Koh Tao debacle: Shoddy work from beginning to end

[boomerangutang]

How desperate of you to project your behaviour on other people; I'm not the one pushing conspiracy theories, you are the ones accusing anyone and everyone that doesn't buy or support your increasingly unsustainable narrative of being part of a conspiracy; all you do when presented with documented facts is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "lies lies, all lies!".

Here is a tiny portion of truth seekers' 'increasingly unsustainable narrative': Hannah's clothes and the hair 'lost' or 'missing,' Not one iota of DNA from Hannah presented in or out of court, DNA 'used up' (a near impossibility),/ RTP not looking at potentially crucial CCTV, Mon withholding/destroying potentially crucial CCTV, No recording of inquisition at 'safe house,' Same for 3 hr questioning of Mon, Several crucial witnesses not called to testify, .......shall I go on? The list is LONG.

Because misinformation like the one being repeated here is being used to promote and perpetuate hate campaigns and witch hunts, among other things.

.....witch hunts like initial head investigative cop Panya when he said, days after the crime, "we know who did it. We're going to find and arrest them."? Actually Panya did a sloppy and somewhat unprofessional job but he was still miles better than the head cop who pulled rank, pushed him out and took control from Bangkok. It didn't hurt the replacement's (and his wife's) bank accounts either. $12 million in cash (that may have been just a portion of the windfall) is not petty change from a piggy bank.

As for 'hate campaigns' ....who do we hate? Do we hate vicious murderers who get away with murder and rape? Yes. Do we hate men in authority who take millions of dollars to shield hi-so young men from scrutiny? Yes. Would we like justice to be done? Yes. Not just for the victims (D & H and the B2), but the public deserves justice: Police are paid to protect and serve the public. Police in the KT case have done the opposite, and enabled very dangerous men to continue to roam around looking for their next victims. Because authorities are not doing their jobs and instead orchestrating a cover-up, every Thai authority involved with the skewed investigation, if found to be guilty of dereliction, should be punished to the full extent of the law.

If, for example, any official was found taking a bribe for skewing the investigation, that person should be fined 3x the bribe amount (and that amount given to the scapegoats). Same for anyone offering a bribe. Any official found knowingly skewing crime data should also be fined heavily. Obviously jail terms should be added, if found guilty. I suggest 25 years for top brass, and 5 to 10 years for lower downs, depending on their rank and level of involvement in the cover-up.

[DM07]

Someone on here, who's name shall not be spoken, because it may awaken a mighty troll, posted this list:

According to the posters,

The b2 were tortured. Quiet plausible, although not proven, because no one except the RTP had access to the B2 during the first days. Especially no LAWYER, which should have been a given, if this was not a 3rd World country with no regards for human rights!

The confession was forced. See above!

The dna was contaminated. I think, we can see that one as given!

Someone else did it, with no evidence to support that. There is evidence to support the theory, that certain things have not been investigated, evidence has been destroyed! The question is "why?"!

This has been the sole argument of the defense.

They had no witnesses. The defense? They don't need no witnesses! The RTP? They have none, either!

They had no alibi. Correct! Unless, you go with the "they are animals"- argumentation and suggest, they just raped and killed in the heat of the moment!

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. Rrrrrright! The complete absence of verifiable DNA -the ONE THING the judge put front and center of his verdict, is "nothing"!

Taking out the dna and confession as they disagree. No one has to "disagree" with the DNA! As it was pointed out a million times, the DNA- "evidence" is null and void under any standard! Just not in Thailand and only the Almighty (powers that be) know why!

We have from the b2 themselves.

They were at the crime at 2am. Nope! We very well don't! We know, they were somewhere near, where the crime probably happened! But if THAT is evidence, I guess, there are several hundred people, who were as near or far: tourists, bar staff (oops!)...

There victims were last seen at 2am. In Davids case it was later, if I remember correctly, but I will let that go! But even if so: maybe they would be seen later! Let's say...on some CCTV- footage that was not handed over to and investigated by the RTP for "private reasons"!

One stole the victims phone. Nope! Just nope!

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

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. Says who? I mean all of it! Who ever said that?

