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

[boomerangutang]

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've noticed this too in this switched, then analysis messed up theory.

If police planted DNA, then seems they would have made sure the processing of it was airtight. It just makes no sense to plant evidence, and then ALSO screw up the lab work.

No, it's simpler than that. The police simply dropped the hair in the trash can and then said they lost it. Similar to how they lost Hannah's clothes, the bottle on the beach, and other things. If it don't point to the scapegoats, the RTP will either skew their reports (DNA typing) or lose it, ......or claim it was too unimportant to look at (like crucial CCTV).

As someone a few posts earlier mentioned: All the DNA evidence from RTP is hearsay. Not one important bit of DNA from the crime scene can be verified because, according to police, it's either 'used up' or 'lost' (except the hoe, upon which Pontip's team found DNA which RTP missed. None of that DNA matched the scapegoats) Yet, DNA evidence was a large measure of what the judges based their guilty decision upon. Amazing Thailand, indeed.

[Moonsterk]

^ I'm sure you're right, however it is immaterial within the context. These boys are guilty because they need to be, an no evidence from UK or anywhere else is going to change it.

[canuckamuck]

AleG, Lucky11, or any of the other of the guilty beyond any reasonable doubt camp: What phone did Chris Ware identify to be David's the day after the murders?

David had two phones the iphone that WP stole (his Uk phone) and also had a cheap thai phone for making calls

Sure looks like an iPhone that was shown to Chris Ware. It would be a good opportunity to show us that it was something different.

Otherwise it is looking like David either took two iPhone to the beach. Or someone is hoping we would all just forget about the first iPhone.

But at least we are making progress with your side now admitting there were (at least) two phones identified as David's

[phuketandsee]

2.55 you will see the police showing the broken phone to Chris Ware [ video removed]

And he shakes his head.

(Go to post to view vid, I'm not reposting it)

But you have no idea what he's shaking his head about. What question was he just asked? Was he actually responding to a question you've theorized he was asked?

This is exactly the kind of drawn conclusion from pure supposition that I find the average...er, yeah Truther incapable of overcoming and it is rampant on all threads and discussions, especially the latest Koh Tao drowning death. It's freaking tiresome to constantly be correcting assumptions when good juicy debate of known facts is sought. [sighs sarcastically]

Huh? I theorized nothing. Now who's making assumptions?

Yes, it must be very tiresome (and tiring) having the responsibility of correcting everyone (sigh).

[AleG]

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:

post-246493-0-70035300-1456058875.jpeg

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.

AleG, look closely: on the left image (the front of the phone), the phone's camera is top right; on the right image (the back of the phone), the phone's camera is top left. Undertand now?

iphone-4s-half-thumb.JPG

The part on the left is the back cover, the camera hole is on the right side because it's flipped over, you are embarrassing yourself.

[AleG]

AleG, Lucky11, or any of the other of the guilty beyond any reasonable doubt camp: What phone did Chris Ware identify to be David's the day after the murders?

None, the obvious flow of events is that when he was questioned he provided information to the police that they in turn used to look for and identify the phone later on.

Wouldn't you expect him and the Miller family to have noticed something amiss if he would have identified David's phone and latter on the police came up with a story completely inconsistent with that?

[fab99]

To the overly nested post above about the Defense getting ready to submit an Appeal:

I remember after the OJ Simpson verdict was announced, that a top LA Police rep was asked, now the OJ had been acquitted, are they going to go after the 'real killer'? The officer flatly replied: "No - we got our man."

So if it should transpire that the Appeals Court reached a decision to reverse the Samui Court's guilty verdict, the Court might also strongly state that they were not making any decision as to whether the 2 Burmese convicted actually did or were accessories to the crimes, just that the Prosecution had not provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

The RTP Thai Police might at that point say, as did the LA Police, that we don't agree with that decision, but we believe we have found the real killers and that no further investigation is warranted or will be performed to find others that might be responsible.

