Koh Tao debacle: Shoddy work from beginning to end

[AleG]

^^ Serious question coming....Who? And all this BS name calling and armchair quarterbacking is no good for anyone, its just normal people reading and giving uneducated opinions. Disrespectful is the name calling of people. If you think by continuing all this bickering is going to get truth, Ive got swampland in Florida to sell you. You want to make a difference, write the media sources you are talking about directly. This 3rd party TV thread is getting you no where except to see the same "theories" regurgitated and talked about time after time after time. And to what avail? Nothing.

Time to shut down this thread as well, it's just like "The wheels on the bus go round and round" the difference being is at least the bus is going somewhere....

Seriously, right?

None of these people were in the courthouse and listened to anything first hand. Everybody talks about being fair and this thread is full of nothing but suppositions and personal opinion. Everything is just regurgitated 3,4,5 hand information from Thai news sources (lets not forget translated by not licensed interpreters)

The last thread was shut down after 177 pages of this and right away someone starts a new one and the same people are doing the same thing all over again. We are well on our way again....

If they would focus and direct their energy towards international media sources and bombard them with all this they "might" get somewhere. All this name calling on TV gets them nothing.

And the name calling and attacks on each other....

"None of these people were in the courthouse and listened to anything first hand."

Not only that, but you can see the level of hostility lobbed against referring to the actual court documents; before the trial and all the relevant evidence being presented, contested and ruled upon there may had been a fig leaf of legitimacy for the constant speculation, now? Not so much.

Also in view of the forum's rule #2 it may indeed be a good idea to stop this nonsense.

2) You will not use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.

You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

[iReason]

Really desperate...

While completely ignoring the travesties, illegalities and incompetence that got them there.

And surely, everyone is free to take Khun Han's advice:

"Thought about reading some different threads? Thai Visa's great. There are all sorts of interesting and varied discussions going on."

[iReason]

October 16, 2015

“Pol.Maj.Gen. Paween Pongsirin, deputy commander of Region 8 Police, said the case file is now "perfect."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1413444909&section=12

October 20, 2014

“However, he said that police still have not fully completed the file, despite a statement by police last week to the contrary.”

“Police failed to secure the crime scene in the wake of the murder, and have also provided a series of unsubstantiated and contradicting statements to the press.”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1413790292

November 7, 2015

"Despite police's earlier insistence that the case was “perfect,” Tawatchai Siengjiew, chief of Region 8 Public Prosecutor Office, said today that the investigation is only "80 percent completed."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1415364373

[catsanddogs]

I somewhat agree with GC. Wei admitted in court he found a phone on the beach. Thai officialdom wants to believe that, but there are some other things Wei has claimed which officialdom doesn't want to believe. I think he did find a phone, maybe found it at the crime scene. To me that's not a great big deal. Opportunists are everywhere. He should not be executed for picking up a phone at a crime scene, if that's what he did. And Zaw didn't pick up a phone anywhere, should he be executed because he's friends with the guy who purportedly did pick up a phone?

I agree with somo and some others. The case was shoddy.

The police had everything they needed. Witnesses, dna everywhere , video footage of the suspects, belongings of the suspects at the scene, belongings of the victims at the suspects. They had everything and still they let one go.

I am shocked and angry about that. That beautiful lady was held down and raped in the worst possible way. And there are posters here that would like to see them out on a technicality. You are all correct, there was no need for torture . there was no need for a confession. And that has stained the case and gives posters fodder to defend them.

We can't be sure she was raped or even had sex. Brit forensics claimed her privates didn't show indications of sex. The Brits didn't find any DNA. If we start with a premise of believing RTP and their in-house 'specialists', then that's a slippery slope. They've already been caught in a slew of lies. Since Somyot put himself in charge, everything RTP has put forth has been designed to nail the scapegoats while concurrently shield the island tough guys who parade around with shark-tooth rings and pose on FB with guns, and grin while holding little hoes.

Oh please, where did you get that she wasn't raped and that the brits found no dna.

The brits have been very tight lipped. They had nothing that would of helped the b2.

I absolutely agree with you. The 1st defendant was at the beach playing guitar. He took a swim. Went back to his room and went to sleep. Apparently his dna mixed with another was in the victims second passage. But there was no supporting evidence and mixed dna is controversial.

I think they should have had separate lawyers and separate trials. If the 2nd defendant and Muang Muang story was the same, I would support them. But their story is quite different. I don't believe their lame explaination.

Hey, Greenchair - last year if I remember correctly you were going to go into production with tee-shirts that supported the innocence of the Burmese men. You were asking people on TV for design ideas - I take it you have shelved that idea?

