The Koh Tao verdict and Myanmar migrant worker misery

[rockingrobin]

It was not that long ago that dna was not even used in the courts. Even now, it is extremely controversial.

Having possession of the victims phone.

Leaving belongings next to the crime.

Revisiting the crime to retrieve belongings.

Hiding and destroying victims belongings.

30 years ago, this would have been a mountain of evidence in a western court, they have been convicted based on the many connection they had to the victims and the crime scene.

The defense lawyers said, this is the first time they have challenged dna in a Thai court.

Considering thailand is a few years behind. Throw out dna, they still had reasonable evidence that would secure a conviction in the west 30 years ago. There is too much wrong in their testimony to risk letting them go.

So do you believe that the B2 murdered Hannah and David?

And do you think they did it alone?

KunMat

If you go back to Oct 2014 after the B2 arrests , Greenchair believed that they was guilty but others were involved

[rockingrobin]

I didn't say the guitar was stolen. I said their clothes were stolen. My question is why did they not take the guitar home with them. Who leaves a guitar on the beach over night. It was them that said they left their shoes behind. I am trying to understand why they would leave their stuff at the beach.

Note. . Go on say it. Oh the poor cherub faced angels forgot it in their drunken state.

Correct and wrong, it is the B2 who claim the items were missing , only the guitar resurfaced , evidently found by Mons chef.

The one thing I dont understand is your statement why did they not take the guitar home with them . If the guitar had been at AC2 bar where they claim to have left it (found by chef) then sureley MM would have retrieved it.

[rockingrobin]

It was not that long ago that dna was not even used in the courts. Even now, it is extremely controversial.

Having possession of the victims phone.

Leaving belongings next to the crime.

Revisiting the crime to retrieve belongings.

Hiding and destroying victims belongings.

30 years ago, this would have been a mountain of evidence in a western court, they have been convicted based on the many connection they had to the victims and the crime scene.

The defense lawyers said, this is the first time they have challenged dna in a Thai court.

Considering thailand is a few years behind. Throw out dna, they still had reasonable evidence that would secure a conviction in the west 30 years ago. There is too much wrong in their testimony to risk letting them go.

Who would commit a double murder steal one of the victims mobile phone and then just give it away knowing that at some point it would implicate them

[somo]

Cablecart, I green door have not been the one going on about the dna. I have no doubt it was collected poorly. as Jane taupin said, dna by itself is not accepted as sole evidence in criminal trials. Dna is just a piece of circumstantial evidence that must be supported by other evidences ,because as you have so clearly pointed out, it is not infallible. It is the other evidence that I like to make sure that people know about so they can form their own opinion as we were all lied to by omission. The most damning pieces of evidence being

1. They had the victims phone.

2. They left their belongings meters from the murder.

3. Their cigarette butts were at the murder scene.

4. They tried to hide the phone.

5. They went back to the scene to retrieve their belongings.

nobody believes the dna result, we just don't know .

Quite frankly the dna is nothing compared to the lame excuses made to get around all the other evidence as told by their testimony. As the judge said, their story was unbelievable .

All of the above is stated by Wei Phyo himself. God help your conscience if they were to get out of this on a technicality and repeat another horrific killing of some dear young lady on holiday.

point 3 is incorrect

With the total absence of any DNA evidence connecting the accused to the crime (especially on the murder weapon) these points 1-5 are minor and easily explainable. They may wellhave found the phone then discarded it so as not to be accused of theft. Smoking cigarettes on a beach and disgarding them could lead to a fine for littering but not much else and retrieving your forgotten clothes is a natural thing to do. Leaving them behind after murdering someone would be the unnatural thing to do. These points 1-5 are not evidence of anything.

Yes, maybe you could clear this up for me then.

If their stuff was stolen, but not the shoes and guitar .

Then why did they not pick up the remaining items and take them home ?

If they did not see the items because it was dark.

Why did they go back at 5 oclock in the morning to retrieve stuff that they thought was stolen .

