Lawyers Council to appeal Koh Tao convicts’ death sentence

[AleG]

Mon was very much involved, so why did the defence not call him?

Under Thai law are they entitled to call him?

What worries me is that there appear to have been some basic ground rules set in this trial: you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people.

That's the make-believe story, the reality is that from the outset the judge was prepared to hear about any other people supposedly involved in the crime:

"Koh Samui court head judge just asked both Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo: ‘If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Don’t be scared.’ Zaw Lin/Wei Phyo both replied strongly to the judge’s question: ‘We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing.’"

[AleG]

1.00 am MM was seen on CCTV on the motorbike at 1am

1.26am David is recorded walking from the club AC

1.56am Returns to Club AC

3am-4am Friends say David & Hannah left club according to police.

3.44am running man

4.00 am WP testified that he was out looking for his clothes

4.30 am MM is seen on CCTV

4.49 am Running Man

4.51 .25 big beard man with woman

5.40am "O testified he found bodies must have called Mon

5.30am Doctor Testified this was the estimated time of the deaths.

6.10 am O was approached by the resorts boss and a policeman who told him to put on a pair of gloves and return it to the scene, which he did.

6.30am Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao, said he received a call by a fellow officer.

6.35am Police Lieutenant Jakkapan Kaewkao arrived at the beach and swiftly cordoned off the area.

8.00 am Dr Chasit Yoohat comes to the scene.

9.00 am Dr Chasit Yoohat left the scene

10am Dr Chasit Yoohat returned when he examined the bodies.

Mon was at the crime scene for almost 1 hour before the police were contacted.

What was he doing for all this time as we all know the first thing innocent people do is call the police when they see something so horrifi

Pol Lt Jakkrapan Kaewkhao Testified the clothes were piled neatly. photos show different.

Pol Lt Jakkrapan Kaewkhao, 26, head of the Koh Tao public service centre, was the first prosecution witness to testify in the murder case of British backpackers David Miller, 24, and Hannah Witheridge, 23, on the resort island in the early hours of Sept 15 last year.

The officer identified Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun to the court as the accused. Later, in cross-examination, he admitted he had not been involved in such a case before.

Lt Jakkrapan said he saw a body later identified as Mr Miller's at the water's edge at Sai Ree beach in front of the King Chulalongkorn statue, so he decided to move him to higher ground.

About five metres away, behind some rocks, lay a female body, later identified as Miss Witheridge.

The woman's skirt was pulled up to her waist, Pol Lt Jakkrapan told the three-member panel of judges. Bloodstains and human flesh was spotted on the rocks.

He believed the areas where he saw flecks of blood on the sand were likely to be where Miller was assaulted.

He found a metal part of a shovel, a wooden stick, and three cigarette butts about 60m north of Miss Witheridge.

A used condom, grey pants with a belt, a pair of canvas shoes, and a pair of pink sandals were piled neatly nearby.

- See more at: http://www.theguardi...packer-killings

So Mon has admitted to being at the crime scene for nearly an hour before the police were called. And the crime scene was tampered with during this time. That would make Mon a prime suspect in any police textbook. No wonder Pol Gen Panya named him as being involved before his boss changed the direction of the investigation. Mon was involved.

No, that's StealthEnergizer making things up and you just gobble it up; where does it say anywhere that he was there one hour before the police were called?, what I see in those citations is:

"5.40am "O testified he found bodies must have called Mon"

The assumption that Mon was called at 5:40, not even that he was there at that time.

And Mon being there, 30 minutes later when a police officer was already at the scene.:

" 6.10 am O was approached by the resorts boss and a policeman who told him to put on a pair of gloves and return it to the scene, which he did."

So whichever way you want to spin it this is completely false "Mon has admitted to being at the crime scene for nearly an hour before the police were called" and that it is said on the same post that proves it to be false speaks volumes of your complete immunity to see things that contradict your preferred narrative.

Edited February 9, 2016 by AleG

[rockingrobin]

Mon was very much involved, so why did the defence not call him?

Under Thai law are they entitled to call him?

What worries me is that there appear to have been some basic ground rules set in this trial: you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people.

That's the make-believe story, the reality is that from the outset the judge was prepared to hear about any other people supposedly involved in the crime:

"Koh Samui court head judge just asked both Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo: ‘If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Don’t be scared.’ Zaw Lin/Wei Phyo both replied strongly to the judge’s question: ‘We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing.’"

