Evidence from UK's National Crime Agency 'critical' in sentencing Koh Tao killers to death

[catsanddogs]

Ok found another and this is the caption that goes with it

"This is David'd iPhone. According to the police Mr. Win stole it, smashed it and threw it to the jungle behind Mr. Mao Mao's resident.

If you observe this iPhone carefully, it looks like somebody tried to open the screen rather than smashing it. It also looks like somebody put this phone under the water or suffer from water damage."

What was the date police allegedly found the phone behind the lodgings please?

[Khun Han]

The phone in the forensics screenshot in catsanddogs post #321 looks like an iphone 3G.

[catsanddogs]

The phone in the forensics screenshot in catsanddogs post #321 looks like an iphone 3G.

Yep.

[jayjay78]

Ok found another and this is the caption that goes with it

"This is David'd iPhone. According to the police Mr. Win stole it, smashed it and threw it to the jungle behind Mr. Mao Mao's resident.

If you observe this iPhone carefully, it looks like somebody tried to open the screen rather than smashing it. It also looks like somebody put this phone under the water or suffer from water damage."

What was the date police allegedly found the phone behind the lodgings please?

The same day they arrested Win, supposedly it was laying in the bushes since the 15th Sept. Whats that, 2 weeks undiscovered.........or put it another way 2 weeks where it could have been disposed of properly.

[KunMatt]

The phone in the forensics screenshot in catsanddogs post #321 looks like an iphone 3G.

Yep.

No, it has circular volume buttons which I believe started with the iPhone4. The 3g has the elongated volume buttons instead.

[catsanddogs]

Ok found another and this is the caption that goes with it

"This is David'd iPhone. According to the police Mr. Win stole it, smashed it and threw it to the jungle behind Mr. Mao Mao's resident.

If you observe this iPhone carefully, it looks like somebody tried to open the screen rather than smashing it. It also looks like somebody put this phone under the water or suffer from water damage."

What was the date police allegedly found the phone behind the lodgings please?

The same day they arrested Win, supposedly it was laying in the bushes since the 15th Sept. Whats that, 2 weeks undiscovered.........or put it another way 2 weeks where it could have been disposed of properly.

Thanks JJ. Yes, you'd have to be a total idiot to not do something about a piece of evidence that you knew would give you the death sentence if found. 2 weeks lying around behind their lodgings and no guilty party thought to get rid of it more efficiently. Doesn't add up. Why didn't police discover it sooner? Why wasn't the phone issue covered in the re-enactment seen as it was a part of the crime? The way it is photographed in the foliage makes it appear it was just lying there waiting to be found and no attempts made to hide it. The rusty water in the bag and rust marks at the terminals of the phone bring more questions too. Why would someone put a phone in a bag before they chucked it? Policeman J in court said David was seen on CCTV buying sunglasses before going to the AC bar so what happened to his wallet? He was going out to buy fags according to Chris Ware. Just carrying loose change in his pocket? Wouldn't think so if buying fags. sunglasses then on to a bar for a drink. No mention of a wallet found at the scene. No sunglasses have turned up anywhere. Just an iphone 4 that doesn't look like an iphone4 which has been verified as belonging to David because of a number that could belong to any number of phones. It took police over 2 weeks to remember that the phone found in the foliage wasn't Hannah's because it was handed in on the day of the murders! Give us strength.

[Luang]

For those of us who know Thailand relatively well, will be well aware of what happens to the guilty party(ies) of a crime during a murder re-enactment, right?

So, my question to those are pressing for the B2 to be executed is: during their re-enactment on the beach where the savage murders took place, why oh why was there not a murmur of hatred, passion, revenge etc. within a tight community whereby two supposedly lower migrant workers raped, murdered and mutilated two young, intelligent tourists to their island? The very people who fill their pockets and keep their economy alive?

Surely such a close knit community will know who or at least who did not do it?! I saw none of that and that speaks volumes more than the lies, and smoke and mirror shows on here and at the circus of a trial.

They are not the killers and the whole island knows it!

