British man found dead on Koh Tao

[smedly]

all of it is speculation including the police and your version of possibilities, you and the police were not there when this person died, the only sound evidence is that the injuries do not fit with yours and the police version of events and since there were no witnesses and no cctv (according to the police) all of it is speculation except what the family and friends have said as they saw the body - injuries that are not consistent with a fall into a swimming pool, I have been swimming from the age of three and never got a bruise from jumping diving into a swimming pool even from a 30m diving board, also the claimed jump from the disco box and hitting anything but water is rubbish, the disco box on the near side is level with the pool so even if he dropped straight down he would still hit water

The UK report would have listed all the injuries they found on the body, there would be no way to determine if these injuries occurred at the scene and were part of a possible assault at that time or from a few days before, if a coroner cannot come to a decisive conclusion as to how and when these injuries occurred they will not speculate beyond what is reasonable and basically conclude nothing - they will rarely speculate

All that is really known (or has been disclosed) about this incident is - that he was found dead in a swimming pool and he had bruising on his body as observed by friends and family - nothing else is known and that is the problem with this whole thing, nobody saw heard anything and cctv does not exist...........nothing except a dead body was found floating in a pool - I for one find that highly suspicious IMO

Where do you get "the only sound evidence " from? Surely that is speculation?

It is what the family and friends observed on the body and somehow the police excluded to mention so it is not speculation, if you want to accuse them of telling lies then that is entirely different

Not accusing anyone of anything. But sound evidence seems to not exist. Speculation on your part.

you very obviously do not understand the what speculation means

The family and friends saw the injuries they even have photos - that is not speculation that is fact, if you do not believe them then I suggest you take it up with them

I am not going to respond to your baiting nonsense again, go sort it out yourself if you don't believe them

[luke000]

The UK coroner didn't declare an accident, but and open verdict. Get the facts aligned with the spurious hearsay. And I agree the death is suspicious.

Open verdict, i.e. is not murdered, but simply circumstances how death occurred not established.

No, an "open verdict" dont mean that he wasnt murdered , it also doesnt mean that he was murdered , it means that they dont know , Need further investigation

[alanrchase]

all of it is speculation including the police and your version of possibilities, you and the police were not there when this person died, the only sound evidence is that the injuries do not fit with yours and the police version of events and since there were no witnesses and no cctv (according to the police) all of it is speculation except what the family and friends have said as they saw the body - injuries that are not consistent with a fall into a swimming pool, I have been swimming from the age of three and never got a bruise from jumping diving into a swimming pool even from a 30m diving board, also the claimed jump from the disco box and hitting anything but water is rubbish, the disco box on the near side is level with the pool so even if he dropped straight down he would still hit water

The UK report would have listed all the injuries they found on the body, there would be no way to determine if these injuries occurred at the scene and were part of a possible assault at that time or from a few days before, if a coroner cannot come to a decisive conclusion as to how and when these injuries occurred they will not speculate beyond what is reasonable and basically conclude nothing - they will rarely speculate

All that is really known (or has been disclosed) about this incident is - that he was found dead in a swimming pool and he had bruising on his body as observed by friends and family - nothing else is known and that is the problem with this whole thing, nobody saw heard anything and cctv does not exist...........nothing except a dead body was found floating in a pool - I for one find that highly suspicious IMO

Where do you get "the only sound evidence " from? Surely that is speculation?

It is what the family and friends observed on the body and somehow the police excluded to mention so it is not speculation, if you want to accuse them of telling lies then that is entirely different

Not accusing anyone of anything. But sound evidence seems to not exist. Speculation on your part.

you very obviously do not understand the what speculation means

The family and friends saw the injuries they even have photos - that is not speculation that is fact, if you do not believe them then I suggest you take it up with them

I am not going to respond to your baiting nonsense again, go sort it out yourself if you don't believe them

Speculation on your part isn't it. Someone has seen something? I get your skepticism but where is any evidence?

[Khun Han]

What on earth are you prattling on about Moonsterk? You are way out of your depth in this discussion. If the Thai authorities' version of events had been believed, a verdict of 'accident or misadventure' would have been given. The suggestion/idea that the coroner (who happens to be a barrister) would provide a verdict not according to the available evidence but to appease the deceased's family is so preposterous as to be off into Mad Hatter's Tea Party territory. Really!!!