The hoe was left by the gardener in exactly the place they were sitting. Which proves what exactly? Someone "left" the hoe, where someone else was sitting hours before! That justifies a death - sentence?

One defendant was caught on a ferry hiding on the run. That is the interpretation of the RTP and THEIR official standpoint! Did he confess of running? Was he actually running? There are a million reasons, why he could have been on that ferry, maybe he was even sent to Samui to runs some errants! Sent by someone, who gives orders to Burmese migrant workers and whom they obey (better without any questions asked)! Just making sh1t up here...but so are you!,

This is all by the b2 themselves.

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

If the western court dismissed the dna, the confession.

There is still a high probability they would have been convicted on other issues. Like what? The missing DNA or fingerprints on the murder weapon? The fact that the hoe is not the murder weapon of David? The fact that they may or may not have been near the scene of the crime, at some time during the loooong night?

There doesn't always need to be a witness. It's all based on probability and possibilities. Right! And now you see and admit that, pack your bags and move back under your bridge! Your "but...but...but...the phone" proves neither possibility nor probability!

The defense had nothing to counterbalance the probability of the prosecution. That's why they lost. They lost for a bunch of reasons- none of them is "not being able to counterbalance"!

Edited January 22, 2016 by DM07

[iReason]

"Thai police used two translators with a very poor grasp of the Thai language to assist in the interrogation."

"The judges hearing the case at Koh Samui District Court heard one of the translators, Ko Ye, could not read or write Thai, although he signed police statements in Thai, and he barely understood the Rakhine dialect which the suspects speak."

"He also claimed he could not read Burmese very well either."

"In court they expressed difficulty in understanding the questions put to them. One of the translators was unable to read a transcript of an interview he gave to a Burmese television station"

Source: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thai_murder_trial_translators_were_pancake_sellers_1_4 202853

[iReason]

“Tonight the defense tore into the impartial observer from the Lawyers Council of Thailand who had sat in on the prison interview, prior to the official charging of the suspects, accusing him of being negligent in his role because he offered Zaw Lin and Wei Phyo no advice at all, and didn’t tell them they could request legal advice."

“He said that because they had already confessed he wasn’t concerned about their rights. He appeared indifferent."

http://www.heart.co.uk/essex/news/local/hannah-witheridge-murder-confessions-to-be-shown/#WUjHwwcTi3OyYoiE.99

[somo]

DM07 Thanks for demolishing the prosecution case. I was going to post something similar but you said it all for me.

I don't have any agenda here and before the judgement hardly posted but since the shocking verdict we do have the court details to go on and make a reasoned judgement rather than all the crazy speculation that went on prior to it.

You have used only facts not beliefs which is why those that do believe in their guilt are now backing off and resorting to the accused not being able to prove their innocence as being good enough to justify a conviction. So in effect what they are saying is that we must blindly believe the RTP finger pointing.

The title of this thread says it all. Shoddy.

If there really was any DNA evidence as claimed against the B2 it would not have been disappeared and I would have believed in their guilt. But it was disappeared along with other things and no one can give a believable explanation for that. Whoever disappeared it is hiding something that is for sure. If it was supporting the prosecutions case then why disappear it?

[greenchair]

Lol. Dmo7.

They stole the victims phone.

" nope , just nope "

Try taking that to court. Lol

Love and kindness for your efforts. ☺

[Khun Han]

He screenshots and references his own "blind justice for koh tao" Facebook page nonsense to 'refute' something. Pure comedy gold! You just couldn't make it up! Brilliant!

[bannork]

"Thai police used two translators with a very poor grasp of the Thai language to assist in the interrogation."

"The judges hearing the case at Koh Samui District Court heard one of the translators, Ko Ye, could not read or write Thai, although he signed police statements in Thai, and he barely understood the Rakhine dialect which the suspects speak."

"He also claimed he could not read Burmese very well either."

"In court they expressed difficulty in understanding the questions put to them. One of the translators was unable to read a transcript of an interview he gave to a Burmese television station"

Source: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thai_murder_trial_translators_were_pancake_sellers_1_4 202853

That's not true regarding at least one of the translators speaking Thai- just watch the interview with him posted on TV about 3 days ago, the Channel 3 reporter understands him completely.