Two 'supposedly lower migrant workers" and two 'young and intelligent tourists' - statements like this speaks volumes about your general views regarding class differences.

Do you think that women are equal to men? Be careful how you answer this as there are two prominent women on this show!!

Ermm, I think it speaks volumes about how you continue to twist things to suit your agenda. The B2 are migrant workers in low paid menial service jobs - fact. No judgement from me on that . The two who are unfortunately no longer with us were university graduates - fact. How on earth do you begin to believe you know my views on class? How absurd!

Of course you know fine well what I was insinuating but off you go with your deflecting. You know fine well the Thai's would hang them up the nearest tree if they thought they were guilty!

'Do you think women are equal to men'? Do you think before you fart?

[DiscoDan]

The prosecution presented this evidence.

1.dna evidence that was tested 2 or 3 different laboratories.

2. Dna experts to explain it.

3. A fair rebuttal to the media claim the dna was planted.

4.video footage of b3 nearthe scene throughout the night.

5.burmese witnesses to back up video footage. And explain the events of the night.

6.the possession of the victims belongings by the burmese group of friends.

7. Testimony to back up where the phone came from.

8.medical reports and autopsy of both victims.

9.testimony by doctors and pathologists about the injuries.

The defense presented.

1. 1 dna expert that found a 25 percent match to Wei Phyo, that did not exclude nor include wp.

2.no reasonable arguments as to how the dna came to be there.

3.a human rights activist to give an expert opinion on gait analysis, which the prosecution could not cross examine, because of that reason.

4.the b2 as witnesses, that confirmed the video footage.

Confirmed all of the prosecution accusations they were at the beach. Confirmed they had the victims phone. Confirmed they were not tucked up in their beds sleeping as the media would have us believe.

5.no comments about who the phone belonged to.

6.no comments of where the phone came from.

7.no expert witnesses to talk about the phone I'd.

8.no medical expert to challenge the injuries.

8.a human rights activist to discuss an autopsy report and give his opinion of its meaning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there were only 2 witnesses to present dna analysis, medical reports, video analysis, and alibi for b2.

1 pornthip (that would have been a better prosecution witness ).

2.a human rights activist.

Maybe they should have called a few thai visa experts to give their case some meat.

According to Ian Yarwoods open letter concerning the case, the defense also had a Brit Dna expert that they chose not let take the stand.

And they had a crime scene expert who said the body was staged in that pose and gave profile of killer, neither took the stand.

Yet they used Andy Hall as a witness with his so called Gait expert evidence & autopsy evidence both useless without the people that did them being able to take the stand for cross examination.

A weak excuse given by some of the truthers is Jane Taupin was not used because she is a foreigner, but they used Andy Hall who has court cases for "allegedly" being a liar !

If I had donated money to the defense I would be asking for a refund.

[Luang]

The prosecution presented this evidence.

1.dna evidence that was tested 2 or 3 different laboratories.

2. Dna experts to explain it.

3. A fair rebuttal to the media claim the dna was planted.

4.video footage of b3 nearthe scene throughout the night.

5.burmese witnesses to back up video footage. And explain the events of the night.

6.the possession of the victims belongings by the burmese group of friends.

7. Testimony to back up where the phone came from.

8.medical reports and autopsy of both victims.

9.testimony by doctors and pathologists about the injuries.

The defense presented.

1. 1 dna expert that found a 25 percent match to Wei Phyo, that did not exclude nor include wp.

2.no reasonable arguments as to how the dna came to be there.

3.a human rights activist to give an expert opinion on gait analysis, which the prosecution could not cross examine, because of that reason.

4.the b2 as witnesses, that confirmed the video footage.

Confirmed all of the prosecution accusations they were at the beach. Confirmed they had the victims phone. Confirmed they were not tucked up in their beds sleeping as the media would have us believe.

5.no comments about who the phone belonged to.

6.no comments of where the phone came from.

7.no expert witnesses to talk about the phone I'd.

8.no medical expert to challenge the injuries.

8.a human rights activist to discuss an autopsy report and give his opinion of its meaning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there were only 2 witnesses to present dna analysis, medical reports, video analysis, and alibi for b2.