[Lex Talionis]

The most obvious thing to say about threads like these is something that, surprisingly often, goes unsaid: they turn people’s private tragedies into public entertainment. If you have lost someone to violent crime, you know that, other than the loss itself, few things are as painful and galling as daily media coverage, and the license it gives to strangers to weigh in on what happened.

[iReason]

My apologies, in my post of #674, the year should be 2014 for all the statements/links.

[Chetzee]

The most obvious thing to say about threads like these is something that, surprisingly often, goes unsaid: they turn people’s private tragedies into public entertainment. If you have lost someone to violent crime, you know that, other than the loss itself, few things are as painful and galling as daily media coverage, and the license it gives to strangers to weigh in on what happened.

and the other side of the storey is concerned peoples attempt to highlight the inconsistencies in the pursuit of those responsible for that violent claim .Painfull as it maybe to some , the glaring omissions , losses , lack of procedure are all worth engaging in ..... i mean ,only the other day a wine bottle was highlighted that had not been mentioned before , even though it was just a few feet from the victim david i plain view of the RTP! ..... i could add numerous others .... but i'll just throw in the loss of hannah's clothing as another avenue worthy of the publics scrutiny .

[TheLobster]

Those quoting the translated report seem to be quite selective in their quotes.

How about this regarding Andy Hall:

Almost all of the facts in the testimony are his personal opinions. His testimony constitutes hearsay evidence because he only refutes what has been written in the reports or claims that an expert has informed him of such information. Unless a relevant expert can testify before the court to confirm the information in such reports, the plaintiff cannot cross-examine the witness in order to properly examine the fact. The testimony alone is without any weight and not worthy of being taken in to account.

Andy Hall, a farang, presented the UK Autopsy report which was subsequently disregarded apart from one contradictory statement. What they are saying is for the UK Autopsy to be accepted as evidence, the person that carried out the autopsy needs to turn up and testify in front of them. It is time the British Embassy in Bangkok and the UK government grew a pair.

As a side issue from Andy Hall's twitter feed: Bangkok South Criminal Court officially refused request of the British Embassy to Thailand for return of my passport - refer to my previous sentence.

[berybert]

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."

It certainly was Miller's phone that the police had. Now has it ever been proven that it is the same phone that was found behind the Burmese quarters ?

And is it the same phone that Chris is seen to be shaking his head at ?

[berybert]

Does anyone in the public realm have access to the UK autopsy report on Hannah? I remember reading there was no apparent sign of rape, ie tears but nothing about the DNA. In fact I thought the report was going to be released to the public this month.

What happened?

The only person that said the UK report had significant differences to the Thai one was Andy Hall. The report was submitted to the court and this is what the report says about the subject:

"Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D, testified that there was a tear to the Second Deceased’s vulva, which is consistent with the report of the second victim’s autopsy in the United Kingdom in Document Lor. 31 (page 21), submitted by the defendants, indicating that there was a tear at the vulva. This fact supports credibility to Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D,’s testimony is made in a straightforward manner."

And this is what it says about his contribution to the case:

"Mr Andrew Jonathan Hall or Andy Hall to testify on the autopsy report of the Second Deceased in Document Lor. 31, claiming that the autopsy report at the United Kingdom did not indicate an abrasive tear on the perineum from the vulva to the anus of the Second Deceased. Mr Andrew also hired an expert from the United Kingdom to conduct a gait analysis of a suspect from CCTV images, comparing that suspect to the second defendant’s motion appeared on the video footage on the date of the incident. The result of the gait analysis provided in Document Lor. 47 indicated that the second defendant was not the same man as the suspect. It is found that this witness did not learn the factual issues or was not directly involved with the case, nor is he an expert on autopsy and the analysis of the two reports. Additionally, the witness is merely the coordinator and recipient of the said reports. Almost all of the facts in the testimony are his personal opinions. His testimony constitutes hearsay evidence because he only refutes what has been written in the reports or claims that an expert has informed him of such information. Unless a relevant expert can testify before the court to confirm the information in such reports, the plaintiff cannot cross-examine the witness in order to properly examine the fact. The testimony alone is without any weight and not worthy of being taken into account."

Oh dear there you go doing it again. Quoting a Thai policeman.

Have you seen the British autopsy ? I'm guessing not. I would also guess the person you are quoting hasn't seen it either. But it doesn't stop him lying about it.

And we all know you like to keep as far away from the truth as possible.

[boomerangutang]

^^ Serious question coming....Who? And all this BS name calling and armchair quarterbacking is no good for anyone, its just normal people reading and giving uneducated opinions. Disrespectful is the name calling of people. If you think by continuing all this bickering is going to get truth, Ive got swampland in Florida to sell you. You want to make a difference, write the media sources you are talking about directly. This 3rd party TV thread is getting you no where except to see the same "theories" regurgitated and talked about time after time after time. And to what avail? Nothing.