I don't have answers just questions about the prosecutions case. I could make up some half decent explanations but so what. The points you raise are minor ones that an inability to answer may raise some suspicions but in no way constitutes evidence or proof of rape and murder. You for some bizarre reason do think that the inability to answer a few questions to your satisfaction proves they murdered someone. There is no proof only suspicion which in anyones book is not enough to convict.

Add to that the lack of any DNA evidence placing them at the scene or of touching the murder weapon and the lack of any witnesses. There is simply no case to answer. You may have your suspicions but they are irrelevant.

AS I have mentioned before the real question is how and why did all the hard evidence disappear? That is a lot more suspicious and needs investigating.

[Linky]

It was not that long ago that dna was not even used in the courts. Even now, it is extremely controversial.

Having possession of the victims phone.

Leaving belongings next to the crime.

Revisiting the crime to retrieve belongings.

Hiding and destroying victims belongings.

30 years ago, this would have been a mountain of evidence in a western court, they have been convicted based on the many connection they had to the victims and the crime scene.

The defense lawyers said, this is the first time they have challenged dna in a Thai court.

Considering thailand is a few years behind. Throw out dna, they still had reasonable evidence that would secure a conviction in the west 30 years ago. There is too much wrong in their testimony to risk letting them go.

They did not re visit the crime scene. There is no evidence of them being at the crime scene. I call you out on it again, where is the proof they were at the crime scene?

Throw out dna you say, well yes considering there is none. Then what do you have, a couple of guys that you have no evidence being at the crime scene.

What belongings of the victim did they hide and destroy? The only evidence i know of hiding and destroying is the police and the victims clothes, blonde hair, dna.

You do not convict because of a risk of letting them go, you only convict on beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high threshold and has stood the test of time as it is considered better to let a guilty person off than convict an innocent because of a lower threshold.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Linky

[Linky]

I didn't say the guitar was stolen. I said their clothes were stolen. My question is why did they not take the guitar home with them. Who leaves a guitar on the beach over night. It was them that said they left their shoes behind. I am trying to understand why they would leave their stuff at the beach.

Note. . Go on say it. Oh the poor cherub faced angels forgot it in their drunken state.

Someone else may have a better memory than i about this but i dont know if they forgot it, it was in the bar.

[ianf]

Migrant worker rights and the Koh Tao case are two separate issues. Human rights groups are using the Koh Tao case as a spring board to get their organisations free press coverage and increase donations to a charity that a year ago received few donations.

Similarly the Koh Tao camp use the plight of the migrant workers as a means to avoid scrutiny of the testimony and other evidences against Wei Phyo. Namely that by self admission, he was meters from the crime at 1am, he left belongings meters from the crime, he went back to the scene at 5am to retrieve belongings and he had possession of the murderered victims phone that he could not explain satisfactorily. When asked to explain these anomalies in detail the answer is. ..

A. I was so drunk I can't remember.

B. We are poor abused migrant workers, our rights have not been respected.

What about Hannah's rights? ?

Greenchair: You've got this oh so wrong.

[Khun Han]

Migrant worker rights and the Koh Tao case are two separate issues. Human rights groups are using the Koh Tao case as a spring board to get their organisations free press coverage and increase donations to a charity that a year ago received few donations.

Similarly the Koh Tao camp use the plight of the migrant workers as a means to avoid scrutiny of the testimony and other evidences against Wei Phyo. Namely that by self admission, he was meters from the crime at 1am, he left belongings meters from the crime, he went back to the scene at 5am to retrieve belongings and he had possession of the murderered victims phone that he could not explain satisfactorily. When asked to explain these anomalies in detail the answer is. ..

A. I was so drunk I can't remember.

B. We are poor abused migrant workers, our rights have not been respected.

What about Hannah's rights? ?

Greenchair: You've got this oh so wrong.

And keeps on getting the same basic facts wrong after being corrected over and over again.

[KunMatt]

Migrant worker rights and the Koh Tao case are two separate issues. Human rights groups are using the Koh Tao case as a spring board to get their organisations free press coverage and increase donations to a charity that a year ago received few donations.