1 pornthip (that would have been a better prosecution witness ).

2.a human rights activist.

Maybe they should have called a few thai visa experts to give their case some meat.

According to Ian Yarwoods open letter concerning the case, the defense also had a Brit Dna expert that they chose not let take the stand.

And they had a crime scene expert who said the body was staged in that pose and gave profile of killer, neither took the stand.

Yet they used Andy Hall as a witness with his so called Gait expert evidence & autopsy evidence both useless without the people that did them being able to take the stand for cross examination.

A weak excuse given by some of the truthers is Jane Taupin was not used because she is a foreigner, but they used Andy Hall who has court cases for "allegedly" being a liar !

If I had donated money to the defense I would be asking for a refund.

There's certainly a lot of questions and confusion surrounding the actions of the defence. I have no idea of their credentials or experience but if they are the same crew at the appeal, then they need to up their game considerably. Their impartiality given the political pressure has to come under scrutiny does it not? Am I right in thinking some if not all are Thai? Some of their decisions at the trial just made no sense at all.

I've asked AH repeatedly If the appeal team is to be the same and for whatever reason refuses to answer the question.

[lucky11]

The prosecution presented this evidence.

1.dna evidence that was tested 2 or 3 different laboratories.

2. Dna experts to explain it.

3. A fair rebuttal to the media claim the dna was planted.

4.video footage of b3 nearthe scene throughout the night.

5.burmese witnesses to back up video footage. And explain the events of the night.

6.the possession of the victims belongings by the burmese group of friends.

7. Testimony to back up where the phone came from.

8.medical reports and autopsy of both victims.

9.testimony by doctors and pathologists about the injuries.

The defense presented.

1. 1 dna expert that found a 25 percent match to Wei Phyo, that did not exclude nor include wp.

2.no reasonable arguments as to how the dna came to be there.

3.a human rights activist to give an expert opinion on gait analysis, which the prosecution could not cross examine, because of that reason.

4.the b2 as witnesses, that confirmed the video footage.

Confirmed all of the prosecution accusations they were at the beach. Confirmed they had the victims phone. Confirmed they were not tucked up in their beds sleeping as the media would have us believe.

5.no comments about who the phone belonged to.

6.no comments of where the phone came from.

7.no expert witnesses to talk about the phone I'd.

8.no medical expert to challenge the injuries.

8.a human rights activist to discuss an autopsy report and give his opinion of its meaning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there were only 2 witnesses to present dna analysis, medical reports, video analysis, and alibi for b2.

1 pornthip (that would have been a better prosecution witness ).

2.a human rights activist.

Maybe they should have called a few thai visa experts to give their case some meat.

According to Ian Yarwoods open letter concerning the case, the defense also had a Brit Dna expert that they chose not let take the stand.

And they had a crime scene expert who said the body was staged in that pose and gave profile of killer, neither took the stand.

Yet they used Andy Hall as a witness with his so called Gait expert evidence & autopsy evidence both useless without the people that did them being able to take the stand for cross examination.

A weak excuse given by some of the truthers is Jane Taupin was not used because she is a foreigner, but they used Andy Hall who has court cases for "allegedly" being a liar !

If I had donated money to the defense I would be asking for a refund.

It seems that he (AH) has less of a say in the appeal as all of the people not used (and who should have been) in the original trial seem to have a say and will take the stand this time around - let's see if they can turn it around, should be interesting!!

Edited February 20, 2016 by lucky11

[DiscoDan]

I don't understand why people are still going on about the phone WP admits to finding it and giving it to a friend.

The friend has testified that WP told him he found it in a bar that then later changed to found it on the beach then he thought it might be connected to the murders and smashed it up, instead of handing it in to the police. (because thats what innocent people do)

And this is their version of events not the prosecutions

[Khun Han]

Andy Hall has a defamation case against him on appeal (he won the case). You can defame people in Thailand by telling the truth.

[jayjay78]

I don't understand why people are still going on about the phone WP admits to finding it and giving it to a friend.