[alanrchase]

What on earth are you prattling on about Moonsterk? You are way out of your depth in this discussion. If the Thai authorities' version of events had been believed, a verdict of 'accident or misadventure' would have been given. The suggestion/idea that the coroner (who happens to be a barrister) would provide a verdict not according to the available evidence but to appease the deceased's family is so preposterous as to be off into Mad Hatter's Tea Party territory. Really!!!

Get your post. Evidence? Out of depth? His opinion is as good as anyone else without evidence. Keep getting told about evidence but have seen nothing.

[luke000]

What on earth are you prattling on about Moonsterk? You are way out of your depth in this discussion. If the Thai authorities' version of events had been believed, a verdict of 'accident or misadventure' would have been given. The suggestion/idea that the coroner (who happens to be a barrister) would provide a verdict not according to the available evidence but to appease the deceased's family is so preposterous as to be off into Mad Hatter's Tea Party territory. Really!!!

Get your post. Evidence? Out of depth? His opinion is as good as anyone else without evidence. Keep getting told about evidence but have seen nothing.

Just because you personally havent seen something, that doesnt mean that its non existent .

[Khun Han]

What on earth are you prattling on about Moonsterk? You are way out of your depth in this discussion. If the Thai authorities' version of events had been believed, a verdict of 'accident or misadventure' would have been given. The suggestion/idea that the coroner (who happens to be a barrister) would provide a verdict not according to the available evidence but to appease the deceased's family is so preposterous as to be off into Mad Hatter's Tea Party territory. Really!!!

Get your post. Evidence? Out of depth? His opinion is as good as anyone else without evidence. Keep getting told about evidence but have seen nothing.

His opinion that the open verdict supports the RTP version of events is a good one?

His opinion (with which he contradicts his above opinion, by the way) that the coroner gave the open verdict to appease Luke's family is a good one?

Oh dear! Through the looking glass we go again.

[smedly]

What on earth are you prattling on about Moonsterk? You are way out of your depth in this discussion. If the Thai authorities' version of events had been believed, a verdict of 'accident or misadventure' would have been given. The suggestion/idea that the coroner (who happens to be a barrister) would provide a verdict not according to the available evidence but to appease the deceased's family is so preposterous as to be off into Mad Hatter's Tea Party territory. Really!!!

This guy is a windup merchant posting baiting drivel or he has some mental issues - either way it is best to ignore him, trolling and baiting is against forum rules, he reminds me of a previous poster banned for this very reason

If he has issue with what the friends and family have said then he should take it up with them - simple

If he doesn't understand what the coroner report means then take it up with them

Neither family - friends or UK coroner posts on TVF so the answers he is seeking will not be found here

why he is posting all this nonesense here is beyond understanding

[alanrchase]

What on earth are you prattling on about Moonsterk? You are way out of your depth in this discussion. If the Thai authorities' version of events had been believed, a verdict of 'accident or misadventure' would have been given. The suggestion/idea that the coroner (who happens to be a barrister) would provide a verdict not according to the available evidence but to appease the deceased's family is so preposterous as to be off into Mad Hatter's Tea Party territory. Really!!!

Get your post. Evidence? Out of depth? His opinion is as good as anyone else without evidence. Keep getting told about evidence but have seen nothing.

Just because you personally havent seen something, that doesnt mean that its non existent .

Personally if I wish to accuse anyone of something I would hope I had evidence. I do not dispute it may be murder. Never seen anyone murdered myself but am sure it happens.

[luke000]

What on earth are you prattling on about Moonsterk? You are way out of your depth in this discussion. If the Thai authorities' version of events had been believed, a verdict of 'accident or misadventure' would have been given. The suggestion/idea that the coroner (who happens to be a barrister) would provide a verdict not according to the available evidence but to appease the deceased's family is so preposterous as to be off into Mad Hatter's Tea Party territory. Really!!!

Get your post. Evidence? Out of depth? His opinion is as good as anyone else without evidence. Keep getting told about evidence but have seen nothing.

Just because you personally havent seen something, that doesnt mean that its non existent .

Personally if I wish to accuse anyone of something I would hope I had evidence. I do not dispute it may be murder. Never seen anyone murdered myself but am sure it happens.

WE are talking about the coroner and his verdict .

The evidence that he was seen which led him to announce his verdict.

What either me or you have seen is irrelevant, because we havent be asked to give a verdict

[alanrchase]

What on earth are you prattling on about Moonsterk? You are way out of your depth in this discussion. If the Thai authorities' version of events had been believed, a verdict of 'accident or misadventure' would have been given. The suggestion/idea that the coroner (who happens to be a barrister) would provide a verdict not according to the available evidence but to appease the deceased's family is so preposterous as to be off into Mad Hatter's Tea Party territory. Really!!!

