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

[AleG]

Anyway, getting things back ontopic:

post-222787-0-30404400-1455972209.jpgpost-222787-0-26553800-1455973302.jpg

Phone found behind the Burmese residences. Note the thick silver frame around the front, and the curved back cover.

iphone3g-review1-3.jpg

iphone3g. Note the same thick silver frame around the front, and the same curved back cover.

black-4s-450x338.jpg

iphone 4s. Note the thin silver frame around the side, and the flat back cover.

The "thick silver frame around the front" is the internal metal frame of the phone.

Which internal metal frame is that? The iphone 4s case is made from glass. The thin metal band around it's edge is just an antenna.

iphone-4s-half-thumb.jpeg

Well done, you've found a photo that doesn't show the sides that are exposed on the phone that was discarded behind the Burmese lodgings. Your photo is of the back of the phone, with the back cover on the left and the battery side on the right. The evidence phone pictures show it from the screen side. You didn't notice or you tried to pull a fast one again?

Now I have to get the crayons out to see if you get it this time...

First a clean picture of the phone presented as evidence, an iPhone 4s showing the exposed parts on the evidence phone and the piss poor screen grab you posted to support your argument. No chance of getting the original video, right?

Now colour coded:

In red the flexible cable that connects the screen to the main board, on the broken phone it seems to have been pulled off the socket so the red cable is exposed, as opposed to the cable in the socket in the unbroken, right side example.

In green the internal metal frame as seen from the screen side, which somehow you didn't notice when looking for a photo of iPhone 4s internals... how convenient.

In Blue a clearly visible hole on the EM shield of the main main board, just for reference.

They are all iPhone 4s, you are in denial or worse.

[StealthEnergiser]

2.55 you will see the police showing the broken phone to Chris Ware

That phone is not broken, you are shameless...

Not broken but it was pulled apart what would they do that.

Edited February 21, 2016 by StealthEnergiser

[AleG]

2.55 you will see the police showing the broken phone to Chris Ware

That phone is not broken, you are shameless...

Not broken but it was pulled apart you still haven't answered why the police were passing of a Damaged 3G as 4S

The only people doing that is you and your fellows.

[catsanddogs]

AleG re your post 480

Thanks for clarification. It isn't 'obvious' at all though that the exhibited phone refers to the one presented as evidence, the one recovered by the police behind their lodgings, unless one was actually physically present in court to make that judgement and come to that conclusion, which I'm assuming you were not. Clearly this topic needs further investigation if we are to believe that the mobile phone exhibited in court was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased.

I, like many more, have dedicated the past year and a half wanting to find justice for Hannah and David and I'm not going to be duped by someone who has never even remotely questioned the guilt of the the Burmese men by having the tainted wool pulled over my eyes thank you very much.

[Khun Han]

Anyway, getting things back ontopic:

post-222787-0-30404400-1455972209.jpgpost-222787-0-26553800-1455973302.jpg

Phone found behind the Burmese residences. Note the thick silver frame around the front, and the curved back cover.

iphone3g-review1-3.jpg

iphone3g. Note the same thick silver frame around the front, and the same curved back cover.

black-4s-450x338.jpg

iphone 4s. Note the thin silver frame around the side, and the flat back cover.

The "thick silver frame around the front" is the internal metal frame of the phone.

Which internal metal frame is that? The iphone 4s case is made from glass. The thin metal band around it's edge is just an antenna.

iphone-4s-half-thumb.jpeg

Well done, you've found a photo that doesn't show the sides that are exposed on the phone that was discarded behind the Burmese lodgings. Your photo is of the back of the phone, with the back cover on the left and the battery side on the right. The evidence phone pictures show it from the screen side. You didn't notice or you tried to pull a fast one again?

Now I have to get the crayons out to see if you get it this time...

First a clean picture of the phone presented as evidence, an iPhone 4s showing the exposed parts on the evidence phone and the piss poor screen grab you posted to support your argument. No chance of getting the original video, right?