[iReason]

"Zaw Lin’s cellmate tells his trial he saw injuries on the suspect’s body after he was interrogated by police and confessed."

"A fellow prisoner who shared a cell with Lin claimed he saw a wound on his chest and bruising when the suspect was first admitted to a Thai jail."

"Mr Kringkrai said he heard Lin complain of pain and asked to see a doctor."

“The wound and bruising were clearly visible,” his cellmate told the court in Koh Samui which is hearing the ongoing murder trial.

"A procession of police witnesses have confirmed that both the suspects did not have any legal representation when they were being questioned."

Source: http://news.sky.com/story/1539151/koh-tao-murder-suspect-had-injuries-on-body

Edited January 22, 2016 by iReason

[iReason]

"The court in Koh Samui heard that the senior investigating police chief and his officers did not believe the killer would have taken that boat,

which left an hour or so after the estimated time of death of the pair.”

"We have the footage, but we never checked it," Police Colonel Cherdpong said.

http://news.sky.com/story/1523975/police-never-checked-cctv-after-britons-killed

Edited January 22, 2016 by iReason

[Khun Han]

He does a great job of discrediting the summing-up every time he quotes from it: the RTP lie that they got confirmation of David's phone IMEI through the British Embassy is stated as established fact.

By the way, does anyone know if the RTP provided David's family with the IMEI to verify, or the other way round? Didn't David's family find it and take it to the Royal Thai Embassy in London?

[Khun Han]

"Thai police used two translators with a very poor grasp of the Thai language to assist in the interrogation."

"The judges hearing the case at Koh Samui District Court heard one of the translators, Ko Ye, could not read or write Thai, although he signed police statements in Thai, and he barely understood the Rakhine dialect which the suspects speak."

"He also claimed he could not read Burmese very well either."

"In court they expressed difficulty in understanding the questions put to them. One of the translators was unable to read a transcript of an interview he gave to a Burmese television station"

Source: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thai_murder_trial_translators_were_pancake_sellers_1_4 202853

That's not true regarding at least one of the translators speaking Thai- just watch the interview with him posted on TV about 3 days ago, the Channel 3 reporter understands him completely.

The post you quote states that he couldn't read or write Thai, but signed documents written in Thai .

[DM07]

Lol. Dmo7.

They stole the victims phone.

" nope , just nope "

Try taking that to court. Lol

Love and kindness for your efforts. ☺

What evidence (EVIDENCE...not your BS- gut feeling or fairy tales) do you have, they STOLE the phone!

Enlighten me!

[Khun Han]

And another thing: hadn't Chris Ware left Thailand by the time the RTP found that broken phone behind the B2s room? How could he have verified to the RTP that this found phone was David's if he was on the other side of the world? Or were the judges getting confused with Chris confirming the identity of David's second phone?

[greenchair]

Lol. Dmo7.

They stole the victims phone.

" nope , just nope "

Try taking that to court. Lol

Love and kindness for your efforts. ☺

What evidence (EVIDENCE...not your BS- gut feeling or fairy tales) do you have, they STOLE the phone!

Enlighten me!

Wei Phyo said, he found the phone when he was wondering around at 5 o'clock in the morning. And pigs fly. How many phones exactly the same model as Davids do you think were lying around on that day.

I thought the phone was planted by the police, just like everybody else. We talked about it for weeks and weeks.

Andy Hall knew the phone was not a plant and never said a word.

It was only in the final hours the truth became known to most. When questioned more about the phone Wei Phyo was a bit tongue tied. He is the one that says himself , he "found the phone ".

He says himself he gave it to his friend.

Make of that what you want.

The phone is David's. So there! !!

[MrTee]

so not the black iPhone police said they found on 15th September.
Interesting..

[DM07]

Lol. Dmo7.

They stole the victims phone.

" nope , just nope "

Try taking that to court. Lol

Love and kindness for your efforts. ☺

What evidence (EVIDENCE...not your BS- gut feeling or fairy tales) do you have, they STOLE the phone!

Enlighten me!

Wei Phyo said, he found the phone when he was wondering around at 5 o'clock in the morning. And pigs fly. How many phones exactly the same model as Davids do you think were lying around on that day.

