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

[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.[/quote

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

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

[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.[/quote

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

So now, you really believe the rapists/murderers would give out trophies as gifts to their close friends??!!!! Do you people stop and think for a moment what you are suggesting (I assume you are merely suggesting for selfish reasons and are not actually as stupid as you sound?)

Either way, unreal!!

[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.[/quote

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

Merry Xmas my dear friend, LOL

[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"

So now, you really believe the rapists/murderers would give out trophies as gifts to their close friends??!!!! Do you people stop and think for a moment what you are suggesting (I assume you are merely suggesting for selfish reasons and are not actually as stupid as you sound?)

Either way, unreal!!

This is their version of events not mine I know it sounds ridiculous, this is one of the many reasons that makes me think they are guilty.

[smedly]

What about this phone (unbagged!)? The iphone police said they found in David's luggage with long blonde hairs snagged in it maybe? It doesn't have a cracked screen (yet). Was this phone shown in court?

another phone - maybe they will open a phone shop

[smedly]

According to AleG, Chris Ware or someone else left it in David's bag . Like you do. A 30,000 Baht iphone's just a disposable item like an empty box of matches or snack wrapper, isn't it?

maybe he had many phones, on the last count I believe RTP identified 3 iphones at different times all belonging to David but still only one IMEI

[smedly]

Difficult to say from that poor quality screenshot. But the corners look a bit sharp for an iphone 4, and don't appear to have the antenna fixings. Are there any better photos of it?

Hey cats, just to add to the mix, better photo allegedly showing the phone found in the bushes, according to this its implying that its a samsung?

nope many phones use hardware like memory cpu's cameras etc from other manufacturers, most phones for example have Samsung memory and a sony camera

[smedly]

This whole phone discission all boils down to one thing -

Do you trust that the RTP matched the confirmed IMEI number to the phone that was found behind the B2 lodgings or did they do some swapping around to make it match !!!!!!! and what happened to the other phone that was found at the crime scene, I believe it would not be impossible to swap stuff around for the simple fact they had no other test results on the phone such as finger prints or DNA - fingerprints are solid evidence and cannot be faked, it is just like the highly contested DNA - none of it can be properly verified, you either accept the police/prosecution claim - the DNA matched and the phone IMEI matched or you don't - from my standpoint I would need more as I have said many times - show me the original DNA samples - show me that the phone you are claiming was David's was handled by the accused, otherwise they are all just that - claims

This in a nutshell is what this whole thread is about - you either believe or you don't

[catsanddogs]

Regarding the photograph of the black phone on the white sheet of paper with what looks like a photo of David pinned to the top - the Daily Mail caption underneath this photo reads -

Clues: Another picture shows an iPhone allegedly belonging to one of the victims which was reportedly found in a suspect's home

This article is referring to the original three migrants who were questioned, not ZL and WP, and were said to also have David's blood stained jeans in their accommodation. The article says the report is not confirmed by police. The images were filmed by a Thai television station according to the Mail. Considering the thousands of phones that would have been on Koh Tao at the time, one would imagine that the way someone could ascertain whether a phone belonged to one of the victims would be because it had distinguishing features/blemishes that someone who knew one of the victims recognised on the phone. The other way would be to turn the thing on and look at the contacts/photos/messages. Common sense innit? The phone in question does not look broken so likely would have revealed it's owner. Like so many other things though it seems there was nothing more reported about this particular phone and it disappeared along with other items that were of major importance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756102/Killer-Thai-island-two-English-backpackers-bludgeoned-death-beach.html

[catsanddogs]

Is Chris Ware being shown something on this phone (maybe the policeman's phone) during questioning or is he being asked whether that particular phone is David's?

Source of photo http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2758358/British-man-questioned-two-British-tourists-death-Thailand.html

[catsanddogs]

I guess that phone on the desk, on top of the paperwork to the policeman's right is his own? Funny cos it looks more like the smashed one than any of the others I've seen.