The friend has testified that WP told him he found it in a bar that then later changed to found it on the beach then he thought it might be connected to the murders and smashed it up, instead of handing it in to the police. (because thats what innocent people do)

And this is their version of events not the prosecutions

Because thats what this topic is about...........phone, not Andy Hall?????

Edited February 20, 2016 by jayjay78

[Khun Han]

Didn't someone with a fixation on discrediting Andy Hall get banned not too long ago?

[catsanddogs]

Didn't someone with a fixation on discrediting Andy Hall get banned not too long ago?

I understand this was the case. I'm confident the moderators would know if this person was on the threads under a different user name and take the necessary action

[AleG]

I don't understand why people are still going on about the phone WP admits to finding it and giving it to a friend.

The friend has testified that WP told him he found it in a bar that then later changed to found it on the beach then he thought it might be connected to the murders and smashed it up, instead of handing it in to the police. (because thats what innocent people do)

And this is their version of events not the prosecutions

"I don't understand why people are still going on about the phone WP admits to finding it and giving it to a friend."

Rather odd that they are, unwittingly and erroneously, trying so hard to prove that the person they are trying to defend lied during his testimony...

Specially over an irrelevant thing, as they'd like people to believe.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive

"The friend has testified that WP told him he found it in a bar that then later changed to found it on the beach then he thought it might be connected to the murders and smashed it up, instead of handing it in to the police. (because thats what innocent people do)"

Why would they think such thing? People lose phones all the time, (some time ago I was looking at the FB page of a bar there and they had posts practically every day showing the photo of a phone left behind the previous night, asking for the owner to come pick it up). But for some reason they assumed that phone could be connected to the murders, it wasn't known until much later that an iPhone (let alone any phone) was taken from one of the victims.

In any case I keep asking about the video from which the still frames of the phone came because IIRC Andy Hall said that the police had not recorded that event.

Incidentally, seeing that the phone had been marinating in a water filled bag for two weeks is obvious why no fingerprints were taken from it.

[DiscoDan]

I don't understand why people are still going on about the phone WP admits to finding it and giving it to a friend.

The friend has testified that WP told him he found it in a bar that then later changed to found it on the beach then he thought it might be connected to the murders and smashed it up, instead of handing it in to the police. (because thats what innocent people do)

And this is their version of events not the prosecutions

"I don't understand why people are still going on about the phone WP admits to finding it and giving it to a friend."

Rather odd that they are, unwittingly and erroneously, trying so hard to prove that the person they are trying to defend lied during his testimony...

Specially over an irrelevant thing, as they'd like people to believe.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive

"The friend has testified that WP told him he found it in a bar that then later changed to found it on the beach then he thought it might be connected to the murders and smashed it up, instead of handing it in to the police. (because thats what innocent people do)"

Why would they think such thing? People lose phones all the time, (some time ago I was looking at the FB page of a bar there and they had posts practically every day showing the photo of a phone left behind the previous night, asking for the owner to come pick it up). But for some reason they assumed that phone could be connected to the murders, it wasn't known until much later that an iPhone (let alone any phone) was taken from one of the victims.

In any case I keep asking about the video from which the still frames of the phone came because IIRC Andy Hall said that the police had not recorded that event.

Incidentally, seeing that the phone had been marinating in a water filled bag for two weeks is obvious why no fingerprints were taken from it.

[DiscoDan]

Didn't someone with a fixation on discrediting Andy Hall get banned not too long ago?

It was most probably one of the activists who has turned on him could also be Ian Yarwood as he has had an open letter published on various social media that is critical of AH even though he was not the one making the decisions Edited February 20, 2016 by DiscoDan

[Luang]

Didn't someone with a fixation on discrediting Andy Hall get banned not too long ago?

Was that some Samui connection? Remember getting some messages accusing him of wrongdoings with the defence appeal fund. Very bizarre.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Luang

[IslandLover]

jayjay78, on 20 Feb 2016 - 16:02, said:

catsanddogs, on 20 Feb 2016 - 15:53, said:

jayjay78, on 20 Feb 2016 - 15:45, said:

Ok found another and this is the caption that goes with it

"This is David'd iPhone. According to the police Mr. Win stole it, smashed it and threw it to the jungle behind Mr. Mao Mao's resident.