Absolutely rubbish , the judge asked a leading question ,

‘If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Don’t be scared.’

If they are not involved how would they know who is

[iReason]

@Post #582

Cherry picking again are you?

Scared?

You neglected to include the statements directly before your above quote:

"Zaw Lin and Wei Phyo’s words written in Koh Samui court today:"

"Before, during the case investigation we had no chance or right to prove/speak out our innocence/the truth. We are victims of influential people."

Edited February 9, 2016 by iReason

[AleG]

What worries me is that there appear to have been some basic ground rules set in this trial: you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people.

That's the make-believe story, the reality is that from the outset the judge was prepared to hear about any other people supposedly involved in the crime:

"Koh Samui court head judge just asked both Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo: ‘If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Don’t be scared.’ Zaw Lin/Wei Phyo both replied strongly to the judge’s question: ‘We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing.’"

Absolutely rubbish , the judge asked a leading question ,

‘If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Don’t be scared.’

If they are not involved how would they know who is

"you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people."

The judge's question proves Kun Han's statement to be a fantasy, he specifically asked them if they could provide evidence or testimony about other people's involvement.

Of course you have no problem whatsoever with what he said being demonstrably false, you just have to defend your side, regardless of anything else, like I said, a complete immunity to see reality as it is.

Though it is funny how in your rush to post a response you and iReason tripped on each other, you saying that how could they know if anyone else was involved, and him pointing pointing out that they claimed to be the victims of influential people... It's one or the other, they know more than they were telling or they don't know anything at all.

Edited February 9, 2016 by AleG

[rockingrobin]

What worries me is that there appear to have been some basic ground rules set in this trial: you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people.

That's the make-believe story, the reality is that from the outset the judge was prepared to hear about any other people supposedly involved in the crime:

"Koh Samui court head judge just asked both Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo: ‘If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Don’t be scared.’ Zaw Lin/Wei Phyo both replied strongly to the judge’s question: ‘We really don’t know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing.’"

Absolutely rubbish , the judge asked a leading question ,

‘If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Don’t be scared.’

If they are not involved how would they know who is

"you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people."

The judge's question proves Kun Han's statement to be a fantasy, he specifically asked them if they could provide evidence or testimony about other people's involvement.

Of course you have no problem whatsoever with what he said being demonstrably false, you just have to defend your side, regardless of anything else, like I said, a complete immunity to see reality as it is.

Though it is funny how in your rush to post a response you and iReason tripped on each other, you saying that how could they know if anyone else was involved, and him pointing pointing out that they claimed to be the victims of influential people... It's one or the other, they know more than they were telling or they don't know anything at all.

NO

The question assumes one of guilt or knowledge of the crime

[iReason]

@Post #586

Weak deflection. Once again.

Being railroaded negates both of your theories.

Edited February 9, 2016 by iReason

[Khun Han]

The judge's question at the start of the trial might well have been to establish that the defendants fully understood the ground rules before the trial got underway of not implicating other people. It's an odd question per se for a judge to ask straight off. You'd normally expect that sort of question to be asked once cross-examination of the defendants was underway.

[berybert]

So Mon has admitted to being at the crime scene for nearly an hour before the police were called. And the crime scene was tampered with during this time. That would make Mon a prime suspect in any police textbook. No wonder Pol Gen Panya named him as being involved before his boss changed the direction of the investigation. Mon was involved.

No, that's StealthEnergizer making things up and you just gobble it up; where does it say anywhere that he was there one hour before the police were called?, what I see in those citations is:

"5.40am "O testified he found bodies must have called Mon"

The assumption that Mon was called at 5:40, not even that he was there at that time.

And Mon being there, 30 minutes later when a police officer was already at the scene.:

" 6.10 am O was approached by the resorts boss and a policeman who told him to put on a pair of gloves and return it to the scene, which he did."

So whichever way you want to spin it this is completely false "Mon has admitted to being at the crime scene for nearly an hour before the police were called" and that it is said on the same post that proves it to be false speaks volumes of your complete immunity to see things that contradict your preferred narrative.

Mon is the guy in the CCTV, he said so himself. So at what time was he running around and what time did the first cop arrive on the scene. Then work out the time difference..

DELETED

Edited February 10, 2016 by seedy
troll / flaming

[Khun Han]

So we have established that Mon and his police buddy/henchman were rearranging the crime scene (tidying up clothing etc) for nearly an hour before one of them called the island's senior officer. So now we have two prime suspects.