I thought the phone was planted by the police, just like everybody else. We talked about it for weeks and weeks.

Andy Hall knew the phone was not a plant and never said a word.

It was only in the final hours the truth became known to most. When questioned more about the phone Wei Phyo was a bit tongue tied. He is the one that says himself , he "found the phone ".

He says himself he gave it to his friend.

Make of that what you want.

The phone is David's. So there! !!

Dude...I really don't know, what problems you have or what drugs you are on, but...

I asked you for EVIDENCE, that the phone was stolen!

Like in this post, I capitalized the word "evidence", to make you understand, that that would be, what I want you to provide!

So, here you are, quoting one of the defendants, saying that he found the phone!

Do you understand the difference, between "finding" and "steeling"?

You can not go into a shop, take a jeans from the shelf, leave the shop without paying and claim you found the jeans!

You STOLE it!

On the other hand, if you happen to walk along the street outside of that shop and there is a bag on the ground, with a jeans in it and no obvious owner of the jeans is around, you FOUND the jeans!

Do you understand that?

What WE though and what we TALKED about does not matter!

At all!

Here is your direct quote: "He is the one that says himself , he "found the phone ".

He says himself he gave it to his friend.

Make of that what you want.

The phone is David's. So there! !!"

On what planet and in what universe is this evidence for theft?

I don't need to make anything out of it!

He said he found it- there is no EVIDENCE for anything else, soooooooooo...

[bannork]

"Thai police used two translators with a very poor grasp of the Thai language to assist in the interrogation."

"The judges hearing the case at Koh Samui District Court heard one of the translators, Ko Ye, could not read or write Thai, although he signed police statements in Thai, and he barely understood the Rakhine dialect which the suspects speak."

"He also claimed he could not read Burmese very well either."

"In court they expressed difficulty in understanding the questions put to them. One of the translators was unable to read a transcript of an interview he gave to a Burmese television station"

Source: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thai_murder_trial_translators_were_pancake_sellers_1_4 202853

That's not true regarding at least one of the translators speaking Thai- just watch the interview with him posted on TV about 3 days ago, the Channel 3 reporter understands him completely.

The post you quote states that he couldn't read or write Thai, but signed documents written in Thai .

True but he speaks and understands Thai well, not a 'very poor grasp of the Thai language' as that post says. What he says condemns both the Burmese 2, especially Win, but as to its veracity, that's another issue.

[Khun Han]

"Thai police used two translators with a very poor grasp of the Thai language to assist in the interrogation."

"The judges hearing the case at Koh Samui District Court heard one of the translators, Ko Ye, could not read or write Thai, although he signed police statements in Thai, and he barely understood the Rakhine dialect which the suspects speak."

"He also claimed he could not read Burmese very well either."

"In court they expressed difficulty in understanding the questions put to them. One of the translators was unable to read a transcript of an interview he gave to a Burmese television station"

Source: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thai_murder_trial_translators_were_pancake_sellers_1_4 202853

That's not true regarding at least one of the translators speaking Thai- just watch the interview with him posted on TV about 3 days ago, the Channel 3 reporter understands him completely.

The post you quote states that he couldn't read or write Thai, but signed documents written in Thai .

True but he speaks and understands Thai well, not a 'very poor grasp of the Thai language' as that post says. What he says condemns both the Burmese 2, especially Win, but as to its veracity, that's another issue.

So we had Burmese suspects and a translator of different ethnicities who could barely understand each others' dialects. What was the point of having a translator then?

[greenchair]

Lol. Dmo7.

They stole the victims phone.

" nope , just nope "

Try taking that to court. Lol

Love and kindness for your efforts. ☺

What evidence (EVIDENCE...not your BS- gut feeling or fairy tales) do you have, they STOLE the phone!

Enlighten me!

Wei Phyo said, he found the phone when he was wondering around at 5 o'clock in the morning. And pigs fly. How many phones exactly the same model as Davids do you think were lying around on that day.

I thought the phone was planted by the police, just like everybody else. We talked about it for weeks and weeks.

Andy Hall knew the phone was not a plant and never said a word.

