them .

I'm sorry balo, but this is a discussion a brutal double murder. There are going to be graphic pictures and graphic posts about the crime. You must harden up son. I needed to see that picture as I did not know david was naked completely.

[greenchair]

I disagree. I think is significant that Wei had an item belonging to the victim.

It also is significant the time that he stole /found the phone.

It shows he went back to the crime, by his own admission.

All of these anomalies by themselves mean nothing.

But when it is all together, it reaches the realm of coincidental impossibility. I wish people would stop cherry picking.

You may add to the list of corroborating facts that the three Burmese were seeing at the log by the beach at around 2AM, about the same time the two victims were last seen; again, from the court report:

"The plaintiffs examination presented Mr Mau Mau as a circumstantial witness to the scene before the crime took place. Mr Mau Mau, who is a friend of the two defendants, testified and confirmed that on the said date of the incident, he and the two defendants were playing the guitar and drinking beer and smoking cigarettes in the vicinity of the dry log not far from the crime scene. After that, Mr Mau Mau drove off on his motorcycle. The time indicated by Mr Mau Maus testimony was shortly before the crime was committed. Miss Phornthip Singkhamma, witness for the plaintiff, testified that she saw three persons sitting and playing a guitar at approximately 2am, which supports and give persuasiveness to the testimony given by Mr. Mau Mau. The facts provided by the testimonies in this regard are in accordance with the timecodes that appear on the from the CCTV camera footage obtained nearby the crime scene. The examination of two defendants cannot confute this fact and that there was no one else nearby except the two defendants."

He left shortly before the crimes were committed, the log they were sitting at is between the place the two victims were last seen (around 2AM) and the crime scene, and what else was at that same place?

"In addition, the point where the two defendants and Mr Mau Mau were sitting was in the same place that Mr O (no surname), the plaintiffs witness, regularly left the exhibited hoe, which is also in the vicinity of the place that the exhibited hoe was found with the two victimss blood stains."

They were there, nobody else was seen there, the murder weapon at hand, the victims must had passed that spot around the time they were there, their alibi makes more sense if one inserts "and then we killed them" in the middle, Wei Phyo had the phone of one of the victims and lied to a friend over where he found it before the news of the murders came out, etc, etc...

It takes a lot of willful denial of the facts to not see what all the evidence points at.

This is for you cat and dog, and somo.

The time of death is estimated to be between 2am and 6am.

[boomerangutang]

Fine take out the Dna that you say doesn't exist even the defenses own witness found a part match of the 2nd defendant.

What match was that?

"Zaw Lin then told the court in Koh Samui, Thailand, today that the men asked him some questions through a translator before stripping him naked in an air conditioned room and putting a plastic bag tightly over his head."

“I bit through the bag to be able to breathe so they put another bag on top of that one and the translator asked me:

“Did you kill?” When I said “No”, they put another bag over my head and pulled it tight around my neck."

“The translator then asked me again: “Did you kill or not?” Then I collapsed on the floor.”

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/i_was_tortured_to_confess_murdering_hannah_witheridge_accused_tells_court_today_1_4216927

Interesting how Thai officialdom cherry picks what it wants to believe, coming from the Burmese migrants. If the kids say they were tortured, with all sorts of graphic detail, (as above), they're not believed. If they say they didn't do the crime, they're not believed. However, if one says he found a phone on the beach, he's believed. Same if they say they were drunk and went back to their room and slept, they're not believed. Everything Thai authorities do and say indicates they have a big agenda in this case. Any concerned and objective viewer can see it plain as day. Thai authorities are used to saying whatever they want, and having the Thai sheeple lap it up. However, it doesn't work as well on farang. Most of us grew up as free thinkers, and were encouraged to question authority and to speak up when we hear/see things which aren't right.

what is the likelyhood of being hit 10 times with a weapon that caused flesh injuries , and then not being able to locate the victims DNA on the weapon ? AliG what say u ?

