Koh Tao debacle: Shoddy work from beginning to end

[Khun Han]

  On 1/21/2016 at 6:51 PM, iReason said:

"The trial of the Burmese migrant workers accused of killing two British backpackers in Thailand last year has descended into confusion on its second day, with the morning session suspended after a senior Thai police officer appeared confused about what forensic evidence from the crime his department is in possession of."

"Police Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod, the chief of police on both Koh Phangan and the neighbouring island of Koh Tao, ... said he would have to return to Koh Tao to check what evidence the police were holding."

"Speaking to lead defence lawyer Nakhon Chompuchat outside the court room, Colonel Somsak said: “I am going back to check and will call you later to tell you what I have.”

"The prosecution then asked the three judges to suspend the hearing."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11728270/British-backpacker-murder-trial-in-Thailand-descends-into-confusion-over-DNA-evidence.html

What on earth was the forensic evidence doing on Koh Tao at the start of the trial? It was supposedly sent to Bangkok for analysis, and the trial was on Koh Samui. Makes on wonder if it ever actually left Koh Tao before the the trial.

[Khun Han]

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:07 PM, iReason said:

"One of the foreign reporters said that he was unable to hire a Thai translator after dozens of locals declined the job offer, citing fear from “local mafia.”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437573990

greenchair will probably be along sooner or later to suggest that it was Maung Maung who was threatening the translators .

[TheLobster]

  On 1/21/2016 at 1:23 PM, catsanddogs said:

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?

So the 'interpreter' said that the B2 confessed saying that the first blow was from a wine bottle, which has now been identified as being at the scene of the murders but wasn't presented as evidence in court ?

I'm thinking wine bottle, DNA, finger prints, blood and where are they?

[TheLobster]

  On 1/21/2016 at 4:08 PM, manarak said:

Is there any evidence proving the accused are innocent?

Is there any credible evidence proving they are guilty?

[dundee48]

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:33 AM, greenchair said:

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

After this answer you are clearly a troll.I have never `ignored ` anybody and that is saying something on this thread,well done,you are the first.

[manarak]

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:26 PM, TheLobster said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 4:08 PM, manarak said:

Is there any evidence proving the accused are innocent?

Is there any credible evidence proving they are guilty?

plenty.

maybe you can list your elements that prove the evidence used to sentence the condemned was fabricated?

[TheLobster]

If there is credible evidence of guilt then let us know where we can find it, if there is then I'm sure most posters will have no problem with the trial verdict

[Chetzee]

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:30 AM, jimmybkk said:

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...

makes you wonder how long GC's been in the hang em high camp ... makes me question his insistence that one stooped figure was MM , when i and others suspected it was that tall sleezeball from Sunset bar .... you know the one , likes to work out , beat people up and has a taste for blondes....

[manarak]

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:43 PM, TheLobster said:

If there is credible evidence of guilt then let us know where we can find it, if there is then I'm sure most posters will have no problem with the trial verdict

we are going in circles - did you read the judgement ?

[Khun Han]

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:57 PM, manarak said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:43 PM, TheLobster said:

If there is credible evidence of guilt then let us know where we can find it, if there is then I'm sure most posters will have no problem with the trial verdict

we are going in circles - did you read the judgement ?

Yes, and you are going to go round in circles forever if you trust a judgment that isn't worth the paper it's written on.

[manarak]

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:07 PM, Khun Han said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:57 PM, manarak said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:43 PM, TheLobster said:

If there is credible evidence of guilt then let us know where we can find it, if there is then I'm sure most posters will have no problem with the trial verdict

we are going in circles - did you read the judgement ?

Yes, and you are going to go round in circles forever if you trust a judgment that isn't worth the paper it's written on.

You opinion is just that, an opinion, and it is not fact-driven.

Do you have elements to back your theory that evidence was fabricated or not?

simply not believing the Police is not a good argument.

[Khun Han]

The prosecution case and conviction revolve around DNA evidence that has been debunked. Not by anyone on Thai Visa by offering a personal opinion, but by renowned experts. Now, who would you lean toward? Renowned experts with no horse in the race, or the RTP and Thai 'justice' system who have, at best (and that's being extremely kind to them), been putting their country's tourism trade before any other considerations in this case?

[KunMatt]

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:32 PM, dundee48 said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:33 AM, greenchair said:

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

After this answer you are clearly a troll.I have never `ignored ` anybody and that is saying something on this thread,well done,you are the first.

Obviously. Did you notice how as soon as lucky11 took the trolling too far with that week long half tweet lie he has been virtually retired and at the exact same time greenchair rises up?

Probably just a coincidence.

[berybert]

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:33 AM, greenchair said:

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

Does this mean you might start trying to come up with some more money spinning ideas ? I don't know many people who would try to make money out of the murders of two young people, But you certainly did.