On the other hand, the people defending those two have already said that they want to get them free, whether they did it or not:

They should be released, he said. That is not to say they are guilty or not guilty, but the case against them is not strong.

So, justice doesn't come into it - it appears to be a mission to get them released no matter whether they committed this crime or not with success being regarded purely on achieving this outcome, no matter how it is obtained, even if it is on technicalities in the process or loopholes in the laws!!

It appears that obtaining their release is the sole aim of the game and everything else is peripheral to this. In other words, they would be happy to get them off the hook (even if they suspected their guilt in the crime)!! How can they live with their consciences? I know that I couldn't.

That's right, AH,Yarmouth, and the other lawyer are basically saying even if they guilty they should be set free because the investigation did not follow exact procedures. Their speil is all evidence should be ignored and thrown out because of technicalities. They have absolutely not a care, if the b2 are guilty as hell.

We are saying, yes there were things that could have been done better, but with all of the dna, testimony of b2, testimony of professionals, video footage, faulty alibi, possession of items, all of this put together as a unit does show reasonable doubt of their innocence. therefore the technicalities and fine tuning of the case are irrelevant.

The best they can hope for on a appeal is a change from the death sentence to life. I really think that is all the defense is hoping for also.

That is the big difference between your side and ours, you have doubts that the B2 are innocent (and you can't be 100% sure they are guilty because there is no irrefutable evidence for many reasons) and that is enough for you to accept a death sentence.

The rest of us have doubts about their guiltiness (there is a significant nuance here...) and in most justice systems (and in theory the one in place in Thailand), you have to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when a death sentence is at stake, and I (and many others) don't believe it has been done.

We all have doubts, how couldn't we?

And having doubts is hard to accept in a case like this where the killers are really just animals that could potentialy strike again, there is no way to be sure it is over, as far as I am concerned, this whole area of Thailand is a no go for me and all the people I care about.

I am usually not for the death penalty because of the risk of convicting and executing someone innocent, but I strongly believe the real killers of the british couple deserve to be sentenced to death, but I have more than reasonable doubt that the B2 did it, or at least that they acted alone, there are so many things that screams that this scenario is wrong, it has been discussed over and over, I won't repeat it, just look at the Anonymous video.

[canuckamuck]

AleG, Lucky11, or any of the other of the guilty beyond any reasonable doubt camp: What phone did Chris Ware identify to be David's the day after the murders?

None, the obvious flow of events is that when he was questioned he provided information to the police that they in turn used to look for and identify the phone later on.

Wouldn't you expect him and the Miller family to have noticed something amiss if he would have identified David's phone and latter on the police came up with a story completely inconsistent with that?

So we need to ignore the photos and video and news reports claiming that the police had recovered David's phone on day one. What really happened was they sat down with Chris Ware and asked him what kind of phone did David have? And Chris said it's an black iPhone 4s. It looks like every other black iPhone 4s in the world.

And the phone they had on hand as evidence that day (coincidentally an iPhone 4s) was just a prop. Ready to be swapped out with the real phone as soon as they found it.

And now David only had one phone right?

Edited February 22, 2016 by canuckamuck

[Lancashireman]

Putting a hair, or semen sample in a lab work order is certainly possible- and chain of custody can be simply forged- easy as pie.

So why do that AND mess up the lab work ( which would require some cooperation among staffers, too )

In fact the more I think about this case, the more I think the boys were involved in some way- or one of them specifically, maybe not the murder, but the initial stages of the rape.
Just seems like maybe the boys will be boys- rape the farang party thing got out of hand. A third party. The locals weren't killing victims before- this case is different from some factor not yet even touched upon.

Moonsterk, yes I too believe one if not both of the young men were in some way involved, now carrying the can for the whole crime...
They have everything loaded against them, short of additional parties admitting guilt, they might have a commuted sentence at appeal.

[Lancashireman]

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:

post-246493-0-70035300-1456058875.jpeg

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.

