British man found dead on Koh Tao

[Khun Han]

Two large beers @ 4% ABV in the Uk puts you in the danger zone for being over the drink drive limit. The alcohol level in Nick Pearson suggests about five large Thai beers.

[JLCrab]

Two large beers @ 4% ABV in the Uk puts you in the danger zone for being over the drink drive limit. The alcohol level in Nick Pearson suggests about five large Thai beers.

The video clearly uses the words 'a drink'.

Edited March 3, 2016 by JLCrab

[Khun Han]

In the UK, Crab, 'having a drink' is a euphemism for having a drinking session. Like I said, Nick's blood alcohol level indicates he had a few drinks but not a crazy amount.

[JLCrab]

In the UK, Crab, 'having a drink' is a euphemism for having a drinking session. Like I said, Nick's blood alcohol level indicates he had a few drinks but not a crazy amount.

Fine -- I'm a Yank and I don't drink. When persons have 'a drink' in UK do they then often need help getting to their rooms?

His brother later explains that the late Mr. Pearson had injured his knee which was also a reason he needed help getting to his room. The narrative also says that the night before he had been warned off chatting to a Thai woman (in this bar). But the family says (per narrative) that the Thai Police did not investigate.

Edited March 3, 2016 by JLCrab

[SoiBiker]

In the UK, Crab, 'having a drink' is a euphemism for having a drinking session. Like I said, Nick's blood alcohol level indicates he had a few drinks but not a crazy amount.

Fine -- I'm a Yank and I don't drink. When persons have 'a drink' in UK do they then often need help getting to their rooms?

I usually manage it on my own - although I once woke halfway through the doorway with my legs still out in the corridor.

[JLCrab]

In the UK, Crab, 'having a drink' is a euphemism for having a drinking session. Like I said, Nick's blood alcohol level indicates he had a few drinks but not a crazy amount.

Fine -- I'm a Yank and I don't drink. When persons have 'a drink' in UK do they then often need help getting to their rooms?

I usually manage it on my own - although I once woke halfway through the doorway with my legs still out in the corridor.

I think I'll pass on this one.

Edited March 3, 2016 by JLCrab

[bannork]

In the UK, Crab, 'having a drink' is a euphemism for having a drinking session. Like I said, Nick's blood alcohol level indicates he had a few drinks but not a crazy amount.

Dad had to take Nick's clothes off and put him to bed, suggesting Nick had had quite a few.

[AleG]

A reporter claims it in the video, did they talk to the real experts or is it just another speculation ? We all agree on David Miller but Luke is a different story.

I think people when arguing whether the death was or wasn't by drowning are overlooking one fundamental issue, they are referring to the findings during autopsies carried out days, even weeks after the deaths, after an original autopsy had been performed and after the bodies had been embalmed for repatriation, all that will, in some way or another, remove evidence of drowning which may be scant or even completely absent to begin with.

I did some browsing and this is one of the things I've found:

"Diagnosis: The autopsy diagnosis of drowning can pose problems, because the findings are often minimal, obscure or completely absent. When the findings are negative, cause of death may be given as “consistent with drowning” or even to admit that the cause of death is “undetermined”. The reliable signs of drowning at autopsy are: 1] Fine, white froth at the mouth and nose. 2] The presence of weeds, stones, etc., firmly grasped in the hands, 3] The presence of fine froth in the lungs and air-passages. 4] The voluminous water-logged lungs. 5] The presence of water in the stomach and intestines, and 6] Findings of diatoms in the tissues.

The above signs will not be found, if death occurs due to vagal inhibition. In death from syncope, or when a person is in a state of helplessness from drink or other cause, or when a person receives an injury during fall into the water which prevents him from struggle, the signs will be slight. In dry drowning, the post-mortem appearances are those of asphyxia. A body removed from water undergoes rapid decomposition. If the post-mortem is delayed for a few hours, or if any appreciable delay has occurred before recovery of the body from water, the signs of drowning will not be found to great extent."

The source is this: w w w.forensicpathologyonline.com/E-Book/asphyxia/drowning

I broke the hyperlink because the page has some very grim pictures in the header, so viewer discretion is advised...