[catsanddogs]

This whole phone discission all boils down to one thing -

Do you trust that the RTP matched the confirmed IMEI number to the phone that was found behind the B2 lodgings or did they do some swapping around to make it match !!!!!!! and what happened to the other phone that was found at the crime scene, I believe it would not be impossible to swap stuff around for the simple fact they had no other test results on the phone such as finger prints or DNA - fingerprints are solid evidence and cannot be faked, it is just like the highly contested DNA - none of it can be properly verified, you either accept the police/prosecution claim - the DNA matched and the phone IMEI matched or you don't - from my standpoint I would need more as I have said many times - show me the original DNA samples - show me that the phone you are claiming was David's was handled by the accused, otherwise they are all just that - claims

This in a nutshell is what this whole thread is about - you either believe or you don't

Smedly, can you give link to 'the other phone that was found at the crime scene' please?

Was the phone presented in court as hard physical evidence? And was WP questioned in court by the defence whether the phone the police 'found' in the plastic bag was the same phone that he found on the morning of the murders?

[canuckamuck]

The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware. I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there.

What is more likely that one of the B2 ( I get the names mixed up) by some weird coincidence also found a phone in vicinity of the crime (it's a beach people get drunk and lose phones all the time I am sure). He took the phone home, and found out it was knackered. And then later when they realized that it might connect them to the crime, they tried to destroy and realizing the difficulty of that just put the whole thing in a bag and tossed it.

Then as the scapegoat hunt was in full swing. One of the police found that phone and the decided that this was the perfect evidence for a frame-up. All they had to do was say that this was David's phone, and pretend that the cataloguing and confirming the other phone was David's never happened. How many times do the police contradict previous discoveries and statements. Seems like it is SOP. So nothing new here, except for the international exposure.

[catsanddogs]

The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware. I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there.

What is more likely that one of the B2 ( I get the names mixed up) by some weird coincidence also found a phone in vicinity of the crime (it's a beach people get drunk and lose phones all the time I am sure). He took the phone home, and found out it was knackered. And then later when they realized that it might connect them to the crime, they tried to destroy and realizing the difficulty of that just put the whole thing in a bag and tossed it.

Then as the scapegoat hunt was in full swing. One of the police found that phone and the decided that this was the perfect evidence for a frame-up. All they had to do was say that this was David's phone, and pretend that the cataloguing and confirming the other phone was David's never happened. How many times do the police contradict previous discoveries and statements. Seems like it is SOP. So nothing new here, except for the international exposure.

If that's the case then how come the family of David Miller are convinced the police have the right people in prison? Chris Ware would have told the Miller family that he had identified David's phone long before the smashed on in the bag was pulled out of the hat. Wouldn't you think?

[canuckamuck]

The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware. I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there.

What is more likely that one of the B2 ( I get the names mixed up) by some weird coincidence also found a phone in vicinity of the crime (it's a beach people get drunk and lose phones all the time I am sure). He took the phone home, and found out it was knackered. And then later when they realized that it might connect them to the crime, they tried to destroy and realizing the difficulty of that just put the whole thing in a bag and tossed it.

Then as the scapegoat hunt was in full swing. One of the police found that phone and the decided that this was the perfect evidence for a frame-up. All they had to do was say that this was David's phone, and pretend that the cataloguing and confirming the other phone was David's never happened. How many times do the police contradict previous discoveries and statements. Seems like it is SOP. So nothing new here, except for the international exposure.

If that's the case then how come the family of David Miller are convinced the police have the right people in prison? Chris Ware would have told the Miller family that he had identified David's phone long before the smashed on in the bag was pulled out of the hat. Wouldn't you think?

There is so much in this case that defies logic it is pointless to use "what you expect would happen" to be any sort of guide.

[boomerangutang]

This is their (B2's) version of events not mine I know it sounds ridiculous, this is one of the many reasons that makes me think they are guilty.

So you believe the B2? Oh, you only believe bits of one of their utterances which dovetails with what you want to believe. What about Zaw? He says he was at his dwelling snoozing for the hours when all sorts of other things were going on. No one, not even the prosecution or RTP dispute this. The only so-called evidence that his buddy, Wei, may have been near the crime scene at around the time of the crime is Wei saying he found a phone on the sand. That's pretty slim evidence to execute two young men.