CrayonTime1.jpg

Now colour coded:

CrayonTime2.jpg

In red the flexible cable that connects the screen to the main board, on the broken phone it seems to have been pulled off the socket so the red cable is exposed, as opposed to the cable in the socket in the unbroken, right side example.

In green the internal metal frame as seen from the screen side, which somehow you didn't notice when looking for a photo of iPhone 4s internals... how convenient.

In Blue a clearly visible hole on the EM shield of the main main board, just for reference.

They are all iPhone 4s, you are in denial or worse.

Nope. The photo I provided is of the front AND back (hint: look at where the camera is on the two images). Re: internal wiring. You're imagining things.

[IslandLover]

lucky11, on 21 Feb 2016 - 04:38, said:

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

I already have.

[lucky11]

lucky11, on 21 Feb 2016 - 04:38, said:

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

I already have.

Good - so now you know then!!

[jayjay78]

Then we have this phone

Investigating officer Cherdpong Chiewpreecha revealed the shocking failures of the investigation when he appeared in court today.

The staggering blunders include:

• Failing to confirm whether the mobile phone and SIM card found on the beach belonged to Mr Miller

[catsanddogs]

Then we have this phone

Investigating officer Cherdpong Chiewpreecha revealed the shocking failures of the investigation when he appeared in court today.

The staggering blunders include:

• Failing to confirm whether the mobile phone and SIM card found on the beach belonged to Mr Miller

Could you give a link for that report please JJ.

[AleG]

The "thick silver frame around the front" is the internal metal frame of the phone.

Which internal metal frame is that? The iphone 4s case is made from glass. The thin metal band around it's edge is just an antenna.

iphone-4s-half-thumb.jpeg

Well done, you've found a photo that doesn't show the sides that are exposed on the phone that was discarded behind the Burmese lodgings. Your photo is of the back of the phone, with the back cover on the left and the battery side on the right. The evidence phone pictures show it from the screen side. You didn't notice or you tried to pull a fast one again?

Now I have to get the crayons out to see if you get it this time...

First a clean picture of the phone presented as evidence, an iPhone 4s showing the exposed parts on the evidence phone and the piss poor screen grab you posted to support your argument. No chance of getting the original video, right?

CrayonTime1.jpg

Now colour coded:

CrayonTime2.jpg

In red the flexible cable that connects the screen to the main board, on the broken phone it seems to have been pulled off the socket so the red cable is exposed, as opposed to the cable in the socket in the unbroken, right side example.

In green the internal metal frame as seen from the screen side, which somehow you didn't notice when looking for a photo of iPhone 4s internals... how convenient.

In Blue a clearly visible hole on the EM shield of the main main board, just for reference.

They are all iPhone 4s, you are in denial or worse.

Nope. The photo I provided is of the front AND back (hint: look at where the camera is on the two images). Re: internal wiring. You're imagining things.

BS, this is the photo of an iPhone 4s that you posted:

On the left side it shows the inside of the rear panel and on the right the back of the phone with the battery in place.

If you are going to be dishonest at least try to do it in less blatant way.

[jayjay78]

Then we have this phone

Investigating officer Cherdpong Chiewpreecha revealed the shocking failures of the investigation when he appeared in court today.

The staggering blunders include:

• Failing to confirm whether the mobile phone and SIM card found on the beach belonged to Mr Miller

Could you give a link for that report please JJ.

I'm in Aus so can get it but in Thailand I think the Daily Mail is blocked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html

[lucky11]

Then we have this phone

Investigating officer Cherdpong Chiewpreecha revealed the shocking failures of the investigation when he appeared in court today.

The staggering blunders include:

• Failing to confirm whether the mobile phone and SIM card found on the beach belonged to Mr Miller

Could you give a link for that report please JJ.

I'm in Aus so can get it but in Thailand I think the Daily Mail is blocked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html

This story is 8 months old so fail to see the relevance to what has transpired since and the current situation post trial!!