Ok, we get it. You don't like that there's discussion continuing for over a year on one crime. Nobody is forcing you to read these threads. And there has been some communication with media by some members herein. Sorry for repetitions. That's what people tend to do when they witness a gross injustice.

I write letters to newspapers. Some get published. Years ago I wrote about how dirt-poor hill tribers in northern Thailand were required to pay large amounts for retail clothing, shoes, backpacks and new books each year for each of their children who wanted to go to school. Some families were keeping their kids from school because the expense was too high. A few months later, Bkk politicians approved a program for defraying part of those costs for students. Did my letters have any affect? I don't know, but it's possible.

[berybert]

^^ Serious question coming....Who? And all this BS name calling and armchair quarterbacking is no good for anyone, its just normal people reading and giving uneducated opinions. Disrespectful is the name calling of people. If you think by continuing all this bickering is going to get truth, Ive got swampland in Florida to sell you. You want to make a difference, write the media sources you are talking about directly. This 3rd party TV thread is getting you no where except to see the same "theories" regurgitated and talked about time after time after time. And to what avail? Nothing.

Ok, we get it. You don't like that there's discussion continuing for over a year on one crime. Nobody is forcing you to read these threads. And there has been some communication with media by some members herein. Sorry for repetitions. That's what people tend to do when they witness a gross injustice.

I write letters to newspapers. Some get published. Years ago I wrote about how dirt-poor hill tribers in northern Thailand were required to pay large amounts for retail clothing, shoes, backpacks and new books each year for each of their children who wanted to go to school. Some families were keeping their kids from school because the expense was too high. A few months later, Bkk politicians approved a program for defraying part of those costs for students. Did my letters have any affect? I don't know, but it's possible.

I like being having an uneducated opinion. I like that I am so stupid I can ask why does the same weapon make completely different wounds on different people.

Its good to be so dumb you need to question why vital pieces of evidence have gone missing or why a different hoe was bought into court rather than the one used during the crime. Etc etc etc.

I would hate to be so educated that I was unable to ask any questions.

By the way do you think you could build an airport on your swampland ? I can pass you onto an airport authority that would be more than willing to buy it off you.

[jimmybkk]

I somewhat agree with GC. Wei admitted in court he found a phone on the beach. Thai officialdom wants to believe that, but there are some other things Wei has claimed which officialdom doesn't want to believe. I think he did find a phone, maybe found it at the crime scene. To me that's not a great big deal. Opportunists are everywhere. He should not be executed for picking up a phone at a crime scene, if that's what he did. And Zaw didn't pick up a phone anywhere, should he be executed because he's friends with the guy who purportedly did pick up a phone?

I agree with somo and some others. The case was shoddy.

The police had everything they needed. Witnesses, dna everywhere , video footage of the suspects, belongings of the suspects at the scene, belongings of the victims at the suspects. They had everything and still they let one go.

I am shocked and angry about that. That beautiful lady was held down and raped in the worst possible way. And there are posters here that would like to see them out on a technicality. You are all correct, there was no need for torture . there was no need for a confession. And that has stained the case and gives posters fodder to defend them.

We can't be sure she was raped or even had sex. Brit forensics claimed her privates didn't show indications of sex. The Brits didn't find any DNA. If we start with a premise of believing RTP and their in-house 'specialists', then that's a slippery slope. They've already been caught in a slew of lies. Since Somyot put himself in charge, everything RTP has put forth has been designed to nail the scapegoats while concurrently shield the island tough guys who parade around with shark-tooth rings and pose on FB with guns, and grin while holding little hoes.

Oh please, where did you get that she wasn't raped and that the brits found no dna.

The brits have been very tight lipped. They had nothing that would of helped the b2.

I absolutely agree with you. The 1st defendant was at the beach playing guitar. He took a swim. Went back to his room and went to sleep. Apparently his dna mixed with another was in the victims second passage. But there was no supporting evidence and mixed dna is controversial.

I think they should have had separate lawyers and separate trials. If the 2nd defendant and Muang Muang story was the same, I would support them. But their story is quite different. I don't believe their lame explaination.

Hey, Greenchair - last year if I remember correctly you were going to go into production with tee-shirts that supported the innocence of the Burmese men. You were asking people on TV for design ideas - I take it you have shelved that idea?

It's a classic ploy that's been used in advertising campaigns for years.

