Lawyers Council to appeal Koh Tao convicts’ death sentence

[greenchair]

Why do people keep replying to her?

Because they like her more than you.

[greenchair]

Tomorrow we will find out, if, as Andy Hall has stated, there are serious discrepancies between the Thai autopsy and the Norfolk coroner's report regarding Hannah Witheridge. My thoughts are with the Witheridge family as they undergo yet another traumatising life event in this never ending saga of sadness and confusion.

It will certainly be sad but interesting to see if they back up andys claim that Hannah was not raped.

The Norfolk coroner has ruled that Hannah was sexually assaulted. She did not say she was raped, and as you will likely be aware, not all sexual assault is rape.

.......but you wouldn't disagree that it can be!!

No defensive injuries, leaves a question mark about the blond hair in Hannahs hand

If she was being held down by 2 males, while a 3rd. ...

Why would there be defense injuries. she was small lady, 3 guys holding her with out injury would not be that hard. She had also been drinking, which would have weakened her. It's also possible that she was punched unconscious in the beginning, which would have been covered up by the hoe injury.

She was torn down below and it bled, which proved she was alive at the time, but I don't think that proves she was conscious. With my limited knowledge, I read that they could not get dna because of the embalming, so could neither confirm nor rule out rape. But can confirm sexual assault because of the tearing. The Thai police did however collect semen, though there is some controversy about who it belongs to. I think it is very disrespectful to this young lady, to minimise her final horror by saying she was not raped.

[rockingrobin]

Tomorrow we will find out, if, as Andy Hall has stated, there are serious discrepancies between the Thai autopsy and the Norfolk coroner's report regarding Hannah Witheridge. My thoughts are with the Witheridge family as they undergo yet another traumatising life event in this never ending saga of sadness and confusion.

It will certainly be sad but interesting to see if they back up andys claim that Hannah was not raped.

The Norfolk coroner has ruled that Hannah was sexually assaulted. She did not say she was raped, and as you will likely be aware, not all sexual assault is rape.

.......but you wouldn't disagree that it can be!!

No defensive injuries, leaves a question mark about the blond hair in Hannahs hand

If she was being held down by 2 males, while a 3rd. ...

Why would there be defense injuries. she was small lady, 3 guys holding her with out injury would not be that hard. She had also been drinking, which would have weakened her. It's also possible that she was punched unconscious in the beginning, which would have been covered up by the hoe injury.

She was torn down below and it bled, which proved she was alive at the time, but I don't think that proves she was conscious. With my limited knowledge, I read that they could not get dna because of the embalming, so could neither confirm nor rule out rape. But can confirm sexual assault because of the tearing. The Thai police did however collect semen, though there is some controversy about who it belongs to. I think it is very disrespectful to this young lady, to minimise her final horror by saying she was not raped.

It still leaves the Blond hair in her hand, how did it get there

[greenchair]

Tomorrow we will find out, if, as Andy Hall has stated, there are serious discrepancies between the Thai autopsy and the Norfolk coroner's report regarding Hannah Witheridge. My thoughts are with the Witheridge family as they undergo yet another traumatising life event in this never ending saga of sadness and confusion.

It will certainly be sad but interesting to see if they back up andys claim that Hannah was not raped.

The Norfolk coroner has ruled that Hannah was sexually assaulted. She did not say she was raped, and as you will likely be aware, not all sexual assault is rape.

.......but you wouldn't disagree that it can be!!

No defensive injuries, leaves a question mark about the blond hair in Hannahs hand

If she was being held down by 2 males, while a 3rd. ...

Why would there be defense injuries. she was small lady, 3 guys holding her with out injury would not be that hard. She had also been drinking, which would have weakened her. It's also possible that she was punched unconscious in the beginning, which would have been covered up by the hoe injury.

She was torn down below and it bled, which proved she was alive at the time, but I don't think that proves she was conscious. With my limited knowledge, I read that they could not get dna because of the embalming, so could neither confirm nor rule out rape. But can confirm sexual assault because of the tearing. The Thai police did however collect semen, though there is some controversy about who it belongs to. I think it is very disrespectful to this young lady, to minimise her final horror by saying she was not raped.