Seems the reporter got it totally wrong, as reporters are prone to with news such as this.

[jayjay78]

I'm in Aus so can get it but in Thailand I think the Daily Mail is blocked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html

This story is 8 months old so fail to see the relevance to what has transpired since and the current situation post trial!!

Seems the reporter got it totally wrong, as reporters are prone to with news such as this.

This story is from the trial and is very relevant to the topic which is also to do with the revelations to do with the phone at the trial but I appreciate your lame effort to discredit it.

Investigating officer Cherdpong Chiewpreecha: A well prepared RTP officer, are they all like that?

[AleG]

AleG re your post 480

Thanks for clarification. It isn't 'obvious' at all though that the exhibited phone refers to the one presented as evidence, the one recovered by the police behind their lodgings, unless one was actually physically present in court to make that judgement and come to that conclusion, which I'm assuming you were not. Clearly this topic needs further investigation if we are to believe that the mobile phone exhibited in court was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased.

I, like many more, have dedicated the past year and a half wanting to find justice for Hannah and David and I'm not going to be duped by someone who has never even remotely questioned the guilt of the the Burmese men by having the tainted wool pulled over my eyes thank you very much.

The only people pulling wool over anyone's eyes are you and the rest of the gang, that have been peddling fifty shades of BS to obfuscate an issue that's been settled beyond any dispute.

Again, from your worst nightmare, the court record:

"After having seized exhibited evidence, the police officers immediately investigated the exhibited mobile phone and the Plaintiff’s witness testified to confirm as to Evidence Document number Jor 30 that the identification number or IMEI of the exhibited mobile phone matched the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. Moreover, Document Jor 77 obtained from the father of the First Deceased made this factual issue more sound and credible. In this regards, the Second Defendant are unable to present any evidence at all to contradict this matter. The evidence brought by the Plaintiff is therefore credible and supports beyond doubts that the exhibited mobile phone is definitely that of the First Deceased."

" Plaintiff also presented evidence relating to the examination of the exhibited mobile phone that can prove that the identification number of the mobile phone was definitely the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. In the course of the Second Defendant’s witness examination there is no supporting evidence to refute this fact."

Yet you think that you can flail around looking for any reference to any phone at any time during the past year and a half and wish it into relevance against the actual evidence and testimony that was presented in court, where the defense had every opportunity and motivation to cast doubt into it and was completely incapable of doing so.

You have been dedicating your time trying to justify your wrong beliefs against any facts or reason, period.

[AleG]

I'm in Aus so can get it but in Thailand I think the Daily Mail is blocked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html

This story is 8 months old so fail to see the relevance to what has transpired since and the current situation post trial!!

Seems the reporter got it totally wrong, as reporters are prone to with news such as this.

Dollars to donuts that came from a journalist getting his talking points from the defense after they cross examined a witness that was not directly involved in checking the phone.

From the article they were questioning Cherdpong Chiewpreecha...

Court report:

"Pol. Col. Krisna Pattanacharoen verified the IMEI number of the exhibited mobile phone via coordination with officers at the British Embassy of Thailand, considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased, according to the Record of Testimony, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 55."

Gee... I didn't see that coming.

[jayjay78]

I'm in Aus so can get it but in Thailand I think the Daily Mail is blocked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html

This story is 8 months old so fail to see the relevance to what has transpired since and the current situation post trial!!

Seems the reporter got it totally wrong, as reporters are prone to with news such as this.

Dollars to donuts that came from a journalist getting his talking points from the defense after they cross examined a witness that was not directly involved in checking the phone.

From the article they were questioning Cherdpong Chiewpreecha...

Court report:

"Pol. Col. Krisna Pattanacharoen verified the IMEI number of the exhibited mobile phone via coordination with officers at the British Embassy of Thailand, considering together with the testimony of Mr. Christopher Alan Ware, a friend of the First Deceased, and was able to identify that the mobile phone did in fact belong to the First Deceased, according to the Record of Testimony, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 55."