Similarly the Koh Tao camp use the plight of the migrant workers as a means to avoid scrutiny of the testimony and other evidences against Wei Phyo. Namely that by self admission, he was meters from the crime at 1am, he left belongings meters from the crime, he went back to the scene at 5am to retrieve belongings and he had possession of the murderered victims phone that he could not explain satisfactorily. When asked to explain these anomalies in detail the answer is. ..

A. I was so drunk I can't remember.

B. We are poor abused migrant workers, our rights have not been respected.

What about Hannah's rights? ?

Greenchair: You've got this oh so wrong.

And keeps on getting the same basic facts wrong after being corrected over and over again.

It's all deliberate of course, there's always one or two "members" trolling every Koh Tao thread in this exact same way. No different to lucky11 deliberately misrepresenting half of a tweet as an argument for a week on this forum.

[greenchair]

So if the guitar was in the AC bar. what did it have to do with the crime and why were Muang Muang and Phyo at the beach at 5am supposedly looking for it.

[Khun Han]

^The guitar actually tranforms into a broken bottle, shark's tooth ring or Hulkbuster suit (that enables dwarves to beat up giants) depending on which chord you strum on it. The boys were concerned that someone would find it and work out it's real potential, and they'd be bang-to-rights .

[greenchair]

I don't know why you lot are saying GC is wrong, GC got it wrong. Answer me if you dare.

Were the b2 right next to the murder scene in the path that Hannah would have to pass?

Did they go swimming in the rain at around 1am for no apparent reason?

Did they leave their shoes behind for no apparent reason?

Did Muang and Wei go back to collect belongings at the beach at 5am?

Did wei have possession of a phone belonging to David?

Did he try to get rid of that phone?

[greenchair]

^The guitar actually tranforms into a broken bottle, shark's tooth ring or Hulkbuster suit (that enables dwarves to beat up giants) depending on which chord you strum on it. The boys were concerned that someone would find it and work out it's real potential, and they'd be bang-to-rights .

Pathetic attempt to avoid a straight answer. Lol

[greenchair]

Cablecart, I green door have not been the one going on about the dna. I have no doubt it was collected poorly. as Jane taupin said, dna by itself is not accepted as sole evidence in criminal trials. Dna is just a piece of circumstantial evidence that must be supported by other evidences ,because as you have so clearly pointed out, it is not infallible. It is the other evidence that I like to make sure that people know about so they can form their own opinion as we were all lied to by omission. The most damning pieces of evidence being

1. They had the victims phone.

2. They left their belongings meters from the murder.

3. Their cigarette butts were at the murder scene.

4. They tried to hide the phone.

5. They went back to the scene to retrieve their belongings.

nobody believes the dna result, we just don't know .

Quite frankly the dna is nothing compared to the lame excuses made to get around all the other evidence as told by their testimony. As the judge said, their story was unbelievable .

All of the above is stated by Wei Phyo himself. God help your conscience if they were to get out of this on a technicality and repeat another horrific killing of some dear young lady on holiday.

point 3 is incorrect

With the total absence of any DNA evidence connecting the accused to the crime (especially on the murder weapon) these points 1-5 are minor and easily explainable. They may wellhave found the phone then discarded it so as not to be accused of theft. Smoking cigarettes on a beach and disgarding them could lead to a fine for littering but not much else and retrieving your forgotten clothes is a natural thing to do. Leaving them behind after murdering someone would be the unnatural thing to do. These points 1-5 are not evidence of anything.

Yes, maybe you could clear this up for me then.

If their stuff was stolen, but not the shoes and guitar .

Then why did they not pick up the remaining items and take them home ?

If they did not see the items because it was dark.

Why did they go back at 5 oclock in the morning to retrieve stuff that they thought was stolen .

I don't have answers just questions about the prosecutions case. I could make up some half decent explanations but so what. The points you raise are minor ones that an inability to answer may raise some suspicions but in no way constitutes evidence or proof of rape and murder. You for some bizarre reason do think that the inability to answer a few questions to your satisfaction proves they murdered someone. There is no proof only suspicion which in anyones book is not enough to convict.