[berybert]

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:20 PM, manarak said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:07 PM, Khun Han said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:57 PM, manarak said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:43 PM, TheLobster said:

If there is credible evidence of guilt then let us know where we can find it, if there is then I'm sure most posters will have no problem with the trial verdict

we are going in circles - did you read the judgement ?

Yes, and you are going to go round in circles forever if you trust a judgment that isn't worth the paper it's written on.

You opinion is just that, an opinion, and it is not fact-driven.

Do you have elements to back your theory that evidence was fabricated or not?

simply not believing the Police is not a good argument.

You are aware that the Thai justice system also didn't believe the police hence the fact the case file was sent back 3 or 4 times. They then got convicted on DNA evidence which was part of the first case file that held no water.

Can you explain that ?

[Khun Han]

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:35 PM, KunMatt said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:32 PM, dundee48 said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:33 AM, greenchair said:

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

After this answer you are clearly a troll.I have never `ignored ` anybody and that is saying something on this thread,well done,you are the first.

Obviously. Did you notice how as soon as lucky11 took the trolling too far with that week long half tweet lie he has been virtually retired and at the exact same time greenchair rises up?

Probably just a coincidence.

Hmmm.....hadn't noticed that coincidence at the time. Both posters are confirmed 'lol'ers too .

[Khun Han]

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:45 PM, berybert said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:20 PM, manarak said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:07 PM, Khun Han said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:57 PM, manarak said:

we are going in circles - did you read the judgement ?

Yes, and you are going to go round in circles forever if you trust a judgment that isn't worth the paper it's written on.

You opinion is just that, an opinion, and it is not fact-driven.

Do you have elements to back your theory that evidence was fabricated or not?

simply not believing the Police is not a good argument.

You are aware that the Thai justice system also didn't believe the police hence the fact the case file was sent back 3 or 4 times. They then got convicted on DNA evidence which was part of the first case file that held no water.

Can you explain that ?

I don't think it was a case of the prosecutors not believing the police, Bert. I think they just (repeatedly) came to the conclusion that the turd needed polishing quite a lot more before they would be able to pass it off as a fine trinket.

[berybert]

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:58 PM, Khun Han said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:45 PM, berybert said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:20 PM, manarak said:

You opinion is just that, an opinion, and it is not fact-driven.

Do you have elements to back your theory that evidence was fabricated or not?

simply not believing the Police is not a good argument.

You are aware that the Thai justice system also didn't believe the police hence the fact the case file was sent back 3 or 4 times. They then got convicted on DNA evidence which was part of the first case file that held no water.

Can you explain that ?

I don't think it was a case of the prosecutors not believing the police, Bert. I think they just (repeatedly) came to the conclusion that the turd needed polishing quite a lot more before they would be able to pass it off as a fine trinket.

I don't think anyone believed the police, but if you could disappear for not giving the verdict they are paying you too, then you can understand why they came to the decision they did.

[KunMatt]

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:34 PM, manarak said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 7:26 PM, TheLobster said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 4:08 PM, manarak said:

Is there any evidence proving the accused are innocent?

Is there any credible evidence proving they are guilty?

plenty.

maybe you can list your elements that prove the evidence used to sentence the condemned was fabricated?

The whole case against the B2 was started by confessions that were given under torture and duress. All of the evidence following the confession was retro fitted to implicate the B2. Apparently the police rounded up 7 Burmese workers on Koh Tao and the best they could do was to break these 2 little guys.

The verdict of the trial was based solely on DNA evidence which was not only virtually non-existent but what little evidence was presented was extremely sketchy and could easily be forged and manipulated by the police if they needed to, which they did need to.

These two things are the fundamentals of the case against the B2 which resulted in a death sentence for murder.

All of the other circumstantial evidence, which the RTP cheerleaders repeat over and over to deflect attention away from other people, at best implicates the B2 as witnesses or thieves to the murder scene.

Now if you want a list of all the lies, wrong doings and contradictions by rhe RYP and all of ths other possible credible local suspects then it would take much longer to list and write out, and it's all been said before many times and as yet none of it has been debunked, in fact a lot of the things have only been confirmed by certain family members.

[JLCrab]

OK -- so they were maybe only witnesses. What did they witness?

[KunMatt]

  On 1/21/2016 at 11:18 PM, JLCrab said:

OK -- so they were maybe only witnesses. What did they witness?

At this stage and given your constant participation in these threads, you know very well the answer to this question but you ask it like you have just stumbled across this topic for the first time ever. So what's your game??

[JLCrab]

You keep saying they have something to say but they can't say it. Tag -- you're it.

[KunMatt]

  On 1/21/2016 at 11:25 PM, JLCrab said:

You keep saying they have something to say but they can't say it. Tag -- you're it.

Exactly, You are only here to waste time and take the thread off topic.

Isn't it strange how there isn't anyone who believes the B2's guilt and is here to discuss it properly and sensibly. All we have batting for Koh Tao is a bunch of trolls who only want to push a one sided argument or go round in circles.