I say that neither you, nor your fellow armchair detectives have bothered to read the judgement report:

"On the 17th September 2014, Pol.Col. Dr. Pawat Prateepwisarut, Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Institute, performed an investigation and collected specimens from the bodies of both the deceased. Specimens from vaginal and rectal fluid and saliva from the areola of the Second Deceased were submitted to department of forensic biology, under the supervision of Pol.Col. Watee Asawutmangkub. Pol.Col. Watee tasked the DNA analysis committee to perform examination, letter of appointment Jor 22, Pol.Gen. Kewalee Chakrabandhu, The National scientific crime detection officer examined evidence of both victims’ bloodstains from the hoe found at the crime scene. According to the result, bloodstains from both victims were found on the cotton bud used to wipe from the evidence hoe."

Not that, as always, facts would get on the way of your fantasies.

I assume that quote above was taken from the judge's summation? Regardless, RTP announcements right after the crime by their forensics claimed none of of David's blood were found on the hoe. Do RTP now claim his blood was found on the business end of the hoe? Or is it just a convenient addition by Thai forensics to bolster their case at the 11th hour? Maybe the RTP/prosecution met the judge in the hallway on December 23 '15 and said something like, "Oh your honor, I know we've been saying for 15 months that none of David's blood was found on the hoe, but we just now decided his blood was found. Just wanted to let you know about the update. Have a nice day. Bye bye."

[catsanddogs]

Is it necessary to post a picture of the naked body of David Miller on page 21? Out of respect for the relatives I hope moderator will remove this. If you really want to see the pictures you can google them .

I'm sorry balo, but this is a discussion a brutal double murder. There are going to be graphic pictures and graphic posts about the crime. You must harden up son. I needed to see that picture as I did not know david was naked completely.

He wasn't completely naked - he had one sock on. And I myself didn't know there was a wine bottle that was standing almost next to his body. Seems that a lot of folk have a bottle of wine in their shopping trolleys but not the RTP. Strange that. Wouldn't you think the RTP would have bagged that up and tested it for finger prints and DNA? They could have used it to support their story that Hannah and David went to the beach together to make out - very British thing to do share a bottle of wine for the occasion. Or maybe it was one of the murder weapons? But no, that bottle looks intact and surely a bottle would break if someone was attacked with it? Broken glass found on the beach wasn't there? Where's that? Where's the bottle now that we see in the picture? Maybe Hannah went to the beach with someone other than David and the bottle of drink was spiked with a drug such as Yaba so someone could take advantage of her? And then we have the issue of the Burmese men testifying that they left the beach and went home after drinking beer and wine.

[NCFC]

Is it necessary to post a picture of the naked body of David Miller on page 21? Out of respect for the relatives I hope moderator will remove this. If you really want to see the pictures you can google them .

I'm sorry balo, but this is a discussion a brutal double murder. There are going to be graphic pictures and graphic posts about the crime. You must harden up son. I needed to see that picture as I did not know david was naked completely.

He wasn't completely naked - he had one sock on. And I myself didn't know there was a wine bottle that was standing almost next to his body. Seems that a lot of folk have a bottle of wine in their shopping trolleys but not the RTP. Strange that. Wouldn't you think the RTP would have bagged that up and tested it for finger prints and DNA? They could have used it to support their story that Hannah and David went to the beach together to make out - very British thing to do share a bottle of wine for the occasion. Or maybe it was one of the murder weapons? But no, that bottle looks intact and surely a bottle would break if someone was attacked with it? Broken glass found on the beach wasn't there? Where's that? Where's the bottle now that we see in the picture? Maybe Hannah went to the beach with someone other than David and the bottle of drink was spiked with a drug such as Yaba so someone could take advantage of her? And then we have the issue of the Burmese men testifying that they left the beach and went home after drinking beer and wine.

Aren't they seen on the video buying beer and wine?