So with all that in mind it shouldn't be surprising that, even when signs and circumstances immediately after death would otherwise indicate death by drowning, a coroner in the UK may not be able to determine drowning as the cause of death from the evidence at hand at the time of the autopsy there. In that case a verdict may be reached based on whatever evidence may be available, for example the coroner could decide that the physical trauma would be enough to cause death, even if in actuality drowning won the race, so to speak.

Edited March 3, 2016 by AleG

[TheLobster]

I would be fairly confident in a UK autopsy if it said the cause was not drowning. After all it will be impartial and without outside influences to produce a specified cause.

Edited March 3, 2016 by TheLobster

[Khun Han]

Also, UK coroners are subject to very strict legal procedures and parameters. Far more so than lawyers, and even police. Because of this they always err on the side of caution. If a UK coroner rules that the cause of a death was not drowning, it means that the deceased did not drown. If it was not clear from the autopsy that the cause of death was drowning, the coroner would state this. British coroners don't make educated guesses and then state them as fact.

[JLCrab]

So to summarize maybe for the uninitiated to the late Mr.Luke Miller's demise, IF the cause of death was not drowning, what this means is either:

1. Mr. Miller somehow struck his head and died primarily from head injuries sustained before falling into the pool, or

2. Mr. Miller was beaten to death by persons and for reasons unknown elsewhere and then dumped in the pool, or

3. Reasons hitherto not speculated.

[Moonsterk]

This is a screen shot from the video. All the narrative says is that the late Mr. Luke Miller was found dead in a swimming pool on Koh Tao in January 2016 and that an autopsy revealed that he did not drown.

^ JL Crab It only states " he did not drown " nothing about an autopsy...

ARP gone to video. Including Annesly Povse, Pearson and L Miller with the real murders on a graphic is just more of the misinformation machine - at least it did give Police a chance to air their side. And refused to take a side on the B-2 convictions, which is refreshing.

It did not reveal the source of " He did not drown" just a one sentence claim and this is what what Island Lover claimed was going to prove Luke Miller was murdered and police covered it up?

Again and again I've heard a report was to be released Feb 4th that would prove Luke Miller was murdered and police covered it up. Never happened.

Then there was the rumour making the FB group rounds, a Euro couple allegedly on video " head butting " Luke at Lotus bar earlier were found dead on a beach some days later ( which never happened ) and were to have been shown to be the attackers, and prove Luke was murdered, police covered it up. Never happened

And now this video which has one sentence re L Miller " did not drown" does not offer any kind of verification or name the source. So in no way confirms the theory Luke Miller was murdered and police covered it up

And even if a UK Coroner has , or does make an opinion L Miller technically did not drown, and it was a head injury -as pointed out above by AleG that finding is difficult, especially on an embalmed, repatriated body where fluid that was in the lung would no longer be.

A head injury is certainly possible in the circumstances of falling, or jumping, or flying onto concrete , and ending up in a pool.

So not only are the proponents of this theory simply chanting a mantra of mistruths, they seem to think everyone else will blindly follow the trinity of presumption, assumption and most importantly, sycophancy.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Moonsterk

[Moonsterk]

A reporter claims it in the video, did they talk to the real experts or is it just another speculation ? We all agree on David Miller but Luke is a different story.

I think people when arguing whether the death was or wasn't by drowning are overlooking one fundamental issue, they are referring to the findings during autopsies carried out days, even weeks after the deaths, after an original autopsy had been performed and after the bodies had been embalmed for repatriation, all that will, in some way or another, remove evidence of drowning which may be scant or even completely absent to begin with.

I did some browsing and this is one of the things I've found:

"Diagnosis: The autopsy diagnosis of drowning can pose problems, because the findings are often minimal, obscure or completely absent. When the findings are negative, cause of death may be given as “consistent with drowning” or even to admit that the cause of death is “undetermined”. The reliable signs of drowning at autopsy are: 1] Fine, white froth at the mouth and nose. 2] The presence of weeds, stones, etc., firmly grasped in the hands, 3] The presence of fine froth in the lungs and air-passages. 4] The voluminous water-logged lungs. 5] The presence of water in the stomach and intestines, and 6] Findings of diatoms in the tissues.