[balo]

Any news or should I skip reading the last 4 pages ?

[greenchair]

Mon was very much involved, so why did the defence not call him?

Under Thai law are they entitled to call him?

What worries me is that there appear to have been some basic ground rules set in this trial: you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people.

That's the make-believe story, the reality is that from the outset the judge was prepared to hear about any other people supposedly involved in the crime:

"Koh Samui court head judge just asked both Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo: If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Dont be scared. Zaw Lin/Wei Phyo both replied strongly to the judges question: We really dont know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing."

We were drunk just went back home.

And that is what we were all led to believe.

We played the guitar, went home, slept and mm woke us up at 5am.

But oh no, seems they weren't so drunk to remember after all.

Oh says the prosecutor then why do we see you down at the beach at 4am.

Oops forgot we went to get our clothes.

Why were you not wearing them.

Oops we went for a swim.

Why did you change shirts with mm?

It was a cold night.

Wasn't it raining?

Yes, it was cold and raining at 2am but we just decided to have a swim.

So says the prosecutor even though you were very drunk you slept for less than 2 hours and got up to go and retrieve your belongings at 4am.

Yes, at which time I just happened to stumble on the murder victims phone. But I couldn't find my shoes.

So you did just go back to your room to sleep.

No, there was no time for sleeping I was so busy trying to figure how to get out of this mess I was now in.

[StealthEnergiser]

So we have established that Mon and his police buddy/henchman were rearranging the crime scene (tidying up clothing etc) for nearly an hour before one of them called the island's senior officer. So now we have two prime suspects.

It's amazing that the name of this other policeman has never been mentioned and kept out of the media and only reports that Pol Lt Jakkrapan Kaewkhao " the one that wears blonde wigs " being first to the scene

If Mon was at the crime scene for almost 1 hour before calling Pol Lt Jakkrapan Kaewkhao what went on.

If there was another policeman on the scene with Mon it is very unusual that he never testified but then again maybe he shouldn't have been there and was just helping his mate .

Not calling Pol Lt Jakkrapan Kaewkhao within the first 10 minutes of finding the victims makes certain people look very suspicious .

It only took Pol Lt Jakkrapan Kaewkhao 5 minutes to get there once he was called so he wasn't far away.

To me this looks like where the cover up started before the police were called and Pol Lt Jakkrapan Kaewkhao could have been spun a heap of lies very early and he believed them.

[berybert]

I was walking home from a quiz in the pub tonight and a song lyric came into my head.... People are strange when you're a stranger. Just looked, its a Doors song.

So yes when you move to a new country you think other people are strange, it takes a while to realise it is yourself who is different.

Pay a copper 200 baht to escape a 500 baht fine is the way it is in Thailand.

Paying the cops to find a scape goat in a murder case is how it's always been. If it means people keep coming to a holiday resort and the money keeps coming in then its money well spent.

Most people on the island have given up posting on this case because they won and that's how its always been. Move on nothing left to see here.

However I notice one poster just cant leave it alone. For me its no longer a case of 'we won' but more a case of 'I got away with murder' Because no one would keep on spreading lies day after day, week after week, month after month, without having something to hide.

When the judge asked the Burmese if they knew who killed David and Hannah and they said no, there was a poster on here who knew he had got away with murder.

[boomerangutang]

The fact that they (the B2) admitted that they 'sexually assaulted' Hannah when they rather foolishly implicated themselves proves that they attacked her!!

If they did that, it was under duress. They also admitted they used a broken bottle to harm David, yet there was no broken bottle or shards of glass found. Torture can elicit any statement from anyone.

Mon was very much involved, so why did the defence not call him?

Under Thai law are they entitled to call him?

Mon was called to the stand, but only under a very tightly defined premise: to ascertain that he was the first person notified of the crime on Monday morning. Just like the plethora of other restrictions put in place by the court and RTP (essentially the same entity), Mon was not questioned about his involvement in the crime or its cover-up. Just one other example of the many restrictions the court put upon the investigation: the court only allowed a very few items to be checked for DNA. Not allowed: Hannah's missing clothes, the bottle, the hair, David's clothes, etc. The court specified only a flip-flop, the hoe and scant little else. The court also didn't want any mention of the other prime suspect (besides Mon): Nomsod. In sum, neither the RTP, prosecution nor the court wanted to ascertain who really did the crime.