Oh, sorry, almost forgot: there's also the DNA evidence. Yet, the DNA has been shown to be completely untenable for 100 reasons.

[JLCrab]

This is their (B2's) version of events not mine I know it sounds ridiculous, this is one of the many reasons that makes me think they are guilty.

So you believe the B2? Oh, you only believe bits of one of their utterances which dovetails with what you want to believe. What about Zaw? He says he was at his dwelling snoozing for the hours when all sorts of other things were going on. No one, not even the prosecution or RTP dispute this. The only so-called evidence that his buddy, Wei, may have been near the crime scene at around the time of the crime is Wei saying he found a phone on the sand. That's pretty slim evidence to execute two young men.

Oh, sorry, almost forgot: there's also the DNA evidence. Yet, the DNA has been shown to be completely untenable for 100 reasons.

The B2 defense team preparing the Appeal of the samui Court verdict consisting of legal and forensic experts from at least 4 countries requested a second month extension from the Appeals Court when all they maybe had to do was contact you and they might've completed and filed their Appeal last week

Edited February 21, 2016 by JLCrab

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 20 Feb 2016 - 17:14, said:

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

Wei Phyo did not smash up and dispose of the phone himself, his friend Ren Ren did it.

[lucky11]

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.

Not the 'those Tweets' thing again!!

Whatever that series, Twentence, Twaragraph, Twage meant, I would still like to know why AH went all ballistic and got so panicky about them, fearing that JH was deserting the sinking ship.

I hope that you are not going to tell me that JH was content with the defence's abject (my word) performance, as it clearly left him baffled and soo soo disappointed in the way they had completely underused the DNA evidence (on their part) and allowed the prosecution to bulldoze them into submission and convince the judge of the B2's guilt. They made such a kerfuffle about it and then acted as if it didn't exist.

Just what did they find? My guess is that it implicated the B2 to such an extent that there was no escape from the inevitable of this evidence, on it's own, 'trumping' all of the other evidence heard in the trial. I'm glad that the 'torture' accusations were put to bed by the judge as that was (in my mind) simply fabricated by AH and his cohorts which is standard practice for anyone admitting guilt before they can get to them!!

[lucky11]

DiscoDan, on 20 Feb 2016 - 17:14, said:

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

Wei Phyo did not smash up and dispose of the phone himself, his friend Ren Ren did it.

Why did it get passed on to hid friend you may ask, I'll tell you why........because hot potatoes are just that, and this was a very, very hot potato, as Wei clearly knew (somehow)!!

[lucky11]

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.

.........and not making a very convincing job of it!!

You cannot use the 'so called' torture aspect in your answer as the judge stated that "this carries no weight", so you should refrain from using this as part of your argument in future posts as it adds nothing to the case and takes nothing away from the judges guilty verdict!!

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 20 Feb 2016 - 17:46, said:

Khun Han, on 20 Feb 2016 - 17:26, said:

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

Pull the other one, DiscoDan

[lucky11]

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 :-)

Have you finally come round?

Well done, so that's Greenchair and you now - we are getting there!!

It's a brave step to admit making a mistake.

..............and yes, I did check to see if you had included the word 'if' anywhere in your sentence and lo-and-behold you hadn't and so I concluded that it was meant as read!!

Edited February 21, 2016 by lucky11

[IslandLover]

lucky11, on 21 Feb 2016 - 03:39, said:lucky11, on 21 Feb 2016 - 03:39, said:

IslandLover, on 20 Feb 2016 - 18:31, said:IslandLover, on 20 Feb 2016 - 18:31, said:

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

Not the 'those Tweets' thing again!!

Whatever that series, Twentence, Twaragraph, Twage meant, I would still like to know why AH went all ballistic and got so panicky about them, fearing that JH was deserting the sinking ship.

I hope that you are not going to tell me that JH was content with the defence's abject (my word) performance, as it clearly left him baffled and soo soo disappointed in the way they had completely underused the DNA evidence (on their part) and allowed the prosecution to bulldoze them into submission and convince the judge of the B2's guilt. They made such a kerfuffle about it and then acted as if it didn't exist.