The above signs will not be found, if death occurs due to vagal inhibition. In death from syncope, or when a person is in a state of helplessness from drink or other cause, or when a person receives an injury during fall into the water which prevents him from struggle, the signs will be slight. In dry drowning, the post-mortem appearances are those of asphyxia. A body removed from water undergoes rapid decomposition. If the post-mortem is delayed for a few hours, or if any appreciable delay has occurred before recovery of the body from water, the signs of drowning will not be found to great extent."

The source is this: w w w.forensicpathologyonline.com/E-Book/asphyxia/drowning

I broke the hyperlink because the page has some very grim pictures in the header, so viewer discretion is advised...

So with all that in mind it shouldn't be surprising that, even when signs and circumstances immediately after death would otherwise indicate death by drowning, a coroner in the UK may not be able to determine drowning as the cause of death from the evidence at hand at the time of the autopsy there. In that case a verdict may be reached based on whatever evidence may be available, for example the coroner could decide that the physical trauma would be enough to cause death, even if in actuality drowning won the race, so to speak.

I would be fairly confident in a UK autopsy if it said the cause was not drowning. After all it will be impartial and without outside influences to produce a specified cause.

Please read the post just above yours.

[Moonsterk]

Also, UK coroners are subject to very strict legal procedures and parameters. Far more so than lawyers, and even police. Because of this they always err on the side of caution. If a UK coroner rules that the cause of a death was not drowning, it means that the deceased did not drown. If it was not clear from the autopsy that the cause of death was drowning, the coroner would state this. British coroners don't make educated guesses and then state them as fact.

Well OK, maybe but we won't see it for a year, or more- it will likely NOT be conclusive, and meanwhile this train of hysteria runs unabated, or tries to.

There have been two murders on Koh Tao, the other associations are speculation, fueled by hysteria that gets built upon in way of meme.

I've been reading an opinion that CSI LA had a personal vendetta against Nom Sod , and through this method, got his FB group of sycophants to completely buy, and regurgitate his alleged involvement.

It's a interesting topic, FB groups and the spread of rumour and hysteria using mob mentality with people who will not , or can not look at a claim in an objective manner and it is exactly what is happening in this Luke Miller case. I've seen time and time again how any discussion of the accidental claim is shut down, and the poster attacked.

[davidstipek]

Two things the responders are forgetting.... If body is found floating in "Salt Water" and to confirm cause of death in from drowning... The lungs and stomach will be saturated with the abnormal amounts of Sodium/Salt residue

If body is found in swimming pool... Body (lungs and stomach) will have high amounts of chlorine, soda ash and muratic acid. Not found normally.

Embalming will not remove these tracers, thus submersion of body to induce drowning to alter cause of death, movement of body to alter visual consensus of what cause of death will not happen. The body will always retain true cause!

This is not in anyway ment to alter anyone's perception of what they believe happened here... Just to shut up the nay-sayers on both sides! Totally stupid to regurgitate any thoughts on this subject to get people to totally reject or believe what is the truth!

In the end... "The body will tell us, exactly... What happened!" It would be impossible to totally remove all of these tracers! If you are competent at the job at hand, and not by any outside interference, the truth will be disclosed...

To continue to rebutt the end findings would only prove one thing. How focused one would be to get an idea to be accepted... "Nothing more..."

Edited March 4, 2016 by davidstipek

[Moonsterk]

Two things the responders are forgetting.... If body is found floating in "Salt Water" and to confirm cause of death in from drowning... The lungs and stomach will be saturated with the abnormal amounts of Sodium/Salt residue

If body is found in swimming pool... Body (lungs and stomach) will have high amounts of chlorine, soda ash and muratic acid. Not found normally.

Embalming will not remove these tracers, thus submersion of body to induce drowning to alter cause of death, movement of body to alter visual consensus of what cause of death will not happen. The body will always retain true cause!

This is not in anyway ment to alter anyone's perception of what they believe happened here... Just to shut up the nay-sayers on both sides! Totally stupid to regurgitate any thoughts on this subject to get people to totally reject or believe what is the truth!

In the end... "The body will tell us, exactly... What happened!" It would be impossible to totally remove all of these tracers! If you are competent at the job at hand, and not by any outside interference, the truth will be disclosed...