It still leaves the Blond hair in her hand, how did it get there

We all have our theories about the possibilities of occurrence that night. Before the b2 were arrested the police said they found the dna of 2 by the semen and also the dna of saliva was found on her after she was transported to the hospital. Then there were 2 ciggerette butts of which one matched the semen on the victim. This led to believe there were 3 people there. I most surely am wrong, but continue to believe Sean was there. Sean's hair was what the Thais would call blonde. And then there's matt barrette and his blonde mate. it is definately possible there were more than 3 involved.

The party at the beach that got out of hand is a possible scenario.

Not discounted the back room theory either.

But those 2 know a lot more than they are letting on.

[greenchair]

It also depends if it was a single hair or a clump of hair. A clump of hair would have been pulled out. But a single hair could have fallen. Anyway, what does the hair have to do with being raped or not.

[DM07]

It also depends if it was a single hair or a clump of hair. A clump of hair would have been pulled out. But a single hair could have fallen. Anyway, what does the hair have to do with being raped or not.

We will never know, because it got "lost", remember!

So it might as well have mattered a lot!

But why don't you go back, asking "interesting" questions about shoes?!

[AleG]

The Norfolk coroner has ruled that Hannah was sexually assaulted. She did not say she was raped, and as you will likely be aware, not all sexual assault is rape.

No, I'm not aware at all.

What is the difference between sexual assault and rape.

Bless

Make that what is the substantial difference?, because that's how it was sold to the public by the defense, that there were substantial differences.

"“It was a great opportunity to raise doubts about the prosecutions case. I raised significant doubts on the validity of the Thai autopsy report. The person running on the CCTV footage, which is one of the crucial parts of evidence for the prosecution, is not the defendant [Win Zaw Htun], according to the gait analysis by a UK expert.

“There were substantial differences between the Thai autopsy report, and the British autopsy report,” said Andy Hall."

The UK report also agrees that the injuries were caused by the hoe, so what were this supposed "substantial differences"? Not holding my breath to get an answer on that one.

Also worth pointing there that the "gait analysis UK expert" was not a gait analysis expert and the company that did the "analysis" doesn't provide such service:

"The gait analysis was conducted by Mr. Stephen Cole, Member of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences (MCSFS), and owner of Acumé Forensics Ltd in Leeds, United Kingdom. [1]

While it is true that Mr. Cole is a MCSFS, he is not an Accredited Forensic Practitioner (AcFP) in Forensic Gait Analysis, and does not hold the Society’s certificate of professional competence in this area of practice. [1,2]

It should also be noted that the ‘Forensic Science Regulator’ (FSR) in the UK considers gait comparison to be a subjective process and “therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements”. Mr. Stephen Cole lacks professional competency in the area of gait analysis, and has appeared to have neither trained nor studied in this area of practice. Futhermore, Acumé Forensics does not list gait analysis as one of their main services offered. The FSR also notes that the analysis must be documented in detail, follow a structured methodology, and that overall the reliability and quality of the interpretation can be difficult to determine, due to its subjective nature. [1,2,3,4]"

When are they going to wake up to the fact they've been mislead?

[AleG]

It also depends if it was a single hair or a clump of hair. A clump of hair would have been pulled out. But a single hair could have fallen. Anyway, what does the hair have to do with being raped or not.

It was a single hair, which some journalist sensationalized it as being "clutched" in her hand and that of course spurned all sort of wild speculation and guesswork.

[jayjay78]

So we can explain away this report from court as more sensationalized journalism can we, because to rational people it seems like vital evidence that has been retained and deliberately not produced in court

The presence of a single blonde hair, clutched in the hand of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge after her death on the island of Koh Tao in Thailand, has proved that senior police officers gave contradictory evidence at her murder trial.

The hair, which still had the root attached when it was found on Ms Witheridge’s body by the Royal Thai Police pathologist during her autopsy, was sent for testing.

The strand test revealed it had not come from either 23 year-old Ms Witheridge, or Jersey tourist David Miller, 24, who was murdered alongside her.

The police pathologist testified to the court in early July that the laboratory could not be sure of the colour of the hair, even though he confirmed it had looked blonde.

The two men being tried for the killings, 22 year-olds Zaw Lin and Wei Phyo, are both Burmese migrants and have dark hair.

The police pathologist who carried out the autopsy said in July that the investigation had set the evidence aside because of the inconclusive test result.

In court today, one of the main police investigators, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod, said he had spoken to the police pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd of October, at the same time as the defendants were arrested and two weeks after the autopsies, but otherwise he had no further contact with him.