Gee... I didn't see that coming.

Gee funny that, I see you quoting from the Judges summary constantly, a direct unofficial translation from the defense team, nice to see you also get your talking points from them as well as journalists.

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 06:01, said:

boomerangutang, on 21 Feb 2016 - 05:05, said:

lucky11, on 21 Feb 2016 - 03:57, said:

.........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.

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

Who says anybody flew from Samui? Chumphon or Surat Thani are the most likely possibilities - routes both served by Nok Air.

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

Yet the prosecution claimed Zaw Lin did precisely that.

>>>cctv at the pier was checked

Yes, I've seen your tweet on that subject, although another prosecution witness (RTP) claimed the opposite. So, which is true?

[catsanddogs]

Then we have this phone

Investigating officer Cherdpong Chiewpreecha revealed the shocking failures of the investigation when he appeared in court today.

The staggering blunders include:

• Failing to confirm whether the mobile phone and SIM card found on the beach belonged to Mr Miller

Could you give a link for that report please JJ.

I'm in Aus so can get it but in Thailand I think the Daily Mail is blocked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html

This story is 8 months old so fail to see the relevance to what has transpired since and the current situation post trial!!

Seems the reporter got it totally wrong, as reporters are prone to with news such as this.

It doesn't matter whether it's 8 months or 8 minutes old because it's all totally relevant to the continuing case. The reporter got wrong yea chucklehaha.

Investigating officer Cherdpong Chiewpreecha revealed the shocking failures of the investigation when he appeared in court today.

The staggering blunders include:

• Failing to confirm whether the mobile phone and SIM card found on the beach belonged to Mr Miller

• Failing to sufficiently explain apparent discrepancies between the clothing of potential suspects, whose images were caught on CCTV

• Failing to take into account body measurements of potential suspects when examining CCTV footage

• Not being present during the collection of crucial DNA evidence, despite being the investigating officer in the case. Colonel Chiewpreecha admitted he had no idea how the DNA was taken and did not know whether the samples had been sent to Singapore for testing.

What’s more, Colonel Chiewpreecha did not know the whereabouts of a green towel that was found on Hannnah’s body, and claimed that it was not relevant as he believed it was placed on Hannah’s body after it had been discovered.

The officer said he did not know whether he would have expected the clothes of the suspects to be covered in blood after the violent attack.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html

[lucky11]

I'm in Aus so can get it but in Thailand I think the Daily Mail is blocked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html

This story is 8 months old so fail to see the relevance to what has transpired since and the current situation post trial!!

Seems the reporter got it totally wrong, as reporters are prone to with news such as this.

This story is from the trial and is very relevant to the topic which is also to do with the revelations to do with the phone at the trial but I appreciate your lame effort to discredit it.

Investigating officer Cherdpong Chiewpreecha: A well prepared RTP officer, are they all like that?

OK, I accept that it was DURING the trial BUT 8 months before the verdict - seems that the judge was falsely pessimistic about his doubts that there would be a conclusive outcome as guilty seems pretty conclusive to me!!

Edited February 21, 2016 by lucky11

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 06:11, said:DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 06:11, said:

IslandLover, on 21 Feb 2016 - 04:00, said:IslandLover, on 21 Feb 2016 - 04:00, said:

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

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

Plenty evidence of the above I have kept loads of screenshots of the activists attacking AH on FB and copies of Ian Yarwood letter, looks like even his closest friends have turned on him. but they choose to ignore the fact Andy was not making the decisions Robert Holmes confirmed this. According to Ian's letter he was also denied using a Rohingya witness by the Burmese government.

I have kept loads of screenshots of the activists attacking AH on FB and copies of Ian Yarwood letter

I bet you have, DiscoDan . Some might consider that "stalking" . Tell me one thing though, why do you have such an obsession with the Rohingya?