To continue to rebutt the end findings would only prove one thing. How focused one would be to get an idea to be accepted... "Nothing more..."

Shut us up? This is a discussion, why does it need to be shut up?

And you're asking us to believe what you state without any kind of substantiation, so I don't.

Too many variables there to make such a universal declaration, length of time in water for instance, saline levels, and length of time to drown determined by many other variables such as injuries to the head, or lungs, any ingestion of alcohol or other drugs might alter findings.

And again, of course we have the companion, someone entirely knowledgeable and aware of all points regarding this death, (so it has been claimed) telling the reader via AD tabloid blog, that " embalming made any further examination impossible".

That is the biggest mistake made so far in perpetuating the murder conspiracy/ cover-up - really a dumb thing to say.

I have no doubts a UK inquest, once released report will have no direct contradictions to the Thai version of events, and will remain "open verdict."

[Khun Han]

Two things the responders are forgetting.... If body is found floating in "Salt Water" and to confirm cause of death in from drowning... The lungs and stomach will be saturated with the abnormal amounts of Sodium/Salt residue

If body is found in swimming pool... Body (lungs and stomach) will have high amounts of chlorine, soda ash and muratic acid. Not found normally.

Embalming will not remove these tracers, thus submersion of body to induce drowning to alter cause of death, movement of body to alter visual consensus of what cause of death will not happen. The body will always retain true cause!

This is not in anyway ment to alter anyone's perception of what they believe happened here... Just to shut up the nay-sayers on both sides! Totally stupid to regurgitate any thoughts on this subject to get people to totally reject or believe what is the truth!

In the end... "The body will tell us, exactly... What happened!" It would be impossible to totally remove all of these tracers! If you are competent at the job at hand, and not by any outside interference, the truth will be disclosed...

To continue to rebutt the end findings would only prove one thing. How focused one would be to get an idea to be accepted... "Nothing more..."

Excellent post David. But I fear you are wasting your time. It became obvious a while ago that some posters are just 'loud mouths' with an agenda.

[Moonsterk]

^ Are you referring to moi?

I admit freely to an agenda of not accepting falsehoods and hysteria generated by publicity seeking persons disseminating assorted dis/misinformation to bolster a patently absurd claim. (IMO)

I write to convince the reader of my view, not to dismiss other poster's opinions.

[JLCrab]

When the Samui Court verdict was released last December 24, 2015, and the Judges wrote that to take a swim at 3 or 4 AM when drunk was 'Not normal' (in the translated version) there were several pages on ThaiVisa of persons relating stories of such drunken or tipsy swims in Thailand or elsewhere and that such was a perfectly normal circumstance.

It seems that with the late Mr. Nick Pearson (in interviews with the Pearson family on the video) and the late Mr. Luke Miller, many the same persons are now claiming that anyone who might choose to go for a swim at 3 or 4 AM while intoxicated would not be a normal circumstance and there must be other reasons.

Edited March 4, 2016 by JLCrab

[Khun Han]

A few throwaway remarks claiming that the B2 are scapegoats. Then 'changes mind' within a couple of posts of joining in Koh Tao Murder threads. Now mirroring the Tuvichien family excuse that it's all a Facebook vendetta. No obvious agenda there. No, definitely not.

[Khun Han]

Crab, that's a 2 + 2 = 5 assumption. Nick didn't spend the evening on the beach, and Luke wasn't partying at the pool party bar when he went into the water.

[JLCrab]

I listened to the Pearson interview that their son could not have been sleep walking or could not have fallen from his room to the water -- but maybe he just decided to take a swim at 4 AM which we have all been assured on here, that even while intoxicated, is a perfectly normal thing.

Maybe the late Mr. Luke Miller also decided that a swim would be the perfect way to end the evening.

Edited March 4, 2016 by JLCrab

[Moonsterk]

I listened to the Pearson interview that their son could not have been sleep walking or could not have fallen from his room to the water -- but maybe he just decided to take a swim at 4 AM which we have all been assured on here, that even while intoxicated, is a perfectly normal thing.

Maybe the late Mr. Luke Miller also decided that a swim would be the perfect way to end the evening.