However, the defence lawyers representing the two Myanmar workers produced a statement from the pathologist, stating that Lt Col Nurod had made two separate trips to meet with him in Bangkok in late October, and again on the November 18 after both defendants had retracted their confessions.

The pathologist’s statement said that the meetings had included discussion on the hair found in Ms Witheridge’s hand.

When challenged in court, Lt Col Nurod admitted that further discussion about the hair strand had indeed taken place, but he did not reveal exactly what was said.

Edited February 8, 2016 by jayjay78

[z42]

The Norfolk coroner has ruled that Hannah was sexually assaulted. She did not say she was raped, and as you will likely be aware, not all sexual assault is rape.

No, I'm not aware at all.

What is the difference between sexual assault and rape.

Bless

Make that what is the substantial difference?, because that's how it was sold to the public by the defense, that there were substantial differences.

"“It was a great opportunity to raise doubts about the prosecutions case. I raised significant doubts on the validity of the Thai autopsy report. The person running on the CCTV footage, which is one of the crucial parts of evidence for the prosecution, is not the defendant [Win Zaw Htun], according to the gait analysis by a UK expert.

“There were substantial differences between the Thai autopsy report, and the British autopsy report,” said Andy Hall."

The UK report also agrees that the injuries were caused by the hoe, so what were this supposed "substantial differences"? Not holding my breath to get an answer on that one.

Also worth pointing there that the "gait analysis UK expert" was not a gait analysis expert and the company that did the "analysis" doesn't provide such service:

"The gait analysis was conducted by Mr. Stephen Cole, Member of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences (MCSFS), and owner of Acumé Forensics Ltd in Leeds, United Kingdom. [1]

While it is true that Mr. Cole is a MCSFS, he is not an Accredited Forensic Practitioner (AcFP) in Forensic Gait Analysis, and does not hold the Society’s certificate of professional competence in this area of practice. [1,2]

It should also be noted that the ‘Forensic Science Regulator’ (FSR) in the UK considers gait comparison to be a subjective process and “therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements”. Mr. Stephen Cole lacks professional competency in the area of gait analysis, and has appeared to have neither trained nor studied in this area of practice. Futhermore, Acumé Forensics does not list gait analysis as one of their main services offered. The FSR also notes that the analysis must be documented in detail, follow a structured methodology, and that overall the reliability and quality of the interpretation can be difficult to determine, due to its subjective nature. [1,2,3,4]"

When are they going to wake up to the fact they've been mislead?

Nobody has been mislead I don't think. The most in depth report i've seen is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12146786/Hannah-Witheridges-mother-reveals-she-pleaded-with-her-daughter-not-to-go-to-Thailand.html

Certainly doesn't seem to allude to anything supporting a rape having taken place, ie not resisting.

Edited February 8, 2016 by z42

[AleG]

No, I'm not aware at all.

What is the difference between sexual assault and rape.

Bless

Make that what is the substantial difference?, because that's how it was sold to the public by the defense, that there were substantial differences.

"“It was a great opportunity to raise doubts about the prosecutions case. I raised significant doubts on the validity of the Thai autopsy report. The person running on the CCTV footage, which is one of the crucial parts of evidence for the prosecution, is not the defendant [Win Zaw Htun], according to the gait analysis by a UK expert.

“There were substantial differences between the Thai autopsy report, and the British autopsy report,” said Andy Hall."

The UK report also agrees that the injuries were caused by the hoe, so what were this supposed "substantial differences"? Not holding my breath to get an answer on that one.

Also worth pointing there that the "gait analysis UK expert" was not a gait analysis expert and the company that did the "analysis" doesn't provide such service:

"The gait analysis was conducted by Mr. Stephen Cole, Member of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences (MCSFS), and owner of Acumé Forensics Ltd in Leeds, United Kingdom. [1]

While it is true that Mr. Cole is a MCSFS, he is not an Accredited Forensic Practitioner (AcFP) in Forensic Gait Analysis, and does not hold the Society’s certificate of professional competence in this area of practice. [1,2]

It should also be noted that the ‘Forensic Science Regulator’ (FSR) in the UK considers gait comparison to be a subjective process and “therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements”. Mr. Stephen Cole lacks professional competency in the area of gait analysis, and has appeared to have neither trained nor studied in this area of practice. Futhermore, Acumé Forensics does not list gait analysis as one of their main services offered. The FSR also notes that the analysis must be documented in detail, follow a structured methodology, and that overall the reliability and quality of the interpretation can be difficult to determine, due to its subjective nature. [1,2,3,4]"

When are they going to wake up to the fact they've been mislead?