Anyone remember Shirley, full-time housewife from Dagenham. Essex? As a mother of 2 young boys, Sam, 7 and Jacob, 9, Shirley understood the importance of using a top-quality washing powder, nothing but the best was good enough for Shirley which is why she used Brand X. So when a TV crew from Dazzle showed up at her door to ask Shirley if she'd like to try a box of the new and improved Dazzle she was having none of it - she was perfectly happy with her Brand X powder and had no intention of switching. Only when the folks from Dazzle offered to swap her old box of Brand X for 2 new boxes of Dazzle did Shirley reluctantly agree to give it a try. Fast forward a week and the Dazzle crew show up on Shirley's doorstep again with her old box of Brand X powder and ask her if she'd like to swap back. "No chance!" says Shirley, clutching a box of Dazzle firmly to her chest and promptly slamming the door in the faces of the TV crew who are left looking somewhat despondent and bemused, unsure quite what they should do with Shirley's old box of Brand X.

Now, Shirley didn't quite go so far as offering to produce Dazzle t-shirts, but I think you get the point...

Ad campaign basics: If choosing to use a "convert" in your ad campaign, it is essential to demonstrate the loyalty of the convert to their former brand to maximize the impact of their "conversion".

[PaPiPuPePo]

I agree with somo and some others. The case was shoddy.

The police had everything they needed. Witnesses, dna everywhere , video footage of the suspects, belongings of the suspects at the scene, belongings of the victims at the suspects. They had everything and still they let one go.

I am shocked and angry about that. That beautiful lady was held down and raped in the worst possible way. And there are posters here that would like to see them out on a technicality. You are all correct, there was no need for torture . there was no need for a confession. And that has stained the case and gives posters fodder to defend them.

This statement is the cart--your foregone conclusion that the B2 did the crime--leading the horse--the evidence which you quote but a lot of it can point in many directions.

So you've changed your mind, good for you. Why are you so invested in defending the judge's decision? If you're willing to engage in this much speculation and specious reasoning to defend it, one has to wonder what's up.

[PaPiPuPePo]

The most obvious thing to say about threads like these is something that, surprisingly often, goes unsaid: they turn people’s private tragedies into public entertainment. If you have lost someone to violent crime, you know that, other than the loss itself, few things are as painful and galling as daily media coverage, and the license it gives to strangers to weigh in on what happened.

I don't think you can make such a blanket statement, for some it may be entertaining--it seems some are indeed entertained by trolling others--but it's anything but entertainment for a number of the people posting on these threads who are obviously trying sincerely to burrow down through the many layers of deceit around this case in order to find some more nuggets of useful information. They are there.

[boomerangutang]

The most obvious thing to say about threads like these is something that, surprisingly often, goes unsaid: they turn peoples private tragedies into public entertainment. If you have lost someone to violent crime, you know that, other than the loss itself, few things are as painful and galling as daily media coverage, and the license it gives to strangers to weigh in on what happened.

Speaking of strangers: if my daughter was murdered, I'd be welcome to all sorts of 'strangers' if they could shed light on what happened. Sure, some info might be pap, but even if just one had some useful info (like what sort of weapon was used, or who were the most likely suspects) ....I would be most appreciative.

Yet in this case, we're not even getting the most basic info - from the people who are paid and trained to ascertain such things. 16 months after the crime, we still don't have a good idea of what weapon(s) were used to cause David's wounds, and we still have heard nothing truthful from authorities concerning the most likely perps. What we've heard from Thai authorities falls in to two neat categories: A. Bust the scapegoats by whatever means possible, while B. shielding the most likely perps. Not a mention of Nomsod or Mon as suspects since NS farcical DNA comparison. Even the head investigating cop admitted that he didn't think NS's DNA was ever typed or compared to anything. What could it be compared to? There is not DNA from Hannah, and probably never was. Brits didn't find any, and all we have from Thai authorities is hearsay and a one page piece of paper re; DNA with scribbles and cross-outs.

[greenchair]

I somewhat agree with GC. Wei admitted in court he found a phone on the beach. Thai officialdom wants to believe that, but there are some other things Wei has claimed which officialdom doesn't want to believe. I think he did find a phone, maybe found it at the crime scene. To me that's not a great big deal. Opportunists are everywhere. He should not be executed for picking up a phone at a crime scene, if that's what he did. And Zaw didn't pick up a phone anywhere, should he be executed because he's friends with the guy who purportedly did pick up a phone?

I agree with somo and some others. The case was shoddy.

The police had everything they needed. Witnesses, dna everywhere , video footage of the suspects, belongings of the suspects at the scene, belongings of the victims at the suspects. They had everything and still they let one go.

I am shocked and angry about that. That beautiful lady was held down and raped in the worst possible way. And there are posters here that would like to see them out on a technicality. You are all correct, there was no need for torture . there was no need for a confession. And that has stained the case and gives posters fodder to defend them.

We can't be sure she was raped or even had sex. Brit forensics claimed her privates didn't show indications of sex. The Brits didn't find any DNA. If we start with a premise of believing RTP and their in-house 'specialists', then that's a slippery slope. They've already been caught in a slew of lies. Since Somyot put himself in charge, everything RTP has put forth has been designed to nail the scapegoats while concurrently shield the island tough guys who parade around with shark-tooth rings and pose on FB with guns, and grin while holding little hoes.