It was only in the final hours the truth became known to most. When questioned more about the phone Wei Phyo was a bit tongue tied. He is the one that says himself , he "found the phone ".

He says himself he gave it to his friend.

Make of that what you want.

The phone is David's. So there! !!

Dude...I really don't know, what problems you have or what drugs you are on, but...

I asked you for EVIDENCE, that the phone was stolen!

Like in this post, I capitalized the word "evidence", to make you understand, that that would be, what I want you to provide!

So, here you are, quoting one of the defendants, saying that he found the phone!

Do you understand the difference, between "finding" and "steeling"?

You can not go into a shop, take a jeans from the shelf, leave the shop without paying and claim you found the jeans!

You STOLE it!

On the other hand, if you happen to walk along the street outside of that shop and there is a bag on the ground, with a jeans in it and no obvious owner of the jeans is around, you FOUND the jeans!

Do you understand that?

What WE though and what we TALKED about does not matter!

At all!

Here is your direct quote: "He is the one that says himself , he "found the phone ".

He says himself he gave it to his friend.

Make of that what you want.

The phone is David's. So there! !!"

On what planet and in what universe is this evidence for theft?

I don't need to make anything out of it!

He said he found it- there is no EVIDENCE for anything else, soooooooooo...

Well, I don't know what glue you've been sniffing.

The judge thought the "I found it on the beach at 5am as I was wandering around " was a bit of a stretch of the imagination also. That's why the 2nd defendant was charged with theft and ordered to pay around 16000 baht in compensation to David's family. So far I have not heard if the defense will defend this. Or if Wei Phyo pled guilty to it.

But I'm sideing with the judge on this one mate.

The judge said, you are guilty of stealing David's phone.

Nope, just nope is not going to change that sweety.

[greenchair]

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 .

Hilarious ?

[somo]

Dude...I really don't know, what problems you have or what drugs you are on, but...

I asked you for EVIDENCE, that the phone was stolen!

Like in this post, I capitalized the word "evidence", to make you understand, that that would be, what I want you to provide!

So, here you are, quoting one of the defendants, saying that he found the phone!

Do you understand the difference, between "finding" and "steeling"?

You can not go into a shop, take a jeans from the shelf, leave the shop without paying and claim you found the jeans!

You STOLE it!

On the other hand, if you happen to walk along the street outside of that shop and there is a bag on the ground, with a jeans in it and no obvious owner of the jeans is around, you FOUND the jeans!

Do you understand that?

What WE though and what we TALKED about does not matter!

At all!

Here is your direct quote: "He is the one that says himself , he "found the phone ".

He says himself he gave it to his friend.

Make of that what you want.

The phone is David's. So there! !!"

On what planet and in what universe is this evidence for theft?

I don't need to make anything out of it!

He said he found it- there is no EVIDENCE for anything else, soooooooooo...

Well, I don't know what glue you've been sniffing.

The judge thought the "I found it on the beach at 5am as I was wandering around " was a bit of a stretch of the imagination also. That's why the 2nd defendant was charged with theft and ordered to pay around 16000 baht in compensation to David's family. So far I have not heard if the defense will defend this. Or if Wei Phyo pled guilty to it.

But I'm sideing with the judge on this one mate.

The judge said, you are guilty of stealing David's phone.

Nope, just nope is not going to change that sweety.

The whole theme of this thread is that the judge made the wrong judgements yet you use his judgments to defend his judgments. Once again where is the evidence he stole rather than found the phone - there is none.

If you are going to blindly accept the courts judgement there is really nothing you can contribute to a discussion of it's shoddiness.

Your arguments consists of nothing more than _ "the judge found them guilty so they must be"

+ "The police said they did it so they must have"

I don't find that very convincing.

Where has all the evidence gone? Please answer as it is mystifying us all and is fundamental to a just outcome.

Edited January 22, 2016 by somo

[iReason]

"Under questioning, Pol. Col. Ruangtong contradicted earlier testimony, from another senior police officer, who had said CCTV images of the port area were not checked after the bodies were found, even though any perpetrator may have had time to take the early boat to the mainland."