Get your post. Evidence? Out of depth? His opinion is as good as anyone else without evidence. Keep getting told about evidence but have seen nothing.

Just because you personally havent seen something, that doesnt mean that its non existent .

Personally if I wish to accuse anyone of something I would hope I had evidence. I do not dispute it may be murder. Never seen anyone murdered myself but am sure it happens.

WE are talking about the coroner and his verdict .

The evidence that he was seen which led him to announce his verdict.

What either me or you have seen is irrelevant, because we havent be asked to give a verdict

And a verdict was given? Wish to contest it? Fine by me. Produce evidence, apparently people have pictures.

[alanrchase]

And a verdict was given? Wish to contest it? Fine by me. Produce evidence, apparently people have pictures.

No. Im not a family member,Im not a coroner , Im not part of the judiciary system , Im not a Policeman .
I am just watching proceedings from afar , I do not get to see any evidence and its not down to me to make judgments or to question those judgments or to even get involved at all .
I just post observations on TV

So do I. Unfortunately your quote seems to be attributed to the wrong poster.

[Khun Han]

WE are talking about the coroner and his verdict .

The evidence that he was seen which led him to announce his verdict.

What either me or you have seen is irrelevant, because we havent be asked to give a verdict

Just a minor correction:

H.M Coroner Isle of Wight

H.M Senior Coroner - Mrs Caroline Sumeray LL.B. (Hons), Dip FMS, Barrister.

[IslandLover]

Moonsterk, on 07 Feb 2016 - 04:50, said:Moonsterk, on 07 Feb 2016 - 04:50, said:

IslandLover, on 06 Feb 2016 - 14:56, said:IslandLover, on 06 Feb 2016 - 14:56, said:

alanrchase, on 06 Feb 2016 - 11:06, said:alanrchase, on 06 Feb 2016 - 11:06, said:

Sorry for my ignorance, but the coroner's verdict as reported by a previous poster should only be taken as an opinion? There will be an inquest to follow?

I would think so. The British Coroner is still waiting for the autopsy and toxicology reports from Thailand. The family has been told this could take several months. It is not without precedent. The same thing happened in the case of Hannah Witheridge, and another British tourist who died in Thailand in 2013. This is far from over. Apart from that, I have heard the police investigation in Koh Tao is still ongoing.

Really? Cause I heard the Thai police have issued their declaration-accidental drowning due to misadventure from impairment of judgement. The case is closed and sent the docs with Miller's body, weeks ago and the UK coroner has no reason whatsoever to declare the death anything but an accident. All wounds and bruising are consistent with a tumble from several meters high, an encounter with barbed wire, and hitting the head with sufficient force on the edge of the pool to render unconsciousness, and possibly other parts of the body were also bruised, and then death from drowning.

Yep, that's what I heard.

Yes, I've heard the police investigation on Koh Tao is still ongoing from a very reliable source (and I'm not about to reveal who). It is also alluded to in Nichola Gissing's facebook post. It also states as FACT in that post that the British Coroner is still waiting for the Thai autopsy and toxicology reports (although no mention has been made of the Thai police report). Therefore the case is NOT closed as far as the British Coroner is concerned, and the relevant documents were NOT sent with Luke Miller's body weeks ago.

[IslandLover]

Moonsterk, on 07 Feb 2016 - 06:02, said:

Now the latest info or dis-info rather, is " the autopsy reports are being held up by Thai authorities as they are still looking into the case.....Luke was embalmed so no new tests could be done...."

I heard...

What they are actually looking into and awaiting are some remaining toxicology reports- different from autopsy notes, as to what if any illegal drugs Luke was on at the time of his death, and if so, where did he get them.

The original declaration of accidental death remains and Thailand does not embalm bodies before shipping.

Thailand does not embalm bodies before shipping.

You are very wrong there.

[TheLobster]

Yes, I've heard the police investigation on Koh Tao is still ongoing from a very reliable source (and I'm not about to reveal who). It is also alluded to in Nichola Gissing's facebook post. It also states as FACT in that post that the British Coroner is still waiting for the Thai autopsy and toxicology reports (although no mention has been made of the Thai police report). Therefore the case is NOT closed as far as the British Coroner is concerned, and the relevant documents were NOT sent with Luke Miller's body weeks ago.

Good news, also I'm sure the UK will be interested in seeing what the Thai autopsy report reveals and how much it contradicts the UK findings.