Edited February 21, 2016 by IslandLover

[jayjay78]

I'm in Aus so can get it but in Thailand I think the Daily Mail is blocked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html

This story is 8 months old so fail to see the relevance to what has transpired since and the current situation post trial!!

Seems the reporter got it totally wrong, as reporters are prone to with news such as this.

This story is from the trial and is very relevant to the topic which is also to do with the revelations to do with the phone at the trial but I appreciate your lame effort to discredit it.

Investigating officer Cherdpong Chiewpreecha: A well prepared RTP officer, are they all like that?

Whats this then?

Will British backpacker murders ever be solved? Catalogue of police blunders including failure to investigate evidence or chase up suspects revealed in court as judge doubts case will have ‘conclusive outcome’

By RICHARD SHEARS IN KOH SAMUI FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 10:33 GMT, 24 July 2015 | UPDATED: 10:44 GMT, 24 July 2015

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173235/Catalogue-police-blunders-including-failure-investigate-evidence-chase-suspects-revealed-court-judge-doubts-case-conclusive-outcome.html#ixzz40offJoSD

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

What point are you trying to make there? The trial started 8th July, everything from the trial no matter what date is relevant to the outcome..........oh dear. Well at least you've now grasped how to post a link

[lucky11]

See my revised post No. 502 That I copied and pasted.

[jayjay78]

See my revised post No. 502 That I copied and pasted.

Yes saw that thanks with your speculative thoughts on what the judge was thinking at the start of the trial.

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 08:27, said:

Another lie that was told was the blonde hair was never tested.

Robert Holmes confirmed it was tested but it was a fallen hair to get a dna sample it has to be pulled out, and as Hannah's UK autopsy showed no sign of resistance this would of confirmed it was unlikely someone pulled it out in the attack.

Yes, the hair was indeed tested. It still had the root attached (testified to in court), yet the RTP lab was still unable to extract any useful DNA from it apparently. How convenient.

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 09:50, said:

Another lie the truthers told was cctv at the pier was not checked , yet in court Pol Col Ruangtong told the court police had indeed checked the cctv images from the cameras at the port but they had not shown anything.

And yet they have still have the front to call us shills.

Yes, I have seen your tweet to that effect. Pity another RTP prosecution witness contradicted that in court.

[DiscoDan]

DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 08:27, said:

Another lie that was told was the blonde hair was never tested.

Robert Holmes confirmed it was tested but it was a fallen hair to get a dna sample it has to be pulled out, and as Hannah's UK autopsy showed no sign of resistance this would of confirmed it was unlikely someone pulled it out in the attack.

Yes, the hair was indeed tested. It still had the root attached (testified to in court), yet the RTP lab was still unable to extract any useful DNA from it apparently. How convenient.

So what's the latest the hair was planted by the police then they found dna but lied about it ? come on you will have to try better than that ?

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 10:08, said:

Khun Han, on 21 Feb 2016 - 09:52, said:

I will repeat, for those having comprehension difficulties: the phone found behind the Burmese residences (that Wei Phyo admitted to finding) does not look anything like an iphone 4s. It looks exactly like an iphone 3G. David owned an iphone 4s, and an iphone 4s was found in David's luggage.

The shills are desperate to get the discussion away from this discrepancy. That's why they're trying to start arguments about all kinds of unrelated stuff.

Well good luck with that I look forward to it being used as evidence in the appeal.

WP told RR at first that he found it in a bar then it changed to on the beach so why would he lie ?

They have admitted to finding a phone smashing it up and throwing it behind there lodgings because they thought it might be connected to the murders, yet you are still trying to deny it.

Even without the IMEI number it still proves they were trying to destroy evidence from a murder.

I wonder why ?

Why wasn't Ren Ren arrested and charged for being complicit in destroying evidence in a murder investigation? That makes him an accessory. Why was he let go? Come to think of it, why was Maung Maung let go?