"Police Colonel Ruangtong told the court police had indeed checked the CCTV images from the cameras at the port but they had not shown anything."

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/koh_tao_murder_trial_defendents_did_not_have_representation_during_interrogations_court_hears_1_4211590

Edited January 22, 2016 by iReason

[Khun Han]

"The whole theme of this thread is that the judge made the wrong judgements yet you use his judgments to defend his judgments."

That's clearly become the main team tactic now, supported by obsuscation/sowing confusion. I would hate to be one of the ones having to work with such paltry tools. I know it's acceptable in Thailand, but us westerners find such an approach derisory.

[Khun Han]

"Under questioning, Pol. Col. Ruangtong contradicted earlier testimony, from another senior police officer, who had said CCTV images of the port area were not checked after the bodies were found, even though any perpetrator may have had time to take the early boat to the mainland."

"Police Colonel Ruangtong told the court police had indeed checked the CCTV images from the cameras at the port but they had not shown anything."

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/koh_tao_murder_trial_defendents_did_not_have_representation_during_interrogations_court_hears_1_4211590

He would say that, wouldn't he?

[iReason]

"I insist that all officials in this case have done a good job;" Pol Gen Somyot told a press conference in Bangkok, "a perfect job."

"I confirm that there was no abuse of any of the suspects," said lead investigator Maj Gen Suwat Chaengyodsook."

And this, ladies and gentlemen; A Bold Faced Lie:

"During interrogation, the suspects' lawyer was present and physical check-ups were performed on them.”

http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-police-defend-koh-tao-investigation-as-suspects-claim-torture-49042.php

[bannork]

The roti translator is from Yangon so he obviously speaks Myanmar, the Burmese suspects are Buddhists from Rakhine, as Myanmar is the language used in state schools they surely would have understood each other unless the suspects didn't go to school or lived in a remote area.

But one thing suspicious in the interview is at approx 3 mins or perhaps a little before when you can see the translator acknowledge the presence of someone off camera with a flick of his eyes and a slight nod of the head, and after the interview Channel 3 announced during the course of the interview a plain clothes policeman came and stood nearby.

[catsanddogs]

"Under questioning, Pol. Col. Ruangtong contradicted earlier testimony, from another senior police officer, who had said CCTV images of the port area were not checked after the bodies were found, even though any perpetrator may have had time to take the early boat to the mainland."

"Police Colonel Ruangtong told the court police had indeed checked the CCTV images from the cameras at the port but they had not shown anything."

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/koh_tao_murder_trial_defendents_did_not_have_representation_during_interrogations_court_hears_1_4211590

So which one is telling porkies? I could hazard a guess...

[catsanddogs]

"I insist that all officials in this case have done a good job;" Pol Gen Somyot told a press conference in Bangkok, "a perfect job."

"I confirm that there was no abuse of any of the suspects," said lead investigator Maj Gen Suwat Chaengyodsook."

And this, ladies and gentlemen; A Bold Faced Lie:

"During interrogation, the suspects' lawyer was present and physical check-ups were performed on them.”

http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-police-defend-koh-tao-investigation-as-suspects-claim-torture-49042.php

I think 'shoddy work' as is the title of this thread is actually quite flattering to the police. Many other words come to mind but not suitable for writing here.

[Khun Han]

The roti translator is from Yangon so he obviously speaks Myanmar, the Burmese suspects are Buddhists from Rakhine, as Myanmar is the language used in state schools they surely would have understood each other unless the suspects didn't go to school or lived in a remote area.

But one thing suspicious in the interview is at approx 3 mins or perhaps a little before when you can see the translator acknowledge the presence of someone off camera with a flick of his eyes and a slight nod of the head, and after the interview Channel 3 announced during the course of the interview a plain clothes policeman came and stood nearby.

Well, we were discussing Ko Ye:

"He also claimed he could not read Burmese very well either."

So much for his Burmese education and language skills.

I'm not sure about the B2 and roti man's Burmese language skills. I thought I read somewhere he couldn't speak Burmese very well, but I might be wrong: it might have been Rakhine. I doubt it's his first language though, and how well he speaks it depends on how much he learned and had to use it when he lived in Burma.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Khun Han