Just what did they find? My guess is that it implicated the B2 to such an extent that there was no escape from the inevitable of this evidence, on it's own, 'trumping' all of the other evidence heard in the trial. I'm glad that the 'torture' accusations were put to bed by the judge as that was (in my mind) simply fabricated by AH and his cohorts which is standard practice for anyone admitting guilt before they can get to them!!

I'm not going to comment on the perceived inadequacies of the defence team and Andy Hall, or Jonathan Head's personal views on their performance at the trial. This is well-documented and has been discussed endlessly. I would point out though that you didn't answer my question. Who is the "we" alluded to in your post? Are you part of a team?

Edited February 21, 2016 by IslandLover

[IslandLover]

lucky11, on 21 Feb 2016 - 04:01, said:

Luang, on 20 Feb 2016 - 19:03, said:

DiscoDan, on 20 Feb 2016 - 18:48, said:

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 :-)

Have you finally come round?

Well done, so that's Greenchair and you now - we are getting there!!

It's a brave step to admit making a mistake.

..............and yes, I did check to see if you had included the word 'if' anywhere in your sentence and lo-and-behold you hadn't and so I concluded that it was meant as read!!

Haven't you heard of sarcasm?

[lucky11]

lucky11, on 21 Feb 2016 - 04:01, said:

Luang, on 20 Feb 2016 - 19:03, said:

DiscoDan, on 20 Feb 2016 - 18:48, said:

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 :-)

Have you finally come round?

Well done, so that's Greenchair and you now - we are getting there!!

It's a brave step to admit making a mistake.

..............and yes, I did check to see if you had included the word 'if' anywhere in your sentence and lo-and-behold you hadn't and so I concluded that it was meant as read!!

Haven't you heard of sarcasm?

Yes!! have you?

Have you heard of a bluff? and a double bluff!! .

[lucky11]

That is for me to know IL and for you to find out!!

[boomerangutang]

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.

.........and not making a very convincing job of it!!

You cannot use the 'so called' torture aspect in your answer as the judge stated that "this carries no weight", so you should refrain from using this as part of your argument in future posts as it adds nothing to the case and takes nothing away from the judges guilty verdict!!

So, if the judge says cows don't eat grass, are you going to echo that as irrefutable truth?

You can choose to quote the judge as if it's gospel, but most of the rest of us make up our own minds about what's right and wrong.

I know we should tread carefully when mentioning a Thai judge, so I'll redirect my focus on the RTP and prosecution: If Hanna's clothes are missing, we (seekers of truth and justice) will say they're missing. If authorities don't mention or comment on that, it doesn't mean that Hanna's clothes have reappeared. If prosecution doesn't mention the fact that a bottle was shown to be at the crime scene, does that mean a bottle wasn't at the crime scene?

Sometimes it's the things which are left unsaid that are as pertinent to solving the crime as things which are said. In this crime, there are hundreds of clues which were not mentioned in court. Does that mean none of those things ever existed? Does that mean none of those things are relevant to solving the case? No, it was all part of RTP's, Headman's and prosecution's plan to shield the most likely perps from any scrutiny.

A partial list of clues which were not mentioned at the trial, so we assume the judge didn't hear or know about them. . . . . .

>>> phone records,

>>> bottle, Hannah's clothes (including undies), white shorts, phone found at crime scene

>>> Nok Airways manifest/CCTV, records from phone companies re; call histories

>>> places near crime scene where laundry gets done, including sinks

>>> Mon's room, Nomsod's room (were they even checked forensically?)

>>> transfer of money or valuables from people connected to the headman - to top brass officials.

>>> recordings of transcripts of interrogations with Mon. .....with interrogations at 'safe house.'

>>> 59.9 hours of CCTV

.....the list goes on and on.....

[lucky11]

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.

.........and not making a very convincing job of it!!

You cannot use the 'so called' torture aspect in your answer as the judge stated that "this carries no weight", so you should refrain from using this as part of your argument in future posts as it adds nothing to the case and takes nothing away from the judges guilty verdict!!

So, if the judge says cows don't eat grass, are you going to echo that as irrefutable truth?

You can choose to quote the judge as if it's gospel, but most of the rest of us make up our own minds about what's right and wrong.