[metisdead]

Nonsense baiting posts and replies have been removed.

[TheLobster]

Sorry I'll rephrase that then, I'm inclined to believe this opinion more than any other I see on this forum:

"An open verdict is NOT an answer that we are happy with nor one Luke will be laid to rest with. This verdict is due to insufficient findings do to the embalming and so we wait with baited breath for the reports from the Thai authorities. An open verdict can also be given on the basis that a death is suspicious but there are insufficient findings to ascertain why or how it has happened. So our fight will continue until we get the answers we know are there. There have been too many stories told to us already, to many lies and too many fabrications. We are all prepared to fight for Luke and we will get answers." Nichola Gissing Justice for Luke (Facebook)

Edited February 11, 2016 by TheLobster

[smedly]

nobody on this forum as far as I can tell is claiming this was murder, maybe the guy did wonder out into the pool area and somehow managed to climb up onto the roof of that DJ box and throw himself off into the water and drowned - that is what the Thai police "speculated" happened and I stress speculated

The reason so many people (including myself) are questioning that version of events (Thai police speculation)

1. Why on earth would he do such a thing - and if he was so intoxicated how could he have even got up there

2. bruises on his body as obseverved by friends (and photographed) on his arms - sorry but you don't get those diving into water - clift divers from 40m up don't get bruises on their bodies anywhere and this was a drop of 4m at the most if it is to be believed

3. No cctv footage of him anywhere, not just in the pool area but in the bar - where is it

4. Even if he did manage to climb up there as police claim there is only water below - the DJ booth is right on the edge of the pool, I bet I could climb up there and jump - dive - fall a thousand times over and just hit the water - it's no big deal

so how did he manage to die

The police speculated about what might have happened (good for them) but I'm sorry for me it just doesn't fit

my conclusion is that something else went on

there should be no questions and no doubt about what happened to Luke that night and yet there are, there are huge gaping holes that should be very easily explained and yet it is all blank - cctv - witnesses - his movements .....nothing

That is why people are asking questions - it simply doesn't add up

[stephenterry]

Example, smedly. The evidence of bruises is enough to suggest an altercation took place, and the absence of witnesses and cctv indicates a cover up.

[mcfish]

It's well documented that drugs can easy cause death by flying and that's far more plausible than getting randomly killed by thais.

The bruises could easily be people trying to restrain him at some time before the tragic event . Somebody could just as easily try to help him and not kill him

Edited February 12, 2016 by mcfish

[JLCrab]

Example, smedly. The evidence of bruises is enough to suggest an altercation took place, and the absence of witnesses and cctv indicates a cover up.

... and as yet no scenario offered as to why the late Mr. Miller was involved in an altercation that eventually led to his being found dead in a swimming pool.

[Moonsterk]

nobody on this forum as far as I can tell is claiming this was murder, maybe the guy did wonder out into the pool area and somehow managed to climb up onto the roof of that DJ box and throw himself off into the water and drowned - that is what the Thai police "speculated" happened and I stress speculated

The reason so many people (including myself) are questioning that version of events (Thai police speculation)

1. Why on earth would he do such a thing - and if he was so intoxicated how could he have even got up there

2. bruises on his body as obseverved by friends (and photographed) on his arms - sorry but you don't get those diving into water - clift divers from 40m up don't get bruises on their bodies anywhere and this was a drop of 4m at the most if it is to be believed

3. No cctv footage of him anywhere, not just in the pool area but in the bar - where is it

4. Even if he did manage to climb up there as police claim there is only water below - the DJ booth is right on the edge of the pool, I bet I could climb up there and jump - dive - fall a thousand times over and just hit the water - it's no big deal

so how did he manage to die

The police speculated about what might have happened (good for them) but I'm sorry for me it just doesn't fit

my conclusion is that something else went on

there should be no questions and no doubt about what happened to Luke that night and yet there are, there are huge gaping holes that should be very easily explained and yet it is all blank - cctv - witnesses - his movements .....nothing

That is why people are asking questions - it simply doesn't add up

How did he manage to die? There's no mystery and no one is disputing it that I am aware of- he drowned.

You're basing your theory on how he came to drown on suppositions.

You presume he went for a dive and then base all subsequent theories on this presumption.

You presume no bruises can be had on someone's arms from a dive.

You assume he climbed up safely for this alleged dive and then executed it perfectly- in a "very drunk" state.