Add to that the lack of any DNA evidence placing them at the scene or of touching the murder weapon and the lack of any witnesses. There is simply no case to answer. You may have your suspicions but they are irrelevant.

AS I have mentioned before the real question is how and why did all the hard evidence disappear? That is a lot more suspicious and needs investigating.

The judge didn't think it was irrelevant.

[rockingrobin]

I don't know why you lot are saying GC is wrong, GC got it wrong. Answer me if you dare.

Were the b2 right next to the murder scene in the path that Hannah would have to pass?

Did they go swimming in the rain at around 1am for no apparent reason?

Did they leave their shoes behind for no apparent reason?

Did Muang and Wei go back to collect belongings at the beach at 5am?

Did wei have possession of a phone belonging to David?

Did he try to get rid of that phone?

I will try to answer in order

If Hannah and David did walk from bar To crime scene then the B3 were in that path, but there is no witnesses to say if David and Hannah where together or how they left the bar

To go swimming around 1am is irrelevant , David was still alive at 2am, seen entering the bar

Shoes and clothes missing along with guitar

On MM return went to search for missing clothes and guitar

WP found a phone which he gave to a friend, ( what was he thinking if he had just stolen it)

His friend samashed and discarded the phone

[Khun Han]

^The guitar actually tranforms into a broken bottle, shark's tooth ring or Hulkbuster suit (that enables dwarves to beat up giants) depending on which chord you strum on it. The boys were concerned that someone would find it and work out it's real potential, and they'd be bang-to-rights .

Pathetic attempt to avoid a straight answer. Lol

It's no more than the pathetic question deserved. But you don't care that it was a pathetic question, do you? It's all about 'Let's just keep the discussions focused on the B2 and away from other people', no matter how inane, isn't it?

[Khun Han]

I don't know why you lot are saying GC is wrong, GC got it wrong. Answer me if you dare.

Were the b2 right next to the murder scene in the path that Hannah would have to pass?

Did they go swimming in the rain at around 1am for no apparent reason?

Did they leave their shoes behind for no apparent reason?

Did Muang and Wei go back to collect belongings at the beach at 5am?

Did wei have possession of a phone belonging to David?

Did he try to get rid of that phone?

I will try to answer in order

If Hannah and David did walk from bar To crime scene then the B3 were in that path, but there is no witnesses to say if David and Hannah where together or how they left the bar

To go swimming around 1am is irrelevant , David was still alive at 2am, seen entering the bar

Shoes and clothes missing along with guitar

On MM return went to search for missing clothes and guitar

WP found a phone which he gave to a friend, ( what was he thinking if he had just stolen it)

His friend samashed and discarded the phone

I'll bet if you go back through the threads, you'll find that all of Greenchair's questions have been answered multiple times (probably by yourself ). The questions aren't a search for answers. They're for the reasons in my post above.

[KunMatt]

I don't know why you lot are saying GC is wrong, GC got it wrong. Answer me if you dare.

Were the b2 right next to the murder scene in the path that Hannah would have to pass?

Did they go swimming in the rain at around 1am for no apparent reason?

Did they leave their shoes behind for no apparent reason?

Did Muang and Wei go back to collect belongings at the beach at 5am?

Did wei have possession of a phone belonging to David?

Did he try to get rid of that phone?

It's easy to tell by the questions you ignore and the points you repeat why you are here.

So again;

Do you think the B2 are guilty of the murders?

Do you think they did it alone?

[Eirene]

I'll bet if you go back through the threads, you'll find that all of Greenchair's questions have been answered multiple times (probably by yourself ). The questions aren't a search for answers. They're for the reasons in my post above.

Yes....over....over again. The same theories/speculations that have been ongoing for over a year now. Pages and pages of it. Like that Jethro Tull song that keeps playing over and over in my head.

Draw the lace and black curtains and shut out the truth......

[greenchair]

I don't know why you lot are saying GC is wrong, GC got it wrong. Answer me if you dare.