I know we should tread carefully when mentioning a Thai judge, so I'll redirect my focus on the RTP and prosecution: If Hanna's clothes are missing, we (seekers of truth and justice) will say they're missing. If authorities don't mention or comment on that, it doesn't mean that Hanna's clothes have reappeared. If prosecution doesn't mention the fact that a bottle was shown to be at the crime scene, does that mean a bottle wasn't at the crime scene?

Sometimes it's the things which are left unsaid that are as pertinent to solving the crime as things which are said. In this crime, there are hundreds of clues which were not mentioned in court. Does that mean none of those things ever existed? Does that mean none of those things are relevant to solving the case? No, it was all part of RTP's, Headman's and prosecution's plan to shield the most likely perps from any scrutiny.

A partial list of clues which were not mentioned at the trial, so we assume the judge didn't hear or know about them. . . . . .

>>> phone records,

>>> bottle, Hannah's clothes (including undies), white shorts, phone found at crime scene

>>> Nok Airways manifest/CCTV, records from phone companies re; call histories

>>> places near crime scene where laundry gets done, including sinks

>>> Mon's room, Nomsod's room (were they even checked forensically?)

>>> transfer of money or valuables from people connected to the headman - to top brass officials.

>>> recordings of transcripts of interrogations with Mon. .....with interrogations at 'safe house.'

>>> 59.9 hours of CCTV

.....the list goes on and on.....

Did the defence team bring any of this up? Surely, if these things were crucial to the case then why didn't they bring it to the attention of the judge instead of using the gait analysis fiasco that seems to prove nothing and then having to pass on their 'killer' DNA evidence mishandling aspect once they had established that it didn't help their cause because the prosecutions use of the DNA evidence 'trumped' everything else.

[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.

.........and not making a very convincing job of it!!

You cannot use the 'so called' torture aspect in your answer as the judge stated that "this carries no weight", so you should refrain from using this as part of your argument in future posts as it adds nothing to the case and takes nothing away from the judges guilty verdict!!

So, if the judge says cows don't eat grass, are you going to echo that as irrefutable truth?

You can choose to quote the judge as if it's gospel, but most of the rest of us make up our own minds about what's right and wrong.

I know we should tread carefully when mentioning a Thai judge, so I'll redirect my focus on the RTP and prosecution: If Hanna's clothes are missing, we (seekers of truth and justice) will say they're missing. If authorities don't mention or comment on that, it doesn't mean that Hanna's clothes have reappeared. If prosecution doesn't mention the fact that a bottle was shown to be at the crime scene, does that mean a bottle wasn't at the crime scene?

Sometimes it's the things which are left unsaid that are as pertinent to solving the crime as things which are said. In this crime, there are hundreds of clues which were not mentioned in court. Does that mean none of those things ever existed? Does that mean none of those things are relevant to solving the case? No, it was all part of RTP's, Headman's and prosecution's plan to shield the most likely perps from any scrutiny.

A partial list of clues which were not mentioned at the trial, so we assume the judge didn't hear or know about them. . . . . .

>>> phone records,

>>> bottle, Hannah's clothes (including undies), white shorts, phone found at crime scene

>>> Nok Airways manifest/CCTV, records from phone companies re; call histories

>>> places near crime scene where laundry gets done, including sinks

>>> Mon's room, Nomsod's room (were they even checked forensically?)

>>> transfer of money or valuables from people connected to the headman - to top brass officials.

>>> recordings of transcripts of interrogations with Mon. .....with interrogations at 'safe house.'

>>> 59.9 hours of CCTV

.....the list goes on and on.....

>>> Nomsod phone records were produced in court.

>>>Everything found at a crime scene does not have to be produced in court, just what the prosecution needs to make a case.

>>>Nok airways don't fly from Samui its a private airport

>>>This has to be one of the most stupid parts of the conspiracy that the murderer went and washed & dried clothes and replaced them.

>>>They were cleared as suspects no need to check.

>>>Again cleared as suspects

>>>Again cleared as suspects they are not the ones on trial

>>>cctv at the pier was checked

you can send the rest of the list when you are ready.