What is far more likely, while climbing up the 4 meter high DJ booth- for whatever reason- is he fell, more precisely tumbled down. After all he was impaired by alcohol-let us please remember this very pertinent fact, and all manner of bruising and scratches are perfectly reasonable under this scenario.

It is also a perfectly reasonable theory police offered, that he hit his head on the edge of the pool, was knocked out sufficiently to be unable to save himself, and drowned.

You assume as there was no CCTV there is a cover up. I would guess he wasn't in the bar earlier that evening where there was CCTV or there was no camera poolside- it's not been established there was, or..... it wasn't on because it was after hours or.... plenty of CCTV does not work- it's just for show, or....... See how many reasons there are to explain this? Yet you wish to make an assumption is proves a cover -up.

But this mind- reading of Luke Miller's motives, " he wouldn't do that" is really beyond any reasonable expectation of logic. It's established by his own FB posts he possessed poor judgement- routine alcohol and hallucinogenic binges ( illegal drugs procured in a developing nation,) and then posting publicly about it.

It's actually fairly indicative he was on a self- destructive course.

[Moonsterk]

Sorry I'll rephrase that then, I'm inclined to believe this opinion more than any other I see on this forum:

"An open verdict is NOT an answer that we are happy with nor one Luke will be laid to rest with. This verdict is due to insufficient findings do to the embalming and so we wait with baited breath for the reports from the Thai authorities. An open verdict can also be given on the basis that a death is suspicious but there are insufficient findings to ascertain why or how it has happened. So our fight will continue until we get the answers we know are there. There have been too many stories told to us already, to many lies and too many fabrications. We are all prepared to fight for Luke and we will get answers." Nichola Gissing Justice for Luke (Facebook)

I do believe that embalming assumption was pointed out by Andrew Drummond and someone else to be false. Thailand will not embalm bodies before repatriation unless specifically requested ( and paid for) by the family

But what the heck, why stop the assumptions now An entire murder accusation based on assumptions based on presumptions, extremely erred logic and what seems to me to be a deep desire for this to have been a murder and not due to the young man's own irresponsibility and poor judgement. ( ThoughI really am starting to question the motives of this person.)

[Moonsterk]

Yes, I've heard the police investigation on Koh Tao is still ongoing from a very reliable source (and I'm not about to reveal who). It is also alluded to in Nichola Gissing's facebook post. It also states as FACT in that post that the British Coroner is still waiting for the Thai autopsy and toxicology reports (although no mention has been made of the Thai police report). Therefore the case is NOT closed as far as the British Coroner is concerned, and the relevant documents were NOT sent with Luke Miller's body weeks ago.

Good news, also I'm sure the UK will be interested in seeing what the Thai autopsy report reveals and how much it contradicts the UK findings.

So the UK coroner has determined CoD was not drowning?

Sorry to disappoint you, what you'll likely get from the UK coroner, and it will concur with the Thai report is circumstances of death unknown- which will provide exactly zilch in proof Miller was murdered or otherwise met with a nefarious end. Of course the LMWM group will seize on this nothingness as more " evidence."

[evadgib]

Mortal remains have to be embalmed in order to be repatriated.

[Moonsterk]

Mortal remains have to be embalmed in order to be repatriated.

Absolutely not true.

[evadgib]

They are preserved and prepared for transit. What else could you call it?

[Moonsterk]

They are preserved and prepared for transit. What else could you call it?

In cases of suspicious death, as we are told this case is, or at least the family ( again, we are told- haven't really heard much from them on the subject, ) is asserting, the body would not be embalmed as that would interfere with any further autopsies.

Embalming is not just " preserving" which can be done by refrigeration but filling the arteries with formaldehyde. This changes the tissue of many organs and of course would render further toxicology impossible.

I maintain my position; all autopsies are done, CoD is determined and that report is known to the UK coroner who concurs with the Thai conclusion- drowning, with circumstances unknown, and likely to remain so.

Any toxicology reports Thai police have not released, would be, IMO all about concluding an investigation a crime of drug dealing with the auxillilary culpability in the death from the drugs.

Not one shred of evidence has been presented on this entire 44 pages to point to murder- all is supposition based on assumption mired with wishful thinking.

The question I have is why would someone do this to a friend?

[evadgib]

Applicable bullet points from one of many outlets offering international repatriation of mortal remains into the UK:

Embalming and hygiene treatment in accordance with airline/transport regulation.

Mortuary facilities for religious washing etc

It might help the board if you confirm that yours is just another unqualified opinion rather than presenting it as fact.

Edited February 12, 2016 by evadgib