Nobody has been mislead I don't think. The most in depth report i've seen is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12146786/Hannah-Witheridges-mother-reveals-she-pleaded-with-her-daughter-not-to-go-to-Thailand.html

Certainly doesn't seem to allude to anything supporting a rape having taken place, ie not resisting.

"A post-mortem examination by a UK pathologist gave the medical cause of death as severe head injuries.

It noted that there were multiple blows to the skull, consistent with the use of the blade of a hoe wielded as a weapon, and death would have been rapid."

[AleG]

No, I'm not aware at all.

What is the difference between sexual assault and rape.

Bless

Make that what is the substantial difference?, because that's how it was sold to the public by the defense, that there were substantial differences.

"“It was a great opportunity to raise doubts about the prosecutions case. I raised significant doubts on the validity of the Thai autopsy report. The person running on the CCTV footage, which is one of the crucial parts of evidence for the prosecution, is not the defendant [Win Zaw Htun], according to the gait analysis by a UK expert.

“There were substantial differences between the Thai autopsy report, and the British autopsy report,” said Andy Hall."

The UK report also agrees that the injuries were caused by the hoe, so what were this supposed "substantial differences"? Not holding my breath to get an answer on that one.

Also worth pointing there that the "gait analysis UK expert" was not a gait analysis expert and the company that did the "analysis" doesn't provide such service:

"The gait analysis was conducted by Mr. Stephen Cole, Member of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences (MCSFS), and owner of Acumé Forensics Ltd in Leeds, United Kingdom. [1]

While it is true that Mr. Cole is a MCSFS, he is not an Accredited Forensic Practitioner (AcFP) in Forensic Gait Analysis, and does not hold the Society’s certificate of professional competence in this area of practice. [1,2]

It should also be noted that the ‘Forensic Science Regulator’ (FSR) in the UK considers gait comparison to be a subjective process and “therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements”. Mr. Stephen Cole lacks professional competency in the area of gait analysis, and has appeared to have neither trained nor studied in this area of practice. Futhermore, Acumé Forensics does not list gait analysis as one of their main services offered. The FSR also notes that the analysis must be documented in detail, follow a structured methodology, and that overall the reliability and quality of the interpretation can be difficult to determine, due to its subjective nature. [1,2,3,4]"

When are they going to wake up to the fact they've been mislead?

Nobody has been mislead I don't think. The most in depth report i've seen is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12146786/Hannah-Witheridges-mother-reveals-she-pleaded-with-her-daughter-not-to-go-to-Thailand.html

Certainly doesn't seem to allude to anything supporting a rape having taken place, ie not resisting.

Nothing alluding to rape? so when the article says in the title "Backpacker Hannah Witheridge was raped and murdered on the Thai island of Koh Tao" and then adds "Dr Cary also said there were signs that Miss Witheridge had been dragged and sexually assaulted." you are right, they are not alluding anything, they spell it out explicitly.

In their confession her killers admitted of knocking her unconscious before raping her, that is why there are no defensive injuries.

[z42]

No, I'm not aware at all.

What is the difference between sexual assault and rape.

Bless

Make that what is the substantial difference?, because that's how it was sold to the public by the defense, that there were substantial differences.

"“It was a great opportunity to raise doubts about the prosecutions case. I raised significant doubts on the validity of the Thai autopsy report. The person running on the CCTV footage, which is one of the crucial parts of evidence for the prosecution, is not the defendant [Win Zaw Htun], according to the gait analysis by a UK expert.

“There were substantial differences between the Thai autopsy report, and the British autopsy report,” said Andy Hall."

The UK report also agrees that the injuries were caused by the hoe, so what were this supposed "substantial differences"? Not holding my breath to get an answer on that one.