AleG, look closely: on the left image (the front of the phone), the phone's camera is top right; on the right image (the back of the phone), the phone's camera is top left. Undertand now?

iphone-4s-half-thumb.JPG

AleG...schoolboy error. A little climb down apology might be in order?

[Khun Han]

No, AleG is right (for once ). It was my schoolboy error.

[lucky11]

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've noticed this too in this switched, then analysis messed up theory.

If police planted DNA, then seems they would have made sure the processing of it was airtight. It just makes no sense to plant evidence, and then ALSO screw up the lab work.

Very good point moonsterk - you can guarantee that certain 'others' won't see it this way!!

Edited February 22, 2016 by lucky11

[boomerangutang]

I distinctly recall hearing, right after the crime broke in the news (a day or two after) that a phone was found at the crime scene. Which phone is that? ...and who's is it? Since essentially everyone has a phone nowadays, it's very likely the criminals also had phones. Could one or two have accidentally popped out during a skirmish? Certainly. That's the sort of thing Mon would try to cover-up during the 50 or so minutes he was at the crime scene with his police buddy - before police arrived and cordoned off the crime scene (which still didn't keep Mon from prancing around in there). A phone is easy to put in a pocket. So are little things like a weaponized shark-tooth ring or a wallet. A wine bottle or a hoe, not so easy. So where is the wine bottle?

[boomerangutang]

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've noticed this too in this switched, then analysis messed up theory.

If police planted DNA, then seems they would have made sure the processing of it was airtight. It just makes no sense to plant evidence, and then ALSO screw up the lab work.

Very good point moonsterk - you can guarantee that certain 'others' won't see it this way!!

Maybe we have some common ground between those seeking truth & justice, and those echoing the RTP. Do we agree RTP screwed up? We may not agree on how miserably they screwed up, but come on folks, there are holes in the DNA trail big enough to drive a truck through. Did they plant evidence? Likely. Did they lie about evidence? Almost certainly. Did RTP destroy or hide evidence that didn't point to the B2? Certainly. Did RTP destroy or hide evidence which pointed to people connected to the Headman? Almost certainly.

We don't know to what degree the RTP screwed up (not finding DNA on hoe, or not looking at crucial CCTV, for example), or what degree RTP destroyed or lost evidence (the hair, and Hannah's clothes, and the bottle, CCTV footage, for examples), but I think we can all agree RTP screwed up. Whether it was a lot or a massive amount is open to debate.

[lucky11]

I distinctly recall hearing, right after the crime broke in the news (a day or two after) that a phone was found at the crime scene. Which phone is that? ...and who's is it? Since essentially everyone has a phone nowadays, it's very likely the criminals also had phones. Could one or two have accidentally popped out during a skirmish? Certainly. That's the sort of thing Mon would try to cover-up during the 50 or so minutes he was at the crime scene with his police buddy - before police arrived and cordoned off the crime scene (which still didn't keep Mon from prancing around in there). A phone is easy to put in a pocket. So are little things like a weaponized shark-tooth ring or a wallet. A wine bottle or a hoe, not so easy. So where is the wine bottle?

Just what is your fascination with shark tooth rings (weaponised at that)? There must be a story in this as you always include that damned shark tooth ring in your posts where you can sneak it in!!

[jayjay78]

I distinctly recall hearing, right after the crime broke in the news (a day or two after) that a phone was found at the crime scene. Which phone is that? ...and who's is it? Since essentially everyone has a phone nowadays, it's very likely the criminals also had phones. Could one or two have accidentally popped out during a skirmish? Certainly. That's the sort of thing Mon would try to cover-up during the 50 or so minutes he was at the crime scene with his police buddy - before police arrived and cordoned off the crime scene (which still didn't keep Mon from prancing around in there). A phone is easy to put in a pocket. So are little things like a weaponized shark-tooth ring or a wallet. A wine bottle or a hoe, not so easy. So where is the wine bottle?

The wine bottle, oh that one caught on camera by the rescue team, naughty rescue team. The wine bottle has now vanished along with god knows what else at the crime scene that was not accidentally photographed. My maybe there was even a photo of the phone found on the beach?