If you observe this iPhone carefully, it looks like somebody tried to open the screen rather than smashing it. It also looks like somebody put this phone under the water or suffer from water damage."

What was the date police allegedly found the phone behind the lodgings please?

The same day they arrested Win, supposedly it was laying in the bushes since the 15th Sept. Whats that, 2 weeks undiscovered.........or put it another way 2 weeks where it could have been disposed of properly.

In addition, according to your post above, the phone was found behind Maung Maung's accommodation, which was reported to be behind the AC2 resort (MM worked at the AC2 bar) on Sairee Beach. In that case why were the British police taken to a location at Mae Haad (the clock tower) which is some distance away?

[AleG]

The same day they arrested Win, supposedly it was laying in the bushes since the 15th Sept. Whats that, 2 weeks undiscovered.........or put it another way 2 weeks where it could have been disposed of properly.

Thanks JJ. Yes, you'd have to be a total idiot to not do something about a piece of evidence that you knew would give you the death sentence if found. 2 weeks lying around behind their lodgings and no guilty party thought to get rid of it more efficiently. Doesn't add up. Why didn't police discover it sooner? Why wasn't the phone issue covered in the re-enactment seen as it was a part of the crime? The way it is photographed in the foliage makes it appear it was just lying there waiting to be found and no attempts made to hide it. The rusty water in the bag and rust marks at the terminals of the phone bring more questions too. Why would someone put a phone in a bag before they chucked it? Policeman J in court said David was seen on CCTV buying sunglasses before going to the AC bar so what happened to his wallet? He was going out to buy fags according to Chris Ware. Just carrying loose change in his pocket? Wouldn't think so if buying fags. sunglasses then on to a bar for a drink. No mention of a wallet found at the scene. No sunglasses have turned up anywhere. Just an iphone 4 that doesn't look like an iphone4 which has been verified as belonging to David because of a number that could belong to any number of phones. It took police over 2 weeks to remember that the phone found in the foliage wasn't Hannah's because it was handed in on the day of the murders! Give us strength.

"Just an iphone 4 that doesn't look like an iphone4"

Except that it's an iPhone 4 as can be clearly established by the button configuration on the side...

"which has been verified as belonging to David because of a number that could belong to any number of phones. "

Except that an IMEI number is unique to every phone...

" It took police over 2 weeks to remember that the phone found in the foliage wasn't Hannah's because it was handed in on the day of the murders!"

Except that happened at most two days after the policeman giving the press briefing misspoke... Press conference was on the 3rd or 4th, article from the sixth, quoting "Pol.Col. Prachum Ruengthong, a top officer in charge of Koh Tao, explained yesterday that there was a misunderstanding." so the clarification was on the 5th. 3rd/4th of October to 5th of October is not "over 2 weeks"

"Give us strength."

Why, yes, I could imagine that deflecting reality this hard can take a lot of effort.

Note aside: when looking for links I found an article from the Bangkok Post were Panya Mamen, following the arrests, says that the police have strong forensic proof against the B2... I thought that would be of interest to the people that want to ignore such things in favour of alternative theories were the man was removed from the case and told to stay quiet.

As for your question: "Why would someone put a phone in a bag before they chucked it?"

Option 1: a plastic bag is a convenient way to dispose of something broken into pieces.

Option 2: by putting it in a bag before smashing it with a hammer it will keep pieces, specially glass shards, from flying everywhere.

Option 3: the person who has admitted of deliberately destroying evidence because he feared it could link him to a murder may have wiped the phone to remove fingerprints and placing it in the bag would keep it "clean"

By the lack of foresight displayed in just chucking it out the backdoor, I'd go with option one or two.

[Luang]

jayjay78, on 20 Feb 2016 - 16:02, said:

catsanddogs, on 20 Feb 2016 - 15:53, said:

jayjay78, on 20 Feb 2016 - 15:45, said:

Ok found another and this is the caption that goes with it

"This is David'd iPhone. According to the police Mr. Win stole it, smashed it and threw it to the jungle behind Mr. Mao Mao's resident.