Also worth pointing there that the "gait analysis UK expert" was not a gait analysis expert and the company that did the "analysis" doesn't provide such service:

"The gait analysis was conducted by Mr. Stephen Cole, Member of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences (MCSFS), and owner of Acumé Forensics Ltd in Leeds, United Kingdom. [1]

While it is true that Mr. Cole is a MCSFS, he is not an Accredited Forensic Practitioner (AcFP) in Forensic Gait Analysis, and does not hold the Society’s certificate of professional competence in this area of practice. [1,2]

It should also be noted that the ‘Forensic Science Regulator’ (FSR) in the UK considers gait comparison to be a subjective process and “therefore the opinion given by the expert will be based upon their competency, training and study of the specialist subject, rather than objective measurements”. Mr. Stephen Cole lacks professional competency in the area of gait analysis, and has appeared to have neither trained nor studied in this area of practice. Futhermore, Acumé Forensics does not list gait analysis as one of their main services offered. The FSR also notes that the analysis must be documented in detail, follow a structured methodology, and that overall the reliability and quality of the interpretation can be difficult to determine, due to its subjective nature. [1,2,3,4]"

When are they going to wake up to the fact they've been mislead?

Nobody has been mislead I don't think. The most in depth report i've seen is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12146786/Hannah-Witheridges-mother-reveals-she-pleaded-with-her-daughter-not-to-go-to-Thailand.html

Certainly doesn't seem to allude to anything supporting a rape having taken place, ie not resisting.

"A post-mortem examination by a UK pathologist gave the medical cause of death as severe head injuries.

It noted that there were multiple blows to the skull, consistent with the use of the blade of a hoe wielded as a weapon, and death would have been rapid."

That same hoe that didn't have DNA or fingerprints of the supposed killers on. But still had DNA of as yet unidentified people on. So surely wouldn't the next step be trying to find out if there are any ways to check whose DNA / prints could be on the hoe.

And also interesting to note that the british docs / coroner specifically stated that the body was dragged / moved at some point. I wonder by who exactly? I am not sure if there was ever a video of the re enactment, does anybody know if the B2 claimed they dragged the body during their dubious confession / re enactment

[AleG]

The DNA on the hoe is from two men, one David Miller, the other profile is incomplete, but is a match with a quarter of the profile of one of the Burmese.

But that's changing the discussion away from the fact that the public was misled (to put it delicately) about the contents of the UK report, as it was about other issues.

[iReason]

For the uninformed and the directors of misinformation:

"By definition, rape is forced and unwanted sexual intercourse onto an individual without his consent. Essentially, sexual assault is an umbrella term that includes all unwanted sexual contact whereas rape refers to a specific crime. Rape is always sexual assault but sexual assault is not always rape."

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Difference-Between-Rape-and-Sexual-Assault

"Sexual Assault: the sexual exploitation, forcible penetration, or an act of sexual contact on the body of another person, male or female, without his or her consent."

"Rape: is an act of power and control, in which the victim is humiliated, degraded, and left with feelings of shame, guilt, and anger. If you are forced against your will to have sex with someone, that is rape."

http://sexualassault.appstate.edu/sexual-assault-rape

Edited February 8, 2016 by iReason

[jayjay78]

The DNA on the hoe is from two men, one David Miller, the other profile is incomplete, but is a match with a quarter of the profile of one of the Burmese.

But that's changing the discussion away from the fact that the public was misled (to put it delicately) about the contents of the UK report, as it was about other issues.

You haven't read the full UK autopsy report so how do you know, you can only speculate and saying the public was deliberately misled is deliberately spreading false information. All you know is what everybody else knows here from reading the scant reports of todays inquest.

The 25% DNA match could have been the same from any random person picked off the street so cannot implicate anyone including the B2

[Khun Han]

So we can explain away this report from court as more sensationalized journalism can we, because to rational people it seems like vital evidence that has been retained and deliberately not produced in court

The presence of a single blonde hair, clutched in the hand of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge after her death on the island of Koh Tao in Thailand, has proved that senior police officers gave contradictory evidence at her murder trial.

The hair, which still had the root attached when it was found on Ms Witheridges body by the Royal Thai Police pathologist during her autopsy, was sent for testing.

The strand test revealed it had not come from either 23 year-old Ms Witheridge, or Jersey tourist David Miller, 24, who was murdered alongside her.

The police pathologist testified to the court in early July that the laboratory could not be sure of the colour of the hair, even though he confirmed it had looked blonde.

The two men being tried for the killings, 22 year-olds Zaw Lin and Wei Phyo, are both Burmese migrants and have dark hair.