re; Mon at the crime scene: AleG wants to split hairs by saying (he thinks) Mon was not at the crime scene for an hour before police arrived. Whether or not it was a full hour is moot. It may have been 54 minutes or 73 minutes, so what. The fact remains that Mon was at the crime scene for awhile from the break of dawn. Who knows, maybe David could have been revived at that time? Well, only Mon would know. But Mon being at the crime scene and being an interested party if his nephew was involved brings up several considerations. He had time to rearrange the crime scene. He had time to bury/hide or put things in his pocket which he wouldn't want cops to see. Granted, these are assumptions on my part, but we're left with little else when RTP have been so consistently lying to the public for 17 months non-stop.

[AleG]

Any news or should I skip reading the last 4 pages ?

There's nothing new, besides new lies.

[AleG]

So we have established that Mon and his police buddy/henchman were rearranging the crime scene (tidying up clothing etc) for nearly an hour before one of them called the island's senior officer. So now we have two prime suspects.

What you have establish is that you, as in the Koh Tao Truthers, are living in a lie, and need more lies to keep up the appearances.

Is it for the sport, is it because of problems handling reality, is it to feel part of a group? Maybe all of those reasons; what is clear is that you not only not care for the truth, you hold it in contempt, and if you don't care about the truth you have no grounds on which to speak of justice.

[jayjay78]

Any news or should I skip reading the last 4 pages ?

Yes some news for you from the Nation, just in. Confirmation the accused are appealing the murder verdict which was disputed here by Greenchair who was saying this was only an appeal for the death sentence.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Convicts-to-appeal-Koh-Tao-murder-verdict-30278942.html

[AleG]

The judge's question at the start of the trial might well have been to establish that the defendants fully understood the ground rules before the trial got underway of not implicating other people. It's an odd question per se for a judge to ask straight off. You'd normally expect that sort of question to be asked once cross-examination of the defendants was underway.

And just to drive the point home of what depths of delusion are needed to hold on to the belief that those two Myanmar men are innocent, the judge asking them directly if anyone else was involved in the crime is translated, through the magic of self delusion into: "The judge's question at the start of the trial might well have been to establish that the defendants fully understood the ground rules before the trial got underway of not implicating other people"

Black is white, up is down and it's clear that reality is not welcomed.

[AleG]

Mon was very much involved, so why did the defence not call him?

Under Thai law are they entitled to call him?

What worries me is that there appear to have been some basic ground rules set in this trial: you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people.

That's the make-believe story, the reality is that from the outset the judge was prepared to hear about any other people supposedly involved in the crime:

"Koh Samui court head judge just asked both Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo: If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Dont be scared. Zaw Lin/Wei Phyo both replied strongly to the judges question: We really dont know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing."

We were drunk just went back home.

And that is what we were all led to believe.

We played the guitar, went home, slept and mm woke us up at 5am.

But oh no, seems they weren't so drunk to remember after all.

Oh says the prosecutor then why do we see you down at the beach at 4am.

Oops forgot we went to get our clothes.

Why were you not wearing them.

Oops we went for a swim.

Why did you change shirts with mm?

It was a cold night.

Wasn't it raining?

Yes, it was cold and raining at 2am but we just decided to have a swim.

So says the prosecutor even though you were very drunk you slept for less than 2 hours and got up to go and retrieve your belongings at 4am.

Yes, at which time I just happened to stumble on the murder victims phone. But I couldn't find my shoes.

So you did just go back to your room to sleep.

No, there was no time for sleeping I was so busy trying to figure how to get out of this mess I was now in.

On the topic of lies, there's this too, from the court judgement report:

"At about 8 am, the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Ren’s house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened. Then, the Second Defendant slept over at the First Defendant’s house and returned to Mr Ren Ren’s house again to ask about the phone. Mr Ren Ren said he had smashed and destroyed the phone and thrown it away because he did not want to be implicated in the crime. The Second Defendant was disinterested and did not ask further."

What that means is that Wei Phyo, before the news of the murders had spread, lied to his friend about where he found the phone and his friend destroyed it because he didn't want to be implicated on the crime. Two questions then, why did Wei Phyo lie if he knew nothing about the crime, and why did his friend destroy the phone, so as not to be implicated with the crime if he didn't knew a phone was missing from one of the victims?

They knew, that's why they did what they did.

[lucky11]

@Post #582

Cherry picking again are you?

Scared?