And it's all mindreading. " But, he wouldn't have..... [insert foolish action.]" L. Miller posted on his FB page his foolish actions, " 2 day shroom benders" and his friends posted their foolish actions, standing on rails above long drops, ostensibly on a hallucinogenic binge ( covered in day-glo paint.)

One can argue just coming to Koh Tao is a foolish action in and of itself.

In fact it seems the group did nothing but drink and party, no FB posts of anything else, unless of course boat trips or snorkel tours are on private settings.

Not buying the BS, two murders, Witheridge and David Miller, all the rest is put out by individuals who seek publicity for their tabloid blogs, or " investigatory " pages ( or egos) and these families are just swept up in it from grief.

Fairly despicable.

[Moonsterk]

Crab, that's a 2 + 2 = 5 assumption. Nick didn't spend the evening on the beach, and Luke wasn't partying at the pool party bar when he went into the water.

^ Assumption on L Miller, were you there? Was anyone? Why is there such a persistence in these assumptions to know what or why the lad was at that location.

[kcirtapyelrah]

^ Are you referring to moi?

I admit freely to an agenda of not accepting falsehoods and hysteria generated by publicity seeking persons disseminating assorted dis/misinformation to bolster a patently absurd claim. (IMO)

I write to convince the reader of my view, not to dismiss other poster's opinions.

Your suffering with delusions of grandeur.

[Khun Han]

No assumption on my part. It's obvious that Luke went into the pool long after the party had ended. Nobody noticed a body floating in the pool when the place wrapped up for the night, and the cleaners didn't notice a body floating in the pool when they turned up later, about 5.30am I believe.

[JLCrab]

From BBC report 12 JAN 2016 :

"According to police, Mr Miller's body was found on Friday morning at Sunset Bar on Sairee Beach.Witnesses and CCTV footage at the bar showed he was there until the early hours of the morning.But, the security guards who regularly search the pool for lost belongings after parties did not find Mr Miller when they made a search at 05:30 local time. His body was discovered at about 07:20." http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-35285866

So maybe the late Mr. L. Miller decided to have a swim while/whilst still in an inebriated state around 5:45 in the dark with sunrise that day around 6:40 AM. As noted extensively on ThaiVisa, this would be considered a normal thing to do.

Edited March 4, 2016 by JLCrab

[Moonsterk]

^

That was the initial "proof" Luke Miller was murdered and police covered it up some security guards did not see his body. ( as reported on AD, quoting companion 1 )

1) It's dark at 5:30

2) How thorough were they? Is it just a walk around loungers?

3) Did they really even look around? ( Security guards after hours tend to be sleeping .)

And how does the he wasn't in the water until after 5: 30 prove the alleged murdered scenario anyway? He went at dawn is all.

[Moonsterk]

A few throwaway remarks claiming that the B2 are scapegoats. Then 'changes mind' within a couple of posts of joining in Koh Tao Murder threads. Now mirroring the Tuvichien family excuse that it's all a Facebook vendetta. No obvious agenda there. No, definitely not.

These dismissal types of responses are all about refusing to look at something objectively and simply parrot a meme.

I've seen screen shots of conversations on CSI LA that imply Nom Sod was set up- it certainly is credible with the meme addicted crowd so prevalent here and elsewhere.

There's going to be a new FB page soon and these posts will be made available with real looks into the people who maintain and gain from these lies. More than just a few people on TFV, and elsewhere are sick and tired of this non stop rumour mongering which is causing real pain to families that they do not need.

Luke was not murdered, and to put his family through it is unforgivable.

How anyone can support this I cannot fathom. It is clear to me this young lady's misunderstandings of Thai culture and communications, festered along with a unique death situation, was seized upon as an opportunity and massaged into a murder scenario by others.

[Khun Han]

The above post is utterly disgraceful. One of the worst pieces of attempted bullying I have seen on this forum. And it's become crystal clear that the poster is posting in support of the Tuvichien family.

It became obvious a long time ago that the poster is absolutely desperate to convince everybody else that the implausible (but not impossible) RTP version of events is the correct one, to the point of trying to bully posters who don't agree. Any information which doesn't fit is twisted out of recognition, such as alleged comments by the UK coroner Caroline Sumeray. This behaviour alone is bound to make reasonable people deeply suspicious.