The police pathologist who carried out the autopsy said in July that the investigation had set the evidence aside because of the inconclusive test result.

In court today, one of the main police investigators, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod, said he had spoken to the police pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd of October, at the same time as the defendants were arrested and two weeks after the autopsies, but otherwise he had no further contact with him.

However, the defence lawyers representing the two Myanmar workers produced a statement from the pathologist, stating that Lt Col Nurod had made two separate trips to meet with him in Bangkok in late October, and again on the November 18 after both defendants had retracted their confessions.

The pathologists statement said that the meetings had included discussion on the hair found in Ms Witheridges hand.

When challenged in court, Lt Col Nurod admitted that further discussion about the hair strand had indeed taken place, but he did not reveal exactly what was said.

So Lt Col Nurod perjured himself, was caught out in court perjuring himself, still refused to come clean and explain himself fully, and the judges did nothing. Splendid. And some on here still try to argue that the trial was fair. Farce would be a more suitable descriptive noun.

[rockingrobin]

The DNA on the hoe is from two men, one David Miller, the other profile is incomplete, but is a match with a quarter of the profile of one of the Burmese.

But that's changing the discussion away from the fact that the public was misled (to put it delicately) about the contents of the UK report, as it was about other issues.

The UK pathalogist report has not been made public

[AleG]

For the uninformed and the directors of misinformation:

"By definition, rape is forced and unwanted sexual intercourse onto an individual without his consent. Essentially, sexual assault is an umbrella term that includes all unwanted sexual contact whereas rape refers to a specific crime. Rape is always sexual assault but sexual assault is not always rape."

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Difference-Between-Rape-and-Sexual-Assault

"Sexual Assault: the sexual exploitation, forcible penetration, or an act of sexual contact on the body of another person, male or female, without his or her consent."

"Rape: is an act of power and control, in which the victim is humiliated, degraded, and left with feelings of shame, guilt, and anger. If you are forced against your will to have sex with someone, that is rape."

http://sexualassault.appstate.edu/sexual-assault-rape

By the definition on your own link: "Rape refers specifically to forced sexual intercourse." as demonstrated by the injuries on the victim the sexual assault was rape, it wasn't "voyeurism, exhibitionism, incest, or sexual harassment". All the articles that came up after the inquest explicitly say it was rape, it's beyond disgusting how you are trying to distort and mislead.

[AleG]

I see that it's time for damage control...the lie is too comforting to let go.

[Khun Han]

That same hoe that didn't have DNA or fingerprints of the supposed killers on. But still had DNA of as yet unidentified people on. So surely wouldn't the next step be trying to find out if there are any ways to check whose DNA / prints could be on the hoe.

And also interesting to note that the british docs / coroner specifically stated that the body was dragged / moved at some point. I wonder by who exactly? I am not sure if there was ever a video of the re enactment, does anybody know if the B2 claimed they dragged the body during their dubious confession / re enactment

That would be the hoe that, when Montrivet Tuvichien turned up at the crime scene to 'assist' the attending police officers, Mon noticed was missing (huh???), and instructed the gardener to find and return it to it's correct position at the scene.

If ten year olds were making up a school play they would more convincing.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Khun Han

[iReason]

The Trolls have been presented with actual facts and what the police claim. (Along with their countless contradictions)

Crucial evidence has been "lost" and "used up" and plainly, made up.

The Trolls know all this.

They have chosen to "believe" the police.

For their own reasons...

While continuing to avoid addressing Somyot's claim about the hoe:

"We still have specific DNA samples from the hoe," he said, without elaborating. (Samples. That would be plural)

http://www.nationmul...f-30264238.html

And Trolls, please read Post #506 re: Definitions of Sexual Assault

"Dr Cary also said there were signs that Miss Witheridge had been dragged and sexually assaulted."

Edited February 8, 2016 by iReason

[Khun Han]

"it's beyond disgusting how you are trying to distort and mislead."

There is probably no finer example of projection anywhere in these discussions.

[rockingrobin]

That same hoe that didn't have DNA or fingerprints of the supposed killers on. But still had DNA of as yet unidentified people on. So surely wouldn't the next step be trying to find out if there are any ways to check whose DNA / prints could be on the hoe.