[greenchair]

AleG, Lucky11, or any of the other of the guilty beyond any reasonable doubt camp: What phone did Chris Ware identify to be David's the day after the murders?

None, the obvious flow of events is that when he was questioned he provided information to the police that they in turn used to look for and identify the phone later on.

Wouldn't you expect him and the Miller family to have noticed something amiss if he would have identified David's phone and latter on the police came up with a story completely inconsistent with that?

So we need to ignore the photos and video and news reports claiming that the police had recovered David's phone on day one. What really happened was they sat down with Chris Ware and asked him what kind of phone did David have? And Chris said it's an black iPhone 4s. It looks like every other black iPhone 4s in the world.

And the phone they had on hand as evidence that day (coincidentally an iPhone 4s) was just a prop. Ready to be swapped out with the real phone as soon as they found it.

And now David only had one phone right?

Who cares what phone Chris Ware is talking about.

We are talking about the phone that Wei Phyo "found" at the beach. This is not an accusation by the police.

Wei Phyo came up with it all by himself.

How many phones do you think were laying on the beach at 4am.

The prosecutor did put forth, evidence that the phone belonged to David. And as the judge said, since the defense did not dispute any evidence at all about the phone, he must conclude they agreed with the prosecution on the phone issue .

What we are saying is the lies and deception surrounding the phone (as told by wp) show that he lied at the very beginning to his friend about the phone. That the friend had knowledge that it may have come from the murder, and tried to destroy and hide.

That they hid this tidbit for a couple of weeks. The police matching the Id number was just the icing on a cake of many layers. Even the not guilty campers have accepted the phone is David's. You must keep up with the antics canuckamuck.

[Lancashireman]

No, AleG is right (for once ). It was my schoolboy error.

Commendable response, KH...

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 22 Feb 2016 - 04:30, said:

boomerangutang, on 22 Feb 2016 - 03:50, said:

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

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.

RTP lab couldn't find any DNA (other than Hannah's blood) on the hoe, either. If this was a baseball game, they'd be striking out every time at bat.

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

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 ?

No one has suggested the hair was planted, but you. As for 'lying' by RTP: The hard part would be finding where they told any bits of truth - about anything related to evidence in the crime.

Robert Holmes suggested it, please don't spread lies.

I'm not spreading lies. Robert Holmes suggested it in his facebook post (the clue is in the question mark after the statement "Fallen hair planted?"), but I don't happen to agree with that suggestion. Just because RH suggested it doesn't make it true. RH is wrong when he says the hair didn't have a root attached - it did.

[catsanddogs]

AleG - I've been reading some older posts on TV regards the phone to try and make some sense of the phone situation and I came across a post you made in the thread below from July of last year -

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/838898-koh-tao-trial-opens-for-2-accused-of-killing-british-tourists/page-203

Miller had two phones, one his regular iPhone (the one allegedly taken by the men on trial) and a cheaper phone that he could actually use while in Thailand since the iPhone was blocked; that's the one found at the beach.

This has been known for a long time already.

That is most interesting and important. Please could you provide a link for the phone found on the beach?

[greenchair]

Oh god, why are still disputing the phone. Even the defense were agreeable with the rtp on the phone.

Get a grip people.

[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.

Just to clear up any misunderstanding here, that statement was contradicted in court by Investigating officer Cherdpong Chiewpreecha:

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

When he admitted that police had failed to check CCTV footage from the local pier at the time the first boat left for the mainland to see who had boarded, because they ‘didn’t think anyone would have taken the boat’, it drew gasps from the court.

Taken from The Daily Mail article published 24th July 2015 by Richard Shears who was in court that day.

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

There, I've even provided the link for you but if you can't access the Mail website where you are, then tough.