Oh please, where did you get that she wasn't raped and that the brits found no dna.

The brits have been very tight lipped. They had nothing that would of helped the b2.

I absolutely agree with you. The 1st defendant was at the beach playing guitar. He took a swim. Went back to his room and went to sleep. Apparently his dna mixed with another was in the victims second passage. But there was no supporting evidence and mixed dna is controversial.

I think they should have had separate lawyers and separate trials. If the 2nd defendant and Muang Muang story was the same, I would support them. But their story is quite different. I don't believe their lame explaination.

Please supply evidence of the above claim. "Apparently" is just not good enough.

Not need to. The prosecution supplied it. The defense were not able to defend it. The gavel went down. All I'm saying is, if they want to win an appeal they need a new strategy. We were tortured, we didn't have an interpreter, our rights have been violated didn't win in the first court, and won't win in the appeals court either. Finding plausible explanations might.

[greenchair]

I somewhat agree with GC. Wei admitted in court he found a phone on the beach. Thai officialdom wants to believe that, but there are some other things Wei has claimed which officialdom doesn't want to believe. I think he did find a phone, maybe found it at the crime scene. To me that's not a great big deal. Opportunists are everywhere. He should not be executed for picking up a phone at a crime scene, if that's what he did. And Zaw didn't pick up a phone anywhere, should he be executed because he's friends with the guy who purportedly did pick up a phone?

I agree with somo and some others. The case was shoddy.
The police had everything they needed. Witnesses, dna everywhere , video footage of the suspects, belongings of the suspects at the scene, belongings of the victims at the suspects. They had everything and still they let one go.
I am shocked and angry about that. That beautiful lady was held down and raped in the worst possible way. And there are posters here that would like to see them out on a technicality. You are all correct, there was no need for torture . there was no need for a confession. And that has stained the case and gives posters fodder to defend them.

We can't be sure she was raped or even had sex. Brit forensics claimed her privates didn't show indications of sex. The Brits didn't find any DNA. If we start with a premise of believing RTP and their in-house 'specialists', then that's a slippery slope. They've already been caught in a slew of lies. Since Somyot put himself in charge, everything RTP has put forth has been designed to nail the scapegoats while concurrently shield the island tough guys who parade around with shark-tooth rings and pose on FB with guns, and grin while holding little hoes.

Oh please, where did you get that she wasn't raped and that the brits found no dna.
The brits have been very tight lipped. They had nothing that would of helped the b2.
I absolutely agree with you. The 1st defendant was at the beach playing guitar. He took a swim. Went back to his room and went to sleep. Apparently his dna mixed with another was in the victims second passage. But there was no supporting evidence and mixed dna is controversial.
I think they should have had separate lawyers and separate trials. If the 2nd defendant and Muang Muang story was the same, I would support them. But their story is quite different. I don't believe their lame explaination.

Hey, Greenchair - last year if I remember correctly you were going to go into production with tee-shirts that supported the innocence of the Burmese men. You were asking people on TV for design ideas - I take it you have shelved that idea?

It's a classic ploy that's been used in advertising campaigns for years.

Anyone remember Shirley, full-time housewife from Dagenham. Essex? As a mother of 2 young boys, Sam, 7 and Jacob, 9, Shirley understood the importance of using a top-quality washing powder, nothing but the best was good enough for Shirley which is why she used Brand X. So when a TV crew from Dazzle showed up at her door to ask Shirley if she'd like to try a box of the new and improved Dazzle she was having none of it - she was perfectly happy with her Brand X powder and had no intention of switching. Only when the folks from Dazzle offered to swap her old box of Brand X for 2 new boxes of Dazzle did Shirley reluctantly agree to give it a try. Fast forward a week and the Dazzle crew show up on Shirley's doorstep again with her old box of Brand X powder and ask her if she'd like to swap back. "No chance!" says Shirley, clutching a box of Dazzle firmly to her chest and promptly slamming the door in the faces of the TV crew who are left looking somewhat despondent and bemused, unsure quite what they should do with Shirley's old box of Brand X.

Now, Shirley didn't quite go so far as offering to produce Dazzle t-shirts, but I think you get the point...

Ad campaign basics: If choosing to use a "convert" in your ad campaign, it is essential to demonstrate the loyalty of the convert to their former brand to maximize the impact of their "conversion".

Ohho, I don't know about this Shirley mumbo jumbo. but I am glad you mentioned about the tshirt, because just the other day someone accused me of always being against the b2, when in fact, I even donated to their defense fund. I did waver for a short time, as berybert pointed out. But was firm in my belief after that. When I found out I was lied to by omission by the defense team, I saw red. Now I might make t shirts to campaign to keep them in there. That poor girl. Wouldn't upset me if they got some of their own medicine.