If you observe this iPhone carefully, it looks like somebody tried to open the screen rather than smashing it. It also looks like somebody put this phone under the water or suffer from water damage."

What was the date police allegedly found the phone behind the lodgings please?

The same day they arrested Win, supposedly it was laying in the bushes since the 15th Sept. Whats that, 2 weeks undiscovered.........or put it another way 2 weeks where it could have been disposed of properly.

In addition, according to your post above, the phone was found behind Maung Maung's accommodation, which was reported to be behind the AC2 resort (MM worked at the AC2 bar) on Sairee Beach. In that case why were the British police taken to a location at Mae Haad (the clock tower) which is some distance away?

Wouldn't really matter where you take the Met Police. They had their orders and it wasn't to do due diligence! I've learned one hell of a lot about the reality of political shenanigans and the priorities of politicians. A murky world indeed, regardless of where in the world you are from.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Luang

[DiscoDan]

Andy Hall has a defamation case against him on appeal (he won the

case). You can defame people in Thailand by telling the truth.

Yes thats why I used the word "allegedly" my point is they had 3 experts who could of been used as witnesses & could have been crossexamind (this evidence could have been used in retrial).

Instead they could AH and his useless evidence (cannot be used in retrial) as the people concerned were not called as witnesses.

[IslandLover]

frank83628, on 20 Feb 2016 - 06:25, said:frank83628, on 20 Feb 2016 - 06:25, said:

lucky11, on 20 Feb 2016 - 03:58, said:lucky11, on 20 Feb 2016 - 03:58, said:

Frank,

Nobody owns the beach!! Stop passing misinformation on dressed as fact

Then you go on to accuse others of misinforming, when your lot are the main culprits of this tactic - don't worry, we are not taken in by this ploy as we realise that your case is so weak that you have to resort to this type of thing. We are on your case and we will continue to post truths only rather than stoop to your level!!

you know exactly what i meant by own the beach...that family occupies the land on that entire stretch of the beach...is that better for you???

is that all you can pick up on from what i wrote??...how about your answer to the fact that it was NS family that the cctv comes from?..how would you explain them giving the cops their nephew on tape if they were involved.. people claim they are SO powerful, surely they would have been able to put a stop to that straight away?

we are not taken in by this ploy as we realise that your case is so weak that you have to resort to this type of thing. We are on your case and we will continue to post truths only rather than stoop to your level!!

Who is "we", lucky11? Are you part of a team then?

Yes, you knew exactly what frank83628 meant. The Toovichien family owns the property, not the public beach. He should know as he lives on KT. I suggest it is you who is constantly passing misinformation on dressed as fact, just like you and your cohort DiscoDan did with Jonathan Head's tweets.

Edited February 20, 2016 by IslandLover

[Luang]

The same day they arrested Win, supposedly it was laying in the bushes since the 15th Sept. Whats that, 2 weeks undiscovered.........or put it another way 2 weeks where it could have been disposed of properly.

Thanks JJ. Yes, you'd have to be a total idiot to not do something about a piece of evidence that you knew would give you the death sentence if found. 2 weeks lying around behind their lodgings and no guilty party thought to get rid of it more efficiently. Doesn't add up. Why didn't police discover it sooner? Why wasn't the phone issue covered in the re-enactment seen as it was a part of the crime? The way it is photographed in the foliage makes it appear it was just lying there waiting to be found and no attempts made to hide it. The rusty water in the bag and rust marks at the terminals of the phone bring more questions too. Why would someone put a phone in a bag before they chucked it? Policeman J in court said David was seen on CCTV buying sunglasses before going to the AC bar so what happened to his wallet? He was going out to buy fags according to Chris Ware. Just carrying loose change in his pocket? Wouldn't think so if buying fags. sunglasses then on to a bar for a drink. No mention of a wallet found at the scene. No sunglasses have turned up anywhere. Just an iphone 4 that doesn't look like an iphone4 which has been verified as belonging to David because of a number that could belong to any number of phones. It took police over 2 weeks to remember that the phone found in the foliage wasn't Hannah's because it was handed in on the day of the murders! Give us strength.