[iReason]

"Pol.Lt.Col. Kewalee, who conducted police’s original testing of the garden hoe, told the court today that only Witheridge’s blood was found on the weapon."

"No other DNA was found on the tool, she said."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437661326

[jayjay78]

I disagree. I think is significant that Wei had an item belonging to the victim.

It also is significant the time that he stole /found the phone.

It shows he went back to the crime, by his own admission.

All of these anomalies by themselves mean nothing.

But when it is all together, it reaches the realm of coincidental impossibility. I wish people would stop cherry picking.

You may add to the list of corroborating facts that the three Burmese were seeing at the log by the beach at around 2AM, about the same time the two victims were last seen; again, from the court report:

"The plaintiffs examination presented Mr Mau Mau as a circumstantial witness to the scene before the crime took place. Mr Mau Mau, who is a friend of the two defendants, testified and confirmed that on the said date of the incident, he and the two defendants were playing the guitar and drinking beer and smoking cigarettes in the vicinity of the dry log not far from the crime scene. After that, Mr Mau Mau drove off on his motorcycle. The time indicated by Mr Mau Maus testimony was shortly before the crime was committed. Miss Phornthip Singkhamma, witness for the plaintiff, testified that she saw three persons sitting and playing a guitar at approximately 2am, which supports and give persuasiveness to the testimony given by Mr. Mau Mau. The facts provided by the testimonies in this regard are in accordance with the timecodes that appear on the from the CCTV camera footage obtained nearby the crime scene. The examination of two defendants cannot confute this fact and that there was no one else nearby except the two defendants."

He left shortly before the crimes were committed, the log they were sitting at is between the place the two victims were last seen (around 2AM) and the crime scene, and what else was at that same place?

"In addition, the point where the two defendants and Mr Mau Mau were sitting was in the same place that Mr O (no surname), the plaintiffs witness, regularly left the exhibited hoe, which is also in the vicinity of the place that the exhibited hoe was found with the two victimss blood stains."

They were there, nobody else was seen there, the murder weapon at hand, the victims must had passed that spot around the time they were there, their alibi makes more sense if one inserts "and then we killed them" in the middle, Wei Phyo had the phone of one of the victims and lied to a friend over where he found it before the news of the murders came out, etc, etc...

It takes a lot of willful denial of the facts to not see what all the evidence points at.

This is for you cat and dog, and somo.

The time of death is estimated to be between 2am and 6am.

This is for you GreenChair, not according to the prosecution expert witness Chasit Yoohat who examined the bodies at the scene and said in court the estimated time of death of both victims was 5.30am.

Also judging by the photo that was posted earlier of David being taken out of the water, he does not look like someone that had been in there for long, his skin colour was normal and I would go as far to say that I hope they tried to resuscitate him!

[AleG]

Without the phone, they probably would never have been a suspect.

Rubbish. They were suspects because they were seen on CCTV shopping in a store hours before the murders. And because they were not Thai of course.

Rubbish, they were arrested they were at the seen at the crime scene at 2am.

They left belongings at the scene.

They went back to the scene at 5am.

They stole the murdered victims phone.

They tried to destroy and conceal that phone.

All of this by their own testimony.

Actually the phone came up after they were detained as suspects, that is why it is such a crucial piece of evidence; it proves the police were on the right track since they found the phone only after detaining them. The whole string of events leading to their arrest is described at length in the judgement report, first the police detained Mau Mau for interrogation and it was his testimony that led to the other two.

A side note before quoting the report, notice that the detention of Mau Mau was on Oct. 1st, that was the same day that Panya Mamen said: "Police are confident that they will be able to issue warrant for the arrest of or arrest the suspects in the September 15 murder of two British bakcpackers on Koh Tao in a few days, said Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen, acting assistant national police chief, said today." A fact that completely demolishes the narrative that he was taken out of the investigation to change its course.