[iReason]

"The suspects' lawyers also did a dramatic about turn and said they no longer required re-testing of the DNA found on the victims' bodies, despite demanding it for months."

"They said "it would serve no useful purpose" as they "could not control the process" and the results would not be directly returned to them."

"The court saw a video of Phyo allegedly showing how he had attacked Mr Miller with a garden hoe, hit Ms Witheridge with the same implement and then raped her,

before his co-accused allegedly raped and killed her."

"However, the information the suspect gave in the video contradicted testimony given by two translators, who were present at other interviews where the pair also allegedly confessed."

"In both those cases they said it was Lin who had picked up the hoe and delivered the first blow to Mr Miller."

http://news.sky.com/story/1539622/mother-sobs-over-backpacker-murder-re-enactment

[iReason]

"According to Nakhon, the defense has not received a number of requested documents from the prosecution, including photographs taken during the post-mortem examinations,

and required paper trails – known as a ‘chains of custody’ – that document the collection, movement, and current location of all physical evidence."

“We haven’t received any of this,” he said.

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

[iReason]

"The head of Thailand’s Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) said the DNA of two males was found on the handle of a garden hoe,

but it doesn’t match that of the two Burmese defendants or the victims."

"But CIFS chief, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, said there was sufficient DNA to test."

"Now both Dr Pornthip and Mr Chomphuchat have called on the police to find out whose DNA is on the murder weapon."

“Those people must have been present at the scene of the killings,” said Mr Chomphuchat. “Investigators should now find those suspects and take action.”

"Insufficient photographs had been taken of the scene to be useful to a forensic examination, and the chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete, she said."

“The documents have been edited. The dates are not right,” Dr Pornthip, who has decades of experience in forensic science, told the three sitting judges."

"Dr Pornthip insisted independent verification was essential until Thailand could upgrade its DNA regulations and processes."

Source: http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/dna_found_on_murder_weapon_does_not_match_with_two_men_on_trial_for_killing_hannah_witheridge_1_4228734

[somo]

"The suspects' lawyers also did a dramatic about turn and said they no longer required re-testing of the DNA found on the victims' bodies, despite demanding it for months."

"They said "it would serve no useful purpose" as they "could not control the process" and the results would not be directly returned to them."

"The court saw a video of Phyo allegedly showing how he had attacked Mr Miller with a garden hoe, hit Ms Witheridge with the same implement and then raped her,

before his co-accused allegedly raped and killed her."

"However, the information the suspect gave in the video contradicted testimony given by two translators, who were present at other interviews where the pair also allegedly confessed."

"In both those cases they said it was Lin who had picked up the hoe and delivered the first blow to Mr Miller."

http://news.sky.com/story/1539622/mother-sobs-over-backpacker-murder-re-enactment

That's why they said any retesting would be pointless as it would be done by the RTP and not an independent body. The RTP were unlikely to contradict their previous findings and anyway they claimed there was no DNA left for retesting. Bizarre.

[rockingrobin]

Does anyone in the public realm have access to the UK autopsy report on Hannah? I remember reading there was no apparent sign of rape, ie tears but nothing about the DNA. In fact I thought the report was going to be released to the public this month.

What happened?

The only person that said the UK report had significant differences to the Thai one was Andy Hall. The report was submitted to the court and this is what the report says about the subject:

"Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D, testified that there was a tear to the Second Deceased’s vulva, which is consistent with the report of the second victim’s autopsy in the United Kingdom in Document Lor. 31 (page 21), submitted by the defendants, indicating that there was a tear at the vulva. This fact supports credibility to Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D,’s testimony is made in a straightforward manner."

And this is what it says about his contribution to the case:

"Mr Andrew Jonathan Hall or Andy Hall to testify on the autopsy report of the Second Deceased in Document Lor. 31, claiming that the autopsy report at the United Kingdom did not indicate an abrasive tear on the perineum from the vulva to the anus of the Second Deceased. Mr Andrew also hired an expert from the United Kingdom to conduct a gait analysis of a suspect from CCTV images, comparing that suspect to the second defendant’s motion appeared on the video footage on the date of the incident. The result of the gait analysis provided in Document Lor. 47 indicated that the second defendant was not the same man as the suspect. It is found that this witness did not learn the factual issues or was not directly involved with the case, nor is he an expert on autopsy and the analysis of the two reports. Additionally, the witness is merely the coordinator and recipient of the said reports. Almost all of the facts in the testimony are his personal opinions. His testimony constitutes hearsay evidence because he only refutes what has been written in the reports or claims that an expert has informed him of such information. Unless a relevant expert can testify before the court to confirm the information in such reports, the plaintiff cannot cross-examine the witness in order to properly examine the fact. The testimony alone is without any weight and not worthy of being taken into account."