"Just an iphone 4 that doesn't look like an iphone4"

Except that it's an iPhone 4 as can be clearly established by the button configuration on the side...

"which has been verified as belonging to David because of a number that could belong to any number of phones. "

Except that an IMEI number is unique to every phone...

" It took police over 2 weeks to remember that the phone found in the foliage wasn't Hannah's because it was handed in on the day of the murders!"

Except that happened at most two days after the policeman giving the press briefing misspoke... Press conference was on the 3rd or 4th, article from the sixth, quoting "Pol.Col. Prachum Ruengthong, a top officer in charge of Koh Tao, explained yesterday that there was a misunderstanding." so the clarification was on the 5th. 3rd/4th of October to 5th of October is not "over 2 weeks"

"Give us strength."

Why, yes, I could imagine that deflecting reality this hard can take a lot of effort.

Note aside: when looking for links I found an article from the Bangkok Post were Panya Mamen, following the arrests, says that the police have strong forensic proof against the B2... I thought that would be of interest to the people that want to ignore such things in favour of alternative theories were the man was removed from the case and told to stay quiet.

As for your question: "Why would someone put a phone in a bag before they chucked it?"

Option 1: a plastic bag is a convenient way to dispose of something broken into pieces.

Option 2: by putting it in a bag before smashing it with a hammer it will keep pieces, specially glass shards, from flying everywhere.

Option 3: the person who has admitted of deliberately destroying evidence because he feared it could link him to a murder may have wiped the phone to remove fingerprints and placing it in the bag would keep it "clean"

By the lack of foresight displayed in just chucking it out the backdoor, I'd go with option one or two.

Option 1: a plastic bag is a convenient way to dispose of something broken into pieces. Lol, seriously. So break something up to disperse then place in plastic bag as a collective??

Option 2: by putting it in a bag before smashing it with a hammer it will keep pieces, specially glass shards, from flying everywhere. Lol again. So, yes you place in bag to shatter in a controlled situation BUT then you dispose the shards -obviously!

Option 3: the person who has admitted of deliberately destroying evidence because he feared it could link him to a murder may have wiped the phone to remove fingerprints and placing it in the bag would keep it "clean". Oh my. Placing in a protective bag will aid the removal of fingerprints, DNA etc?!

Are you OK?

Were you on the defence team by any chance :-)

[Khun Han]

I don't understand why people are still going on about the phone WP admits to finding it and giving it to a friend.

The friend has testified that WP told him he found it in a bar that then later changed to found it on the beach then he thought it might be connected to the murders and smashed it up, instead of handing it in to the police. (because thats what innocent people do)

And this is their version of events not the prosecutions

Because thats what this topic is about...........phone, not Andy Hall?????

Yes, and we are trying to ascertain which iphone had it's IMEI confirmed. It appears from the forensic stills posted by catsanddogs that the iphone found in the trees isn't even the same model as David's.

[DiscoDan]

The witness admitted to smashing the phone, there has never been any denial that they put the phone in a plastic bag.

[Luang]

The witness admitted to smashing the phone, there has never been any denial that they put the phone in a plastic bag.

Was this under duress or without?

With legal representation or not?

I have no idea, I'm merely pointing out the ridiculousness of the posters apparent reasoning.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Luang

[Luang]

The witness admitted to smashing the phone, there has never been any denial that they put the phone in a plastic bag.

That's it then, guilty!! Clear as day. We've all been very silly and taken for a ride by the do gooders :-)

Edited February 20, 2016 by Luang

[DiscoDan]

The witness admitted to smashing the phone, there has never been any denial that they put the phone in a plastic bag.

Was this under duress or without?

With legal representation or not?

I have no idea, I'm merely pointing out the ridiculousness of the posters apparent reasoning.[/quote

This is from a witness, a friend of the B2. The phone was given to him as a "gift"