Were the b2 right next to the murder scene in the path that Hannah would have to pass?

Did they go swimming in the rain at around 1am for no apparent reason?

Did they leave their shoes behind for no apparent reason?

Did Muang and Wei go back to collect belongings at the beach at 5am?

Did wei have possession of a phone belonging to David?

Did he try to get rid of that phone?

I will try to answer in order

If Hannah and David did walk from bar To crime scene then the B3 were in that path, but there is no witnesses to say if David and Hannah where together or how they left the bar

To go swimming around 1am is irrelevant , David was still alive at 2am, seen entering the bar

Shoes and clothes missing along with guitar

On MM return went to search for missing clothes and guitar

WP found a phone which he gave to a friend, ( what was he thinking if he had just stolen it)

His friend samashed and discarded the phone

Bless and kindness just trying to make sense of this like everyone else.

Answer back in order.

There is a back door to the beach, it did not have a camera (apparently ).it is believed they left through that door since the camera at front did not see them leaving. Nobody knows if they left together. That put them on a direct path pass b3 back to room. Any other direction would have them back on cctv (I think ).

The time of swim and the time of death are estimated even in the courts. it maybe that Hannah got killed first and david stumbled on to it at a different time.

I am confused if the clothes and shoes were stolen from beach and if guitar was left in ac bar.

IF they thought shoes were stolen why would they go back to look for them?

1 or 2 coincidences sure next to crime, clothes stolen. it just gets a bit much with the phone. I'm not buyin, he just happened to find that phone during his morning stroll. Pigs will flew on that day too lol.

[Ks45672]

Anonymous hacks away 1 GB.......(download link available in the twitter post)

http://news.softpedia.com/news/anonymous-releases-1gb-of-data-from-supreme-court-of-thailand-498941.shtml?utm_content=bufferdd5fc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The RTP must be getting under huge pressure but the Koh Tao verdict will stil stand up in the Appeals & Supreme Courts so they better prepare for a long battle with the Hacker Anonymous Group, which is a battle I wouldn't wish to have.......!

I don't think anonymous can do much in this case except attract attention , the police unlikely have online records of brown envelopes being passed under tables

I remember trying to find a lost motorbike months ago and we made a report in one Station and they told us to check the other local stations in case they have it....

I asked the English speaking cop is there no way to Check from computer here if they have it or not?

He said no, go there and tell them to check the book and this was only a few months ago....

I don't even know why they have computers on their desks.... Maybe Facebook lol

[KunMatt]

I don't know why you lot are saying GC is wrong, GC got it wrong. Answer me if you dare.

Were the b2 right next to the murder scene in the path that Hannah would have to pass?

Did they go swimming in the rain at around 1am for no apparent reason?

Did they leave their shoes behind for no apparent reason?

Did Muang and Wei go back to collect belongings at the beach at 5am?

Did wei have possession of a phone belonging to David?

Did he try to get rid of that phone?

I will try to answer in order

If Hannah and David did walk from bar To crime scene then the B3 were in that path, but there is no witnesses to say if David and Hannah where together or how they left the bar

To go swimming around 1am is irrelevant , David was still alive at 2am, seen entering the bar

Shoes and clothes missing along with guitar

On MM return went to search for missing clothes and guitar

WP found a phone which he gave to a friend, ( what was he thinking if he had just stolen it)

His friend samashed and discarded the phone

Bless and kindness just trying to make sense of this like everyone else.

Answer back in order.

There is a back door to the beach, it did not have a camera (apparently ).it is believed they left through that door since the camera at front did not see them leaving. Nobody knows if they left together. That put them on a direct path pass b3 back to room. Any other direction would have them back on cctv (I think ).

The time of swim and the time of death are estimated even in the courts. it maybe that Hannah got killed first and david stumbled on to it at a different time.

I am confused if the clothes and shoes were stolen from beach and if guitar was left in ac bar.

IF they thought shoes were stolen why would they go back to look for them?