Oh dear there you go doing it again. Quoting a Thai policeman.

Have you seen the British autopsy ? I'm guessing not. I would also guess the person you are quoting hasn't seen it either. But it doesn't stop him lying about it.

And we all know you like to keep as far away from the truth as possible.

What we have is the court accepting the UK autopsy when it supports the prosecution

submitted by the defendants, indicating that there was a tear at the vulva. This fact supports credibility to Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D,’s testimony is made in a straightforward manner.

But when it disagrees it is hearsay and carries no weight

[rockingrobin]

I agree with somo and some others. The case was shoddy.

The police had everything they needed. Witnesses, dna everywhere , video footage of the suspects, belongings of the suspects at the scene, belongings of the victims at the suspects. They had everything and still they let one go.

I am shocked and angry about that. That beautiful lady was held down and raped in the worst possible way. And there are posters here that would like to see them out on a technicality. You are all correct, there was no need for torture . there was no need for a confession. And that has stained the case and gives posters fodder to defend them.

GC

' They still let one go ' I am presuming you mean Muang Muang

Now why would they let MM go, the RTP detained and questioned him and found he was not involved.

[iReason]

"Nakhon Chomphuchat intimated that control of the re-testing procedure was the issue, as the results would not be directly returned to the defense, but to the police and then the court."

“This is a very sensitive issue,” said Mr Chomphuchat."

“The lawyers cannot speak of it. There is also a lot of debate in the lawyers’ team on this issue. But if they retest it we have no control over that testing process.”

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/defence_team_reverse_demands_to_retest_dna_found_on_body_of_hannah_witheridge_1_4204183

[KunMatt]

"Nakhon Chomphuchat intimated that control of the re-testing procedure was the issue, as the results would not be directly returned to the defense, but to the police and then the court."

“This is a very sensitive issue,” said Mr Chomphuchat."

“The lawyers cannot speak of it. There is also a lot of debate in the lawyers’ team on this issue. But if they retest it we have no control over that testing process.”

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/defence_team_reverse_demands_to_retest_dna_found_on_body_of_hannah_witheridge_1_4204183

We might as well all set this quote as our signature because even thought it's been explained about 50 times already, I guarantee that within the next 24 hours either AleG or Greenchair will say that the reason the B2 should be executed is because the DNA evidence was not retested by the defense, but they won't mention the reason being as explained above.

[iReason]

Yup.

[KunMatt]

I somewhat agree with GC. Wei admitted in court he found a phone on the beach. Thai officialdom wants to believe that, but there are some other things Wei has claimed which officialdom doesn't want to believe. I think he did find a phone, maybe found it at the crime scene. To me that's not a great big deal. Opportunists are everywhere. He should not be executed for picking up a phone at a crime scene, if that's what he did. And Zaw didn't pick up a phone anywhere, should he be executed because he's friends with the guy who purportedly did pick up a phone?

I agree with somo and some others. The case was shoddy.
The police had everything they needed. Witnesses, dna everywhere , video footage of the suspects, belongings of the suspects at the scene, belongings of the victims at the suspects. They had everything and still they let one go.
I am shocked and angry about that. That beautiful lady was held down and raped in the worst possible way. And there are posters here that would like to see them out on a technicality. You are all correct, there was no need for torture . there was no need for a confession. And that has stained the case and gives posters fodder to defend them.

We can't be sure she was raped or even had sex. Brit forensics claimed her privates didn't show indications of sex. The Brits didn't find any DNA. If we start with a premise of believing RTP and their in-house 'specialists', then that's a slippery slope. They've already been caught in a slew of lies. Since Somyot put himself in charge, everything RTP has put forth has been designed to nail the scapegoats while concurrently shield the island tough guys who parade around with shark-tooth rings and pose on FB with guns, and grin while holding little hoes.

Oh please, where did you get that she wasn't raped and that the brits found no dna.
The brits have been very tight lipped. They had nothing that would of helped the b2.
I absolutely agree with you. The 1st defendant was at the beach playing guitar. He took a swim. Went back to his room and went to sleep. Apparently his dna mixed with another was in the victims second passage. But there was no supporting evidence and mixed dna is controversial.
I think they should have had separate lawyers and separate trials. If the 2nd defendant and Muang Muang story was the same, I would support them. But their story is quite different. I don't believe their lame explaination.

Hey, Greenchair - last year if I remember correctly you were going to go into production with tee-shirts that supported the innocence of the Burmese men. You were asking people on TV for design ideas - I take it you have shelved that idea?

It's a classic ploy that's been used in advertising campaigns for years.