You neglected to include the statements directly before your above quote:

"Zaw Lin and Wei Phyo’s words written in Koh Samui court today:"

"Before, during the case investigation we had no chance or right to prove/speak out our innocence/the truth. We are victims of influential people."

"we are victims of influential people"

The Burmese were told to say this, I bet they have never even heard of the word influential!!

Although it played no part in the trial (and so is irrelevant) they wouldn't have fabricated the torture accusations or, I doubt, have retracted their guilty pleas had it not been for these HR lawyers butting in. It seems to be standard practice for them. What is the first thing they say? "deny everything and admit to nothing" - sadly, this seems to happen whether they actually believe they are guilty of the crime, or not and appears to be inconsequential to the matter .

Edited February 10, 2016 by lucky11

[lucky11]

transam, on 09 Feb 2016 - 10:30, said:

greenchair, on 09 Feb 2016 - 10:21, said:

That's right lucky. I have never joked about the subject itself. But have found humour in many of the comments ,especially the comments that have been directed at me by the stalkers. I respond back with humour, rather than malice, which in no way demeans the serious nature of the topic.

One thing is for sure.....Hannah would be NO friend of yours......

Did someone post you are a bird.....?

Yes, me.

I'm surprised that you accept being called 'a bird' - most women would paint this as being a rather derogatory term in stating their gender!!

I bet Greenchair sees herself more as a women than a 'bird' or 'chick' (of which I guess you envisaged yourself when you were younger).

Maybe you are revealing something about yourself IL?

[boomerangutang]

So we have established that Mon and his police buddy/henchman were rearranging the crime scene (tidying up clothing etc) for nearly an hour before one of them called the island's senior officer. So now we have two prime suspects.

What you have establish is that you, as in the Koh Tao Truthers, are living in a lie, and need more lies to keep up the appearances.

Is it for the sport, is it because of problems handling reality, is it to feel part of a group? Maybe all of those reasons; what is clear is that you not only not care for the truth, you hold it in contempt, and if you don't care about the truth you have no grounds on which to speak of justice.

On the topic of lies, there's this too, from the court judgement report:

"At about 8 am, the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Ren’s house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened. Then, the Second Defendant slept over at the First Defendant’s house and returned to Mr Ren Ren’s house again to ask about the phone. Mr Ren Ren said he had smashed and destroyed the phone and thrown it away because he did not want to be implicated in the crime. The Second Defendant was disinterested and did not ask further."

What that means is that Wei Phyo, before the news of the murders had spread, lied to his friend about where he found the phone and his friend destroyed it because he didn't want to be implicated on the crime. Two questions then, why did Wei Phyo lie if he knew nothing about the crime, and why did his friend destroy the phone, so as not to be implicated with the crime if he didn't knew a phone was missing from one of the victims?

They knew, that's why they did what they did.

Interesting point, AleG. Weird as it sounds, we somewhat agree. Wei probably did lie when he said he didn't know anything about the crime. I think he did know at least that something bad was going on down the beach. But what about Zaw? Should he be executed because he did not find a phone in the sand?

Further, on the topic of lies: There have been thousands of posts which prove the RTP lied during their faux investigation / cover-up.

If Wei lied when he said he didn't know who did the crime (or if he took home a phone he found in the sand), then that in itself should not justify execution. Far more dire, in my view: is RTP consistently lying while shielding the real perps (and probably also getting gargantuan money payments under-the-table). Heads should roll, and it should not be B2's heads - one who found a phone, and the other who didn't.

[lucky11]

Mon was very much involved, so why did the defence not call him?

Under Thai law are they entitled to call him?

What worries me is that there appear to have been some basic ground rules set in this trial: you can argue that the defendants are not guilty, but not at the expense of producing evidence or witnesses that will point to the involvement of other people.

That's the make-believe story, the reality is that from the outset the judge was prepared to hear about any other people supposedly involved in the crime:

"Koh Samui court head judge just asked both Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo: If u not involved in this crime, tell us who is. Dont be scared. Zaw Lin/Wei Phyo both replied strongly to the judges question: We really dont know. We were drunk, just went back home. We know nothing."

We were drunk just went back home.

And that is what we were all led to believe.

We played the guitar, went home, slept and mm woke us up at 5am.

But oh no, seems they weren't so drunk to remember after all.

Oh says the prosecutor then why do we see you down at the beach at 4am.

Oops forgot we went to get our clothes.