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 17:26, said:DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 17:26, said:

IslandLover, on 21 Feb 2016 - 16:48, said:IslandLover, on 21 Feb 2016 - 16:48, said:

DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 08:27, said:DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 08:27, said:DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 08:27, said:

Another lie that was told was the blonde hair was never tested.

Robert Holmes confirmed it was tested but it was a fallen hair to get a dna sample it has to be pulled out, and as Hannah's UK autopsy showed no sign of resistance this would of confirmed it was unlikely someone pulled it out in the attack.

Yes, the hair was indeed tested. It still had the root attached (testified to in court), yet the RTP lab was still unable to extract any useful DNA from it apparently. How convenient.

So what's the latest the hair was planted by the police then they found dna but lied about it ? come on you will have to try better than that ?

I'm not suggesting that at all. I never said the police planted the hair, found DNA but lied about it. Don't twist my words. I said that the hair still had the root attached but the RTP lab was unable to extract any useful DNA from it - FACT.

Edited February 21, 2016 by IslandLover

[IslandLover]

lucky11, on 21 Feb 2016 - 11:13, said:

transam, on 21 Feb 2016 - 11:02, said:

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaah, gawd,,,,,,,,,NO JURY.............

They don't have juries in Thailand's justice system - that's why there was no jury - they do, however, have a presiding judge and in his summation he stated that from consideration of the evidence provided by both sides, it led him to place a guilty verdict on the B2 for the murder (and rape of one) of the two tourists.

There were 3 judges throughout the trial, not just one.

[IslandLover]

jayjay78, on 21 Feb 2016 - 11:09, said:jayjay78, on 21 Feb 2016 - 11:09, said:

DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 11:02, said:DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 11:02, said:

jayjay78, on 21 Feb 2016 - 10:16, said:jayjay78, on 21 Feb 2016 - 10:16, said:

DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 08:27, said:DiscoDan, on 21 Feb 2016 - 08:27, said:

Another lie that was told was the blonde hair was never tested.

Robert Holmes confirmed it was tested but it was a fallen hair to get a dna sample it has to be pulled out, and as Hannah's UK autopsy showed no sign of resistance this would of confirmed it was unlikely someone pulled it out in the attack.

Seems you've been having lots of little chats with R.H. You mentioned you have screen shots, can you prove the above claim?

You see to talk to R.H through facebook as you say then you would need to reveal your true identity to him and I somehow doubt you did that.

The only other easy source would be through twitter and indeed R.H. has been speaking to a user on twitter https://twitter.com/samui_csi/with_replies who has obviously been spaming Robert with questions. This user also has the same terms in many of their posts 'truthers' always on about Andy Hall etc etc. Is this you?

I've looked at all Roberts tweets and see nothing about your claim about the blonde hair, but please prove me wrong, the reason this intersts me is that this blonde hair was never brought to court, was never given to Dr Pornthip to test and one of the RTP lied about even talking about it in meetings. In reports before the trial it said it was attached to a root, so perfectly possible to get DNA from.

Here's all R.H.'s tweets to check but unless you show a screenshot, you said you have many then it remains hearsay on your part. https://twitter.com/riverview810/with_replies

From looking at R.H.'s last tweets it appears he's finished your little conversations, surprise surprise

He posted it on Facebook Ho-lee Fock was part of convo you will have to find link by yourself.

RH is one of the Defense "experts" helping on the case, and was in the court for dna evidence,

He posts on AH facebook and Andrew Drummonds page, plenty of info there if you care to look.

And now posting twitter feeds with no mention of the hair nice one keep up the good work.

Ok so much clearer now, first you say you have plenty of screenshots with RH to provide as evidence, then you make a claim on what he has said about the blonde hair and refuse to supply the relevant screenshot. Or link, perhaps you have the same problems as lucky11 providing links. No sale.

Furthermore, Robert Holmes did not attend every court session during the trial Other people did and have challenged some of his claims.

Edited February 21, 2016 by IslandLover