Anyone remember Shirley, full-time housewife from Dagenham. Essex? As a mother of 2 young boys, Sam, 7 and Jacob, 9, Shirley understood the importance of using a top-quality washing powder, nothing but the best was good enough for Shirley which is why she used Brand X. So when a TV crew from Dazzle showed up at her door to ask Shirley if she'd like to try a box of the new and improved Dazzle she was having none of it - she was perfectly happy with her Brand X powder and had no intention of switching. Only when the folks from Dazzle offered to swap her old box of Brand X for 2 new boxes of Dazzle did Shirley reluctantly agree to give it a try. Fast forward a week and the Dazzle crew show up on Shirley's doorstep again with her old box of Brand X powder and ask her if she'd like to swap back. "No chance!" says Shirley, clutching a box of Dazzle firmly to her chest and promptly slamming the door in the faces of the TV crew who are left looking somewhat despondent and bemused, unsure quite what they should do with Shirley's old box of Brand X.

Now, Shirley didn't quite go so far as offering to produce Dazzle t-shirts, but I think you get the point...

Ad campaign basics: If choosing to use a "convert" in your ad campaign, it is essential to demonstrate the loyalty of the convert to their former brand to maximize the impact of their "conversion".

Ohho, I don't know about this Shirley mumbo jumbo. but I am glad you mentioned about the tshirt, because just the other day someone accused me of always being against the b2, when in fact, I even donated to their defense fund. I did waver for a short time, as berybert pointed out. But was firm in my belief after that. When I found out I was lied to by omission by the defense team, I saw red. Now I might make t shirts to campaign to keep them in there. That poor girl. Wouldn't upset me if they got some of their own medicine.

Interesting that you 180'd on the B2 for a lie and sentenced them to death but you side with the RTP who have lied and manipulated everything along the way to protect the real killers and set up the B2.

There is no way you honestly believe the RTP's side of the story if you care so much about honesty and integrity like you claim here.

Hypocrite much?

[iReason]

"The head of Thailand's central forensics institute told the trial that two profiles were found on the hoe - one a full sample,

the other a partial sample, -but neither matched the defendants."

"The DNA analysis was ordered by the defence after police failed to do their own tests."

"Police had said they examined the hoe with a microscope and were confident there were no samples on it."

http://news.sky.com/story/1550571/thai-murders-dna-does-not-match-defendants

[Khun Han]

Does anyone in the public realm have access to the UK autopsy report on Hannah? I remember reading there was no apparent sign of rape, ie tears but nothing about the DNA. In fact I thought the report was going to be released to the public this month.

What happened?

The only person that said the UK report had significant differences to the Thai one was Andy Hall. The report was submitted to the court and this is what the report says about the subject:

"Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D, testified that there was a tear to the Second Deceased’s vulva, which is consistent with the report of the second victim’s autopsy in the United Kingdom in Document Lor. 31 (page 21), submitted by the defendants, indicating that there was a tear at the vulva. This fact supports credibility to Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D,’s testimony is made in a straightforward manner."

And this is what it says about his contribution to the case:

"Mr Andrew Jonathan Hall or Andy Hall to testify on the autopsy report of the Second Deceased in Document Lor. 31, claiming that the autopsy report at the United Kingdom did not indicate an abrasive tear on the perineum from the vulva to the anus of the Second Deceased. Mr Andrew also hired an expert from the United Kingdom to conduct a gait analysis of a suspect from CCTV images, comparing that suspect to the second defendant’s motion appeared on the video footage on the date of the incident. The result of the gait analysis provided in Document Lor. 47 indicated that the second defendant was not the same man as the suspect. It is found that this witness did not learn the factual issues or was not directly involved with the case, nor is he an expert on autopsy and the analysis of the two reports. Additionally, the witness is merely the coordinator and recipient of the said reports. Almost all of the facts in the testimony are his personal opinions. His testimony constitutes hearsay evidence because he only refutes what has been written in the reports or claims that an expert has informed him of such information. Unless a relevant expert can testify before the court to confirm the information in such reports, the plaintiff cannot cross-examine the witness in order to properly examine the fact. The testimony alone is without any weight and not worthy of being taken into account."

Oh dear there you go doing it again. Quoting a Thai policeman.

Have you seen the British autopsy ? I'm guessing not. I would also guess the person you are quoting hasn't seen it either. But it doesn't stop him lying about it.

And we all know you like to keep as far away from the truth as possible.

What we have is the court accepting the UK autopsy when it supports the prosecution

submitted by the defendants, indicating that there was a tear at the vulva. This fact supports credibility to Police Colonel Dr Pawut, M.D,’s testimony is made in a straightforward manner.

But when it disagrees it is hearsay and carries no weight

The court report is like a piece of Swiss cheese. If it were to be presented to a real court as an evidenced scenario by a legal advocate, it would be torn into tiny shreds by the opposing advocate. What justice! What a farce!