Why were you not wearing them.

Oops we went for a swim.

Why did you change shirts with mm?

It was a cold night.

Wasn't it raining?

Yes, it was cold and raining at 2am but we just decided to have a swim.

So says the prosecutor even though you were very drunk you slept for less than 2 hours and got up to go and retrieve your belongings at 4am.

Yes, at which time I just happened to stumble on the murder victims phone. But I couldn't find my shoes.

So you did just go back to your room to sleep.

No, there was no time for sleeping I was so busy trying to figure how to get out of this mess I was now in.

So ridiculous a concoction of lies that 'you couldn't make it up'. Seems they dug a hole for themselves and carried on digging!!.

[AleG]

Any news or should I skip reading the last 4 pages ?

Yes some news for you from the Nation, just in. Confirmation the accused are appealing the murder verdict which was disputed here by Greenchair who was saying this was only an appeal for the death sentence.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Convicts-to-appeal-Koh-Tao-murder-verdict-30278942.html

"Nakhon said investigators had patched things together and some items of evidence used in the case were questionable.

According to him, the cell phones of the victims that police say were in the defendants' possession did not carry either of the two men's fingerprints."

The one of the Burmese admitted in court that he had that phone since the night of the murders, an admission that was corroborated by the testimony of one of his friends.

Besides that, the phone was deliberately destroyed to avoid being implicated in the murders so it stands to reasons that it would had been wiped clean of fingerprints too, which would explain why it was placed in a plastic bag to smash it.

From their confession:

"The Second Defendant admitted that he took the mobile phone from the crime scene and passed it to his friend named Mr. Ren Ren. As for the sunglasses, he had already broken them and thrown them away, according to the Record of Testimony of the Second Defendant as Witness, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 51, Page 1 to 4. Moreover, the Second Defendant admitted that he was the suspected man that appeared in the CCTV footage and signed his name to confirm accordingly, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 56. Having been informed likewise, Investigating Officers on Koh Tao went on to verify the facts as the Second Defendant had testified. The Officers found the First Deceased’s mobile phone in a smashed and broken condition in the back yard of Mr. Ren Ren ’s house. The phone was then seized as an exhibit and dispatched for further examination, according to the Records of Damaged Properties and the Report of Exhibit Examinations, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 29 and Jor. 30."

Article: ""The arrest might have led them into initially making a confession out of ignorance, problems related to an interpreter [used by police] and threats they faced," the lawyer said."

How does one confess to a murder out of ignorance?, and then provide details that can be verified, as with that phone being recovered after they confessed of having it? Something like: We know nothing except that we did it... and the phone from David Miller is over there... also we know nothing.

As for problems with their interpreter, the defense is telling one thing during the trial and another to sway the public, from trial report:

"Further information gleaned from questioning the plaintiff is that while both defendants were under arrest the investigating officers arranged for a Burmese translator for both the defendants and the defendants agree that this was in fact the case and the defendants spoke with the translator in Burmese, which is the language that the defendants speak and can understand well."

"In the course of witness examination by the plaintiff and the defendants, the Court does not find any convincing evidence that the translators had any bias against the defendants on the issue of their nationality as the Defendants had earlier claimed. In addition, the Court considered that the video footage of the conversation between the Second Defendant and Mr Myat Nang on VCD number Wor. Jor. 20 clearly shows that the Second Defendant is able to communicate back and forth and explain various details effectively to Mr Myat Nang for them to be clearly understood."

Article: "He also pointed out that the |two defendants did not have a lawyer by their side when they confessed."

Court report:

"Mr Phitthaya Yophetch, the lawyer who attended the interrogation of both Defendants that took place on 3 October 2014, has testified consistently in Court that the Second Defendant confessed to the fact that after having attacked and raped the Second Deceased then the Second Defendant took the mobile phone and the sunglasses belonging to the First Deceased."

And:

"In regard to the interrogation stage the facts can similarly be established that the Investigating Ofcicers made available the translator for the Defendants and an Attorney was also present at the interviews of both Defendants for the entire time."

[lucky11]

Any news or should I skip reading the last 4 pages ?

Yes some news for you from the Nation, just in. Confirmation the accused are appealing the murder verdict which was disputed here by Greenchair who was saying this was only an appeal for the death sentence.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Convicts-to-appeal-Koh-Tao-murder-verdict-30278942.html

"Nakhon said investigators had patched things together and some items of evidence used in the case were questionable.