And also interesting to note that the british docs / coroner specifically stated that the body was dragged / moved at some point. I wonder by who exactly? I am not sure if there was ever a video of the re enactment, does anybody know if the B2 claimed they dragged the body during their dubious confession / re enactment

That would be the hoe that, when Montrivet Tuvichien turned up at the crime scene to 'assist' the attending police officers, Mon noticed was missing (huh???), and instructed the gardener to find and return it to it's correct position at the scene.

If ten year olds were making up a school play they would more convincing.

Who photagraphed the hoe in the vegatable garden ,

[rockingrobin]

The Trolls have been presented with actual facts and what the police claim. (Along with their countless contradictions)

Crucial evidence has been "lost" and "used up" and plainly, made up.

The Trolls know all this.

They have chosen to "believe" the police.

For their own reasons...

While continuing to avoid addressing Somyot's claim about the hoe:

"We still have specific DNA samples from the hoe," he said, without elaborating. (Samples. That would be plural)

http://www.nationmul...f-30264238.html

And Trolls, please read Post #506 re: Definitions of Sexual Assault

"Dr Cary also said there were signs that Miss Witheridge had been dragged and sexually assaulted."

Would this be the hoe that wasnt forensically tested by the RTP, along with the condom with Hannah's dna on the outside

[TheLobster]

Trial Report:
According to the CCTV footage, the Second Deceased was found walking into the AC Bar with her friends at 00.15 hrs, whereas the Second Deceased walked into the AC Bar at 02.08.37 hrs. Thereafter, both Deceased were never found walking out of the Bar until their bodies were found.

Coroner Findings Hannah Inquest:
There was evidence of dragging

[TheLobster]

Tomorrow we will find out, if, as Andy Hall has stated, there are serious discrepancies between the Thai autopsy and the Norfolk coroner's report regarding Hannah Witheridge. My thoughts are with the Witheridge family as they undergo yet another traumatising life event in this never ending saga of sadness and confusion.

It will certainly be sad but interesting to see if they back up andys claim that Hannah was not raped.

The Norfolk coroner has ruled that Hannah was sexually assaulted. She did not say she was raped, and as you will likely be aware, not all sexual assault is rape.

No, I'm not aware at all.

What is the difference between sexual assault and rape.

Bless

To clarify in UK terms:

Sexual Offences Act 2003

The Act sets out the offences requiring the prosecution to prove absence of consent at sections 1-4. They are:

rape;

assault by penetration;

sexual assault; and

causing a person to engage in sexual activity.

Sexual assault

Sexual assault is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is created by section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which defines "sexual assault"

as when a person (A) intentionally touches another person (,

the touching is sexual,

B does not consent to the touching, and

A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

[greenchair]

As pointed out this is a disgusting and shameful play on words to minimise and belittle what happened to this young lady.
Sexual assault / rape either way they put their DELETED where they were not welcomed. They then tried to conceal their crime. She was most likely punched unconscious , before the worst violation of her body was enacted. We all remember the little girl on the train. He punched her so hard in the stomach she passed out .then he took his DELETED and violated her.
How would you lot define that. She didn't fight back, she didn't resist. Is that defined as rape or sexual assault ?
The way people have tried to explain that she was not raped by definition of words must have been quite shocking to the judge as it is to me. I really don't think there is a definition in thai language between the two.
Did they have violent sex with her. Yes. Did she consent. Not by a long shot. Shameful

Edited February 9, 2016 by seedy
language

[berybert]

Well if she was raped and there was DNA left in her body I wonder why so little of it was available for testing. Don't Burmese men produce the same amount of semen as other nations ?.

[Khun Han]

Trial Report:

According to the CCTV footage, the Second Deceased was found walking into the AC Bar with her friends at 00.15 hrs, whereas the Second Deceased walked into the AC Bar at 02.08.37 hrs. Thereafter, both Deceased were never found walking out of the Bar until their bodies were found.

Coroner Findings Hannah Inquest:

There was evidence of dragging

There very likely was CCTV footage of Hannah and David leaving that bar (whether aided or unaided we will never know). But, as we do know, all CCTV from there was private property, and on that basis, the bar owners refused to hand the night's footage over to the police. And that was good enough for the police .

On another note, I can't help noticing that one particular 'B2 are guilty' poster appears to be going completely off the rails . It's getting cringingly embarrassing. Surely it's time for the mods to put them out of their misery?

Edited February 8, 2016 by Khun Han