1 or 2 coincidences sure next to crime, clothes stolen. it just gets a bit much with the phone. I'm not buyin, he just happened to find that phone during his morning stroll. Pigs will flew on that day too lol.

So you think the B2 are guilty of the murders?

And, if so, do you think they did it alone?

[rockingrobin]

I don't know why you lot are saying GC is wrong, GC got it wrong. Answer me if you dare.

Were the b2 right next to the murder scene in the path that Hannah would have to pass?

Did they go swimming in the rain at around 1am for no apparent reason?

Did they leave their shoes behind for no apparent reason?

Did Muang and Wei go back to collect belongings at the beach at 5am?

Did wei have possession of a phone belonging to David?

Did he try to get rid of that phone?

I will try to answer in order

If Hannah and David did walk from bar To crime scene then the B3 were in that path, but there is no witnesses to say if David and Hannah where together or how they left the bar

To go swimming around 1am is irrelevant , David was still alive at 2am, seen entering the bar

Shoes and clothes missing along with guitar

On MM return went to search for missing clothes and guitar

WP found a phone which he gave to a friend, ( what was he thinking if he had just stolen it)

His friend samashed and discarded the phone

Bless and kindness just trying to make sense of this like everyone else.

Answer back in order.

There is a back door to the beach, it did not have a camera (apparently ).it is believed they left through that door since the camera at front did not see them leaving. Nobody knows if they left together. That put them on a direct path pass b3 back to room. Any other direction would have them back on cctv (I think ).

The time of swim and the time of death are estimated even in the courts. it maybe that Hannah got killed first and david stumbled on to it at a different time.

I am confused if the clothes and shoes were stolen from beach and if guitar was left in ac bar.

IF they thought shoes were stolen why would they go back to look for them?

1 or 2 coincidences sure next to crime, clothes stolen. it just gets a bit much with the phone. I'm not buyin, he just happened to find that phone during his morning stroll. Pigs will flew on that day too lol.

The estimated time of death is 05:30,

How do you fit the B2 and MM in with the crime.

What part of the B2 and MM statements can be disproven

[Khun Han]

I don't know why you lot are saying GC is wrong, GC got it wrong. Answer me if you dare.

Were the b2 right next to the murder scene in the path that Hannah would have to pass?

Did they go swimming in the rain at around 1am for no apparent reason?

Did they leave their shoes behind for no apparent reason?

Did Muang and Wei go back to collect belongings at the beach at 5am?

Did wei have possession of a phone belonging to David?

Did he try to get rid of that phone?

I will try to answer in order

If Hannah and David did walk from bar To crime scene then the B3 were in that path, but there is no witnesses to say if David and Hannah where together or how they left the bar

To go swimming around 1am is irrelevant , David was still alive at 2am, seen entering the bar

Shoes and clothes missing along with guitar

On MM return went to search for missing clothes and guitar

WP found a phone which he gave to a friend, ( what was he thinking if he had just stolen it)

His friend samashed and discarded the phone

Bless and kindness just trying to make sense of this like everyone else.

Answer back in order.

There is a back door to the beach, it did not have a camera (apparently ).it is believed they left through that door since the camera at front did not see them leaving. Nobody knows if they left together. That put them on a direct path pass b3 back to room. Any other direction would have them back on cctv (I think ).

The time of swim and the time of death are estimated even in the courts. it maybe that Hannah got killed first and david stumbled on to it at a different time.

I am confused if the clothes and shoes were stolen from beach and if guitar was left in ac bar.

IF they thought shoes were stolen why would they go back to look for them?

1 or 2 coincidences sure next to crime, clothes stolen. it just gets a bit much with the phone. I'm not buyin, he just happened to find that phone during his morning stroll. Pigs will flew on that day too lol.

The estimated time of death is 05:30,

How do you fit the B2 and MM in with the crime.

What part of the B2 and MM statements can be disproven

Of course, all this speculation about times of movement could have been put to bed by the police releasing the relevant bits of the hours and hours of cctv footage that they themselves claim to have perused. But I expect that would clear rhe B2. And the relevant digital footage will be 'used up' by now.