According to him, the cell phones of the victims that police say were in the defendants' possession did not carry either of the two men's fingerprints."

The one of the Burmese admitted in court that he had that phone since the night of the murders, an admission that was corroborated by the testimony of one of his friends.

Besides that, the phone was deliberately destroyed to avoid being implicated in the murders so it stands to reasons that it would had been wiped clean of fingerprints too, which would explain why it was placed in a plastic bag to smash it.

From their confession:

"The Second Defendant admitted that he took the mobile phone from the crime scene and passed it to his friend named Mr. Ren Ren. As for the sunglasses, he had already broken them and thrown them away, according to the Record of Testimony of the Second Defendant as Witness, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 51, Page 1 to 4. Moreover, the Second Defendant admitted that he was the suspected man that appeared in the CCTV footage and signed his name to confirm accordingly, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 56. Having been informed likewise, Investigating Officers on Koh Tao went on to verify the facts as the Second Defendant had testified. The Officers found the First Deceased’s mobile phone in a smashed and broken condition in the back yard of Mr. Ren Ren ’s house. The phone was then seized as an exhibit and dispatched for further examination, according to the Records of Damaged Properties and the Report of Exhibit Examinations, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 29 and Jor. 30."

Article: ""The arrest might have led them into initially making a confession out of ignorance, problems related to an interpreter [used by police] and threats they faced," the lawyer said."

How does one confess to a murder out of ignorance?, and then provide details that can be verified, as with that phone being recovered after they confessed of having it? Something like: We know nothing except that we did it... and the phone from David Miller is over there... also we know nothing.

As for problems with their interpreter, the defense is telling one thing during the trial and another to sway the public, from trial report:

"Further information gleaned from questioning the plaintiff is that while both defendants were under arrest the investigating officers arranged for a Burmese translator for both the defendants and the defendants agree that this was in fact the case and the defendants spoke with the translator in Burmese, which is the language that the defendants speak and can understand well."

"In the course of witness examination by the plaintiff and the defendants, the Court does not find any convincing evidence that the translators had any bias against the defendants on the issue of their nationality as the Defendants had earlier claimed. In addition, the Court considered that the video footage of the conversation between the Second Defendant and Mr Myat Nang on VCD number Wor. Jor. 20 clearly shows that the Second Defendant is able to communicate back and forth and explain various details effectively to Mr Myat Nang for them to be clearly understood."

Article: "He also pointed out that the |two defendants did not have a lawyer by their side when they confessed."

Court report:

"Mr Phitthaya Yophetch, the lawyer who attended the interrogation of both Defendants that took place on 3 October 2014, has testified consistently in Court that the Second Defendant confessed to the fact that after having attacked and raped the Second Deceased then the Second Defendant took the mobile phone and the sunglasses belonging to the First Deceased."

And:

"In regard to the interrogation stage the facts can similarly be established that the Investigating Ofcicers made available the translator for the Defendants and an Attorney was also present at the interviews of both Defendants for the entire time."

Very revealing as to the truth AleG - rather discounts all of the drivel and phony stories that is served up by others.

I'm sure that they will call it rubbish, not worth wasting their time reading, deflecting and all of the other rubbish they tend to churn out when they are faced with a few facts about what actually happened in the investigation and court case.

Let's see how they retort to your post - should be interesting!! Perhaps they'll wait until a few posts have passed and buried it before rejoining the game in the pretense that they never saw it let alone read it!

[jayjay78]

Any news or should I skip reading the last 4 pages ?

Yes some news for you from the Nation, just in. Confirmation the accused are appealing the murder verdict which was disputed here by Greenchair who was saying this was only an appeal for the death sentence.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Convicts-to-appeal-Koh-Tao-murder-verdict-30278942.html

"Nakhon said investigators had patched things together and some items of evidence used in the case were questionable.

According to him, the cell phones of the victims that police say were in the defendants' possession did not carry either of the two men's fingerprints."

The one of the Burmese admitted in court that he had that phone since the night of the murders, an admission that was corroborated by the testimony of one of his friends.

Besides that, the phone was deliberately destroyed to avoid being implicated in the murders so it stands to reasons that it would had been wiped clean of fingerprints too, which would explain why it was placed in a plastic bag to smash it.