Here is the part of the report where the context of the arrests is laid out:

"From close examination of CCTV footage during the time prior to the incident, both Defendants and a friend named Mr. Mau Mau rode on a motorcycle together, carrying the exhibited guitar and stopped off to buy beer and cigarettes at a Seven-Eleven shop, which was not far from the crime scene. They then rode the motorcycle towards the crime scene. Moreover, CCTV footage showing the area in front of Good Health Shop and Intouch Shop, which are near the crime scene, also recorded the image of a suspected topless running man, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 46 Page 19 to 22. In close examination of the footage, the suspected running man did not run to the area in front of the AC 2 Shop, which also had a CCTV camera. Only the shadow of a man running into the shortcut which could access Mau Mau’s house was visible.

On 1st October B.E. 2557 (2014), Pol. Col. Cherdpong and associates took Mr. Mau Mau for interrogation and found that prior to the incident, Mr. Mau Mau and both Defendants had gone out to play the guitar, drink beer and smoke near the dry log underneath the pine tree. Thereafter, Mr. Mau Mau exchanged his shirt with the Second Defendant and borrowed the motorcycle to ride to his girlfriend’s place. Upon coming back home, Mr. Mau Mau found both Defendants were asleep. Pol. Col. asked Mr. Mau Mau to take him to the house to meet both Defendants. Upon arriving, only the First Defendant was there. From interrogations, the First Defendant could not show his passport and admitted to having illegally entered the Kingdom. The police then detained the First Defendant and seized his clothes and the motorcycle used on the night of crime for further inspection. The police interrogated the First Defendant via a Burmese Translator named Mr. Kamol Uzon, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 52, and subsequently charged the First Defendant with illegally entering and residing in the Kingdom without due permission, according to the Arrest Record, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 36.

As for the Second Defendant, the police were informed of him having left Koh Tao on a night boat and that he would reach Surat Thani at around 6 hrs. of 2nd October B.E. 2557 (2014), therefore coordinating with Investigation Ofcicers of Surat Thani province to follow up. The Second Defendant was found hiding on the night boat. The police then took his picture and sent it to Mr. Mau Mau for verification.

When Mr. Mau Mau saw the picture, he confirmed that it was the Second Defendant who had joined him drinking beer at the dry log on the night of the crime. Under interrogation the Second Defendant admitted that he did not have a passport. The police then detained him and further interrogated him via a Burmese Translator named Mr. Myat Nang, no surname. The Second Defendant was subsequently charged with having illegally entered and resided in the Kingdom without due permission, and of working without a valid work permit, according to

the Arrest Record, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 36, Page 3.

While under detention, the police officer collected buccal swab samples from both Defendants for DNA testing and to match with the DNAs of the offenders, which were found in the body of the Second Deceased. Both Defendants consented to DNA sample collection, as per the Statement of Consent for DNA Collection and the Warrant for Examination of Exhibits, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 18, Jor. 19, and the Case Photographs, marked as Jor. 47 and Jor. 48. Thereafter, the Second Defendant was brought to the Region 8 Provincial Police Station for further interrogation.

The Second Defendant confessed via the Translator that he and the First Defendant had jointly murdered both Deceased and raped the Second Deceased. The Second Defendant described the scenarios while committing offences and gestured accordingly, as in the Case Photographs marked as Jor. 33 and recorded in the VCD marked as Wor. Jor. 20. Pol. Lieut. Col. Nattapong Romsai and Pol. Col. Wichob Kerdkliang, Officers in the Investigation Panel treated the interrogation of the Second Defendant as a witness, provided that the result of DNA testing and matching with the offenders’ DNAs was still pending.

The Second Defendant admitted that he took the mobile phone from the crime scene and passed it to his friend named Mr. Ren Ren. As for the sunglasses, he had already broken them and thrown them away, according to the Record of Testimony of the Second Defendant as Witness, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 51, Page 1 to 4. Moreover, the Second Defendant admitted that he was the suspected man that appeared in the CCTV footage and signed his name to confirm accordingly, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 56. Having been informed likewise, Investigating Officers on Koh Tao went on to verify the facts as the Second Defendant had testified. The Ofcicers found the First Deceased’s mobile phone in a smashed and broken condition in the back yard of Mr. Ren Ren ’s house. The phone was then seized as an exhibit and dispatched for further examination, according to the Records of Damaged Properties and the Report of Exhibit Examinations, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 29 and Jor. 30.

Pol. Col. Krisna Pattanacharoen verified the IMEI number of the exhibited mobile phone via coordination with officers at the British Embassy of Thailand, considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased, according to the Record of Testimony, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 55. On the same day, the First Defendant confessed that he and the Second Defendant had jointly committed the offences in this case. Pol. Lieut. Col. Somsak and Pol. Lieut. Col. Tanongsak Aksornsom, Interrogating Officer, thereby interrogated the First Defendant as a witness, according to the Record of Testimony of the First Defendant as Witness, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 50 Page 1 to 3.

Subsequently, the DNA Test Results of both Defendants were reported to match the DNA of the offenders and the exhibits collected from the crime scene. Pol. Lieut. Col. Somsak thus issued a

request to the Investigating Officers at the Investigation Bureau, National Police Headquarter, to interrogate the DNA examiners as evidence, in order to justify the Request for Arrest Warrant against both Defendants, for the charges of jointly intentionally murdering other persons, jointly raping another person using any form of threat and/or harm whereby that person is unable to defend themselves, jointly raping another person in the form of gang rape causing death, and jointly stealing at night time. The Court issued the Arrest Warrant against both Defendants on the morning of 3 October B.E. 2557 (2014), according to the Request for Arrest Warrant and the copy of Arrest Warrant, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 35."

Somewhere else in the document they add more details about the phone:

"Apart from this, the Plaintiff also has circumstantial witnesses to the aftermath of the crime, namely Mr Aung Li Zaw or Ren Ren and Mr Ni Ni Aung, friends of the Second Defendant who have testified that the Second Defendant was the one to bring the exhibited mobile phone which was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased on the 15 September 2014 which was the day that the crime took place and only a few hours after the incident. Neither of these witnesses for the Plaintiff had any reason to be biased against the Second Defendant that would have caused them to incriminate the Second Defendant. Plaintiff also presented evidence relating to the examination of the exhibited mobile phone that can prove that the identification number of the mobile phone was definitely the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. In the course of the Second Defendant’s witness examination there is no supporting evidence to refute this fact."

Also this:

"In relation to the information gathered in connection with this, the witness for the Plaintiff, Police Lieutenant Colonel Natthaphong Romsai, the officer responsible for questioning the Second Defendant and Police Lieutenant Colonel Thanongsak Aksornsom, the investigating officer of the informant and who also joined in the questioning of the Second Defendant, and Mr Phitthaya Yophetch, the lawyer who attended the interrogation of both Defendants that took place on 3 October 2014, has testified consistently in Court that the Second Defendant confessed to the fact that after having attacked and raped the Second Deceased then the Second Defendant took the mobile phone and the sunglasses belonging to the First Deceased. The witness statements for the Plaintiff in this regard all testify to the facts that they have seen and learned and the witnesses for the Plaintiff had no reason to be biased against the Defendants. It would therefore have been difficult for the police officers to undertaken the investigations and made the seizure of evidence that they did without having had the information from the prior supporting witness statements. After having seized exhibited evidence, the police officers immediately investigated the exhibited mobile phone and the Plaintiff’s witness testified to confirm as to Evidence Document number Jor 30 that the identification number or IMEI of the exhibited mobile phone matched the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. Moreover, Document Jor 77 obtained from the father of the First Deceased made this factual issue more sound and credible. In this regards, the Second Defendant are unable to present any evidence at all to contradict this matter. The evidence brought by the Plaintiff is therefore credible and supports beyond doubts that the exhibited mobile phone is definitely that of the First Deceased."

And just for good measure:

"At about 8 am (note: 1 and a half hours after the bodies were found), the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Ren’s house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened."

That in particular I find it very damning, he lied to his friend about where he had "found" the phone, before the news of the murder had spread. Why would he not only lie about it, but make a lie that made him look bad? Because it's one thing to find a phone on the beach and just keep it, it's another to find a phone left by a client at his own workplace and pocket it without giving it to management in case the client comes back to look for it, the first case it's finders-keepers, the second is pretty close to theft.

But no, he deliberately hid the truth to his own friend, why would he do that before the news of the murders spread? Obviously because he was aware of how "hot" the phone was.

[AleG]

"Pol.Lt.Col. Kewalee, who conducted police’s original testing of the garden hoe, told the court today that only Witheridge’s blood was found on the weapon."

"No other DNA was found on the tool, she said."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437661326

You keep posting news articles without bothering with what came afterwards, again, from the court report:

"Pol.Gen. Kewalee Chakrabandhu, The National scientific crime detection officer examined evidence of both victims’ bloodstains from the hoe found at the crime scene. According to the result, bloodstains from both victims were found on the cotton bud used to wipe from the evidence hoe."

Obviously the press got it wrong, as they did in many other instances.

[iReason]

"She also did not supply the full documentation of the results she gathered in her forensic testing, citing a policy that bars scientists from providing investigative officers with detailed graphs of a person’s genetic makeup."

"The defendants’ lawyer, Nakhon, said he was suspicious of this reasoning, and has requested access to all of the material in order to ascertain whether any documents were tampered with."

“The prosecutor tried to be evasive by saying that no law supports giving the graphs and tables to the investigative officers, which is true,” he said.

“But once you testify to the court, you must show them.”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437661326

[iReason]

“He said the police came to arrest him and six others in their room between midnight and 1am. They handcuffed him and put him in a car. The other six were taken elsewhere, while he said he was taken to a room, stripped naked, and tortured with a plastic bag over his head. He believes the translator, Ko Kamar, also beat him, perhaps under instruction from some police officers. Then they threatened to kill him.”

“Asked by his lawyer where the interrogation took place, Zaw Linn said it was at the Ocean View Bungalows in Koh Tao. He said he was kept naked in the air-conditioned room and beaten, all the while with a plastic bag over his head. He said the police also threatened to pull out his teeth with pliers. He said he felt paralysed with fear. He also said he felt something shoved into his mouth, but couldn’t see what was happening.”

Source: https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murders-zaw-linn-details-police-torture-burma-thailand-myanmar/56989

[Slip]

I found myself recalling someone who, in the early days of the investigation, kept going on about a "jandal"... Did a quick search on Google for jandal koh tao and found this:

Bingo!.jpg

Hats off to berybert - you called it correctly almost a year ago to the day...

This is very unfair. It was not even one month ago that Greenchair posted on here that he had only just changed his mind about the guilt of the B2 only AFTER the trial and sentencing.

[AleG]

I found myself recalling someone who, in the early days of the investigation, kept going on about a "jandal"... Did a quick search on Google for jandal koh tao and found this:

Bingo!.jpg

Hats off to berybert - you called it correctly almost a year ago to the day...

This is very unfair. It was not even one month ago that Greenchair posted on here that he had only just changed his mind about the guilt of the B2 only AFTER the trial and sentencing.

Fancy that, people changing their opinion when more and clearer information emerges. The nerve of it!

[KunMatt]

"Pol.Lt.Col. Kewalee, who conducted police’s original testing of the garden hoe, told the court today that only Witheridge’s blood was found on the weapon."

"No other DNA was found on the tool, she said."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437661326

You keep posting news articles without bothering with what came afterwards, again, from the court report:

"Pol.Gen. Kewalee Chakrabandhu, The National scientific crime detection officer examined evidence of both victims’ bloodstains from the hoe found at the crime scene. According to the result, bloodstains from both victims were found on the cotton bud used to wipe from the evidence hoe."

Obviously the press got it wrong, as they did in many other instances.

You keep referring to the court report as if it is gospel but it is just as corrupted and compromised as the investigation, the prosecution and the trial. You are using the corruption that everyone has a problem with and trying to use it as proof of facts to suit your argument.

The reason everyone is suspicious of the case is because of Thailand's notoriously corrupt police and court system and the fact that the police's and the judge's narrative of events makes no sense in the real world. If you really want to convince people of your conspiracy then use something which does not come from the people who are running the conspiracy.

[boomerangutang]

"Pol.Lt.Col. Kewalee, who conducted police’s original testing of the garden hoe, told the court today that only Witheridge’s blood was found on the weapon."

"No other DNA was found on the tool, she said."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437661326

You keep posting news articles without bothering with what came afterwards, again, from the court report:

"Pol.Gen. Kewalee Chakrabandhu, The National scientific crime detection officer examined evidence of both victims’ bloodstains from the hoe found at the crime scene. According to the result, bloodstains from both victims were found on the cotton bud used to wipe from the evidence hoe."

Obviously the press got it wrong, as they did in many other instances.

The press corps didn't get it wrong, the RTP spokespeople got it wrong. Here is a partial list of police announcements which were proven wrong:

>>> No traces of David's blood were found on the hoe (changed 15 months later to say his blood was found on hoe).

>>> RTP announced they knew who the killers were. They had two suspects and would wrap up the investigation very soon. It was mostly based on Running Man video.

RTP said they knew who 'Running Man' was and would arrest him. However, they couldn't bring him in for over a week, even though they knew where he was. That suspect, Nomsod, finally showed up with his lawyer. They waved around two photos, and the boy was let off permanently, never to mentioned again by Thai officialdom. A few weeks later, the self-appointed head cop and wife went and bought $12 million in stocks at Bkk's Wattana Capital investment firm. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

>>> Hannah's phone was found behind the scapegoats' room (quickly changed to David's phone when social media proved it couldn't have been Hannah's).

>>> "The suspects' DNA matches" and later; "Nomsod's DNA doesn't match" both those declarations were probably wrong. Both conclusions were ascertained very quickly. The matches were claimed to be 100%, and the non-match of NS was 100% - both declarations completely unprofessional in various ways. Both declarations were made based on RTP in-house analysis. But wait a cottonpickenminute - just a couple of weeks earlier, RTP claimed they didn't have facilities for typing DNA - they were going to ask FBI or Singapore to assist. Yet in two weeks they miraculously not only got excellent facilities, RTP forensics can process DNA faster (and more accurately) than the most advanced labs in the world!

>>> David's wound(s) consisted only of blunt force trauma to the top of his head. (there were also stab wounds from a sharp shallow blade, but we don't her about those)

>>> "Nothing has been lost or missing" declared head cop and chief inspector and baht billionaire Somyot, after the 3rd day of the trial, hours after one of his deputies said DNA items had been lost or used up. As with many other things Somyot declared, he was lying.

>>> No DNA other than Hannah's blood found on the hoe (nearly a year later, Pontip's team found DNA from several people on the hoe)

[jayjay78]

You keep referring to the court report as if it is gospel but it is just as corrupted and compromised as the investigation, the prosecution and the trial. You are using the corruption that everyone has a problem with and trying to use it as proof of facts to suit your argument.

The reason everyone is suspicious of the case is because of Thailand's notoriously corrupt police and court system and the fact that the police's and the judge's narrative of events makes no sense in the real world. If you really want to convince people of your conspiracy then use something which does not come from the people who are running the conspiracy.

I've never seen an official court translation submitted by the Justice Department, I saw an unofficial one that was prepared by the defense or their associates but an official one? Do you know where I can get a link to this?

An unofficial report carries as much weight as an unofficial newspaper report if the jurno was in court.