[catsanddogs]

AleG - I've been reading some older posts on TV regards the phone to try and make some sense of the phone situation and I came across a post you made in the thread below from July of last year -

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/838898-koh-tao-trial-opens-for-2-accused-of-killing-british-tourists/page-203

Miller had two phones, one his regular iPhone (the one allegedly taken by the men on trial) and a cheaper phone that he could actually use while in Thailand since the iPhone was blocked; that's the one found at the beach.

This has been known for a long time already.

That is most interesting and important. Please could you provide a link for the phone found on the beach?

Sorry I forgot to say the post number is 5066 from the linked thread.

[canuckamuck]

Who cares what phone Chris Ware is talking about.

We are talking about the phone that Wei Phyo "found" at the beach. This is not an accusation by the police.

Wei Phyo came up with it all by himself.

How many phones do you think were laying on the beach at 4am.

The prosecutor did put forth, evidence that the phone belonged to David. And as the judge said, since the defense did not dispute any evidence at all about the phone, he must conclude they agreed with the prosecution on the phone issue .

What we are saying is the lies and deception surrounding the phone (as told by wp) show that he lied at the very beginning to his friend about the phone. That the friend had knowledge that it may have come from the murder, and tried to destroy and hide.

That they hid this tidbit for a couple of weeks. The police matching the Id number was just the icing on a cake of many layers. Even the not guilty campers have accepted the phone is David's. You must keep up with the antics canuckamuck.

So in your mind the phone first identified as David's never happened. Or it was some strange coincidence. Because the police definitely were saying this phone was found at the scene. Of course they first tried to assign it to Hannah. but then they were corrected when they were told they already had Hannah's phone. And even that should raise some doubts about the evidence. Because what the heck is going on when they can't even discern that they had two phones assigned to the same person.

But you say who cares about that phone. It is just a mysterious twist of fate that put a phone identical to one belonging to a victim (even to be identified as so by a friend) right at the scene. But it is indisputable that the police had in their hands the exact model and make of phone that the victim had in his possession - the day after the crime.

You say ignore it, because the defence did. I would love to see proof that the defence is satisfied that this phone is irrelevant. That they chose not to pursue this angle speaks more of the limitations of time allowed for the trial. Much of the defence strategy seemed coloured by what they felt was a smoking gun, I wish they would have spent more time tearing down the wet paper bag the prosecution called a case. But their choices do not in any way change the inconsistencies that most of us here see so clearly.

I would say the phone found at the scene is very relevant. And this is the relevance: If the police had David's phone all along, then the fact that got its IMEI number would be meaningless, except that they also want to say they found it behind the house of the accused. This sort of thing demands clarity. They declared two phones to be David's.

[smedly]

AleG - I've been reading some older posts on TV regards the phone to try and make some sense of the phone situation and I came across a post you made in the thread below from July of last year -

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/838898-koh-tao-trial-opens-for-2-accused-of-killing-british-tourists/page-203

Miller had two phones, one his regular iPhone (the one allegedly taken by the men on trial) and a cheaper phone that he could actually use while in Thailand since the iPhone was blocked; that's the one found at the beach.

This has been known for a long time already.

That is most interesting and important. Please could you provide a link for the phone found on the beach?

LMAO

too funny

[boomerangutang]

I distinctly recall hearing, right after the crime broke in the news (a day or two after) that a phone was found at the crime scene. Which phone is that? ...and who's is it? Since essentially everyone has a phone nowadays, it's very likely the criminals also had phones. Could one or two have accidentally popped out during a skirmish? Certainly. That's the sort of thing Mon would try to cover-up during the 50 or so minutes he was at the crime scene with his police buddy - before police arrived and cordoned off the crime scene (which still didn't keep Mon from prancing around in there). A phone is easy to put in a pocket. So are little things like a weaponized shark-tooth ring or a wallet. A wine bottle or a hoe, not so easy. So where is the wine bottle?

Just what is your fascination with shark tooth rings (weaponised at that)? There must be a story in this as you always include that damned shark tooth ring in your posts where you can sneak it in!!

Calling it 'my fascination' is an odd use of words. A better word would