From their confession:

"The Second Defendant admitted that he took the mobile phone from the crime scene and passed it to his friend named Mr. Ren Ren. As for the sunglasses, he had already broken them and thrown them away, according to the Record of Testimony of the Second Defendant as Witness, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 51, Page 1 to 4. Moreover, the Second Defendant admitted that he was the suspected man that appeared in the CCTV footage and signed his name to confirm accordingly, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 56. Having been informed likewise, Investigating Officers on Koh Tao went on to verify the facts as the Second Defendant had testified. The Officers found the First Deceased’s mobile phone in a smashed and broken condition in the back yard of Mr. Ren Ren ’s house. The phone was then seized as an exhibit and dispatched for further examination, according to the Records of Damaged Properties and the Report of Exhibit Examinations, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 29 and Jor. 30."

Article: ""The arrest might have led them into initially making a confession out of ignorance, problems related to an interpreter [used by police] and threats they faced," the lawyer said."

How does one confess to a murder out of ignorance?, and then provide details that can be verified, as with that phone being recovered after they confessed of having it? Something like: We know nothing except that we did it... and the phone from David Miller is over there... also we know nothing.

As for problems with their interpreter, the defense is telling one thing during the trial and another to sway the public, from trial report:

"Further information gleaned from questioning the plaintiff is that while both defendants were under arrest the investigating officers arranged for a Burmese translator for both the defendants and the defendants agree that this was in fact the case and the defendants spoke with the translator in Burmese, which is the language that the defendants speak and can understand well."

"In the course of witness examination by the plaintiff and the defendants, the Court does not find any convincing evidence that the translators had any bias against the defendants on the issue of their nationality as the Defendants had earlier claimed. In addition, the Court considered that the video footage of the conversation between the Second Defendant and Mr Myat Nang on VCD number Wor. Jor. 20 clearly shows that the Second Defendant is able to communicate back and forth and explain various details effectively to Mr Myat Nang for them to be clearly understood."

Article: "He also pointed out that the |two defendants did not have a lawyer by their side when they confessed."

Court report:

"Mr Phitthaya Yophetch, the lawyer who attended the interrogation of both Defendants that took place on 3 October 2014, has testified consistently in Court that the Second Defendant confessed to the fact that after having attacked and raped the Second Deceased then the Second Defendant took the mobile phone and the sunglasses belonging to the First Deceased."

And:

"In regard to the interrogation stage the facts can similarly be established that the Investigating Ofcicers made available the translator for the Defendants and an Attorney was also present at the interviews of both Defendants for the entire time."

Only posted the article to clear up the misinformation being spread that the defense was only appealing the death sentence. I apologize for your wasted effort but the other information contained within the article is sparse, badly reported and I'll draw my own conclusions from it.

[iReason]

"Zaw Lin’s cellmate tells his trial he saw injuries on the suspect’s body after he was interrogated by police and confessed.

A fellow prisoner who shared a cell with Lin claimed he saw a wound on his chest and bruising when the suspect was first admitted to a Thai jail."

"Mr Kringkrai said he heard Lin complain of pain and asked to see a doctor."

“The wound and bruising were clearly visible,” his cellmate told the court in Koh Samui which is hearing the ongoing murder trial.

"A procession of police witnesses have confirmed that both the suspects did not have any legal representation when they were being questioned."

"Two impartial legal observers did sit in on their interviews but only after they had already confessed."

http://news.sky.com/story/1539151/koh-tao-murder-suspect-had-injuries-on-body

[lucky11]

Oh!! how having to deal with the truth must hurt!

This is a rather defeatist attitude don't you think. I would much rather have you challenging our posts - if you think that you are incapable of doing this however, then fair enough, ignore us!

[lucky11]

"Zaw Lin’s cellmate tells his trial he saw injuries on the suspect’s body after he was interrogated by police and confessed.

A fellow prisoner who shared a cell with Lin claimed he saw a wound on his chest and bruising when the suspect was first admitted to a Thai jail."

"Mr Kringkrai said he heard Lin complain of pain and asked to see a doctor."

“The wound and bruising were clearly visible,” his cellmate told the court in Koh Samui which is hearing the ongoing murder trial.

"A procession of police witnesses have confirmed that both the suspects did not have any legal representation when they were being questioned."

"Two impartial legal observers did sit in on their interviews but only after they had already confessed."

http://news.sky.com/story/1539151/koh-tao-murder-suspect-had-injuries-on-body

What do these 'torture CLAIMS' have to do with the trial case. Neither side used these unproven claims in stating their case so they are irrelevant to the trial.