[JLCrab]

... And anybody who doesn't hang on your every word is a troll. I said as of 26 DEC2014 that if they really know something, when the judge asked them, they should've said what they know. Now they've been convicted of murder and there are still people that suggest they have exculpatory information that for reasons stated and otherwise they should not divulge. Except now the court thinks they are a bunch of 'fabricators' and maybe wouldn't believe them if they actually did tell the COMPLETE truth.

[greenchair]

  On 1/21/2016 at 4:08 PM, manarak said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 3:32 PM, iReason said:

There are documented, world standard facts in post #362. Page 15.

Real ones.

I think everyone will agree that procedural errors were made by the police and also that the methods used were inadequate.

Yet, inspite of errors and even considering torture was allegedly used, I am convinced of the two Burmese men's culpability.

In Western countries procedure irregularities are enough to halt prosecution and free the accused, but a release based on investigation errors doesn't prove the accused are innocent.

Is there any evidence proving the accused are innocent?

What has been brought up by the defense?

According to the posters,

The b2 were tortured.

The confession was forced.

The dna was contaminated.

Someone else did it, with no evidence to support that.

This has been the sole argument of the defense.

They had no witnesses.

They had no alibi.

They gave the judge nothing to weigh up on. Even with around 2 million baht, a whole team of lawyers, trips to the UK coroner by Andy hall, they had nothing.

Taking out the dna and confession as they disagree.

We have from the b2 themselves.

They were at the crime at 2am.

There victims were last seen at 2am.

One stole the victims phone.

One was back at the scene at 5am to collect items they left at the scene.

They gave the phone to a friend because they were afraid they would be accused of the crime , before the crime was in the papers.

The hoe was left by the gardener in exactly the place they were sitting.

One defendant was caught on a ferry hiding on the run.

This is all by the b2 themselves.

The defense had witnesses and video footage that backed up the b2 own story.

If the western court dismissed the dna, the confession.

There is still a high probability they would have been convicted on other issues.

There doesn't always need to be a witness. It's all based on probability and possibilities.

The defense had nothing to counterbalance the probability of the prosecution. That's why they lost.

[taony]

Stop feeding the trolls or the thread will be closed. Then they get what they want and we have no thread to discuss this case.

Just ignore the fools.

[Slip]

  On 1/21/2016 at 2:35 PM, AleG said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 2:27 PM, Slip said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:30 AM, jimmybkk said:

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!

Very good. Except the point was that Greenchair claims to have changed his mind only recently, whilst the image rather suggests that to be untrue. I'm surprised you didn't make that connection. Or perhaps I am doing you a disservice.

[somo]

  On 1/21/2016 at 2:04 PM, AleG said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 9:24 AM, greenchair said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:26 AM, catsanddogs said:

  On 1/20/2016 at 8:03 AM, greenchair said:

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.

You guys keep on about the phone but there is no evidence that it belonged to Miller. Just the say so of the RTP. In fact everything is based on RTP say so nothing more.

Where is the hard evidence. I challenge you to produce it. Not say so, not suspicion but some undeniable hard facts that point to the accused.

[AleG]

  On 1/21/2016 at 6:00 PM, Khun Han said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 4:57 PM, AleG said:

You haven't discredited anything, stomping your feet and calling everything a lie only damages your own credibility.

The court report's centrepiece, it's main reason for conviction, the alleged DNA, was claimed in the report to have been tested and reported to international standards. This claim has been completely and utterly discredited by internationlly renowned legal experts and DNA analysis experts. You keep trying to spin the DNA evidence as credible by cherry picking bits and pieces of information from here, there and everywhere to support it's threadbare results (is it one, or two pieces of badly edited and dated bits of paper, I've forgotten?). But you don't fool anybody. International experts with no dog in this fight have confirmed that the DNA evidence is a nonsense. That's the centrepiece of the court report gone, utterly discredited. Therefore the report is discredited. And you keep trying to start debates with this report as some kind of incontrovertible starting point. What a laughably pathetic and lame tactic.

No it hasn't, the only people who would arrive to that conclusion would be those so eager to have their believes reinforced that wouldn't have noticed that Ms. Taupin opinion on the DNA work is not based on seeing the actual documentation and procedures for the DNA analysis.

The article where she spoke up about the issue is all about "if this, if that, then" and based on what the defense deemed necessary or convenient to tell her.

[AleG]

  On 1/22/2016 at 1:42 AM, somo said:

  On 1/21/2016 at 2:04 PM, AleG said:

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.

You guys keep on about the phone but there is no evidence that it belonged to Miller. Just the say so of the RTP. In fact everything is based on RTP say so nothing more.

Where is the hard evidence. I challenge you to produce it. Not say so, not suspicion but some undeniable hard facts that point to the accused.

It was confirmed as been Miller's phone by, among others, his own family, who checked the IMEI number against records at home.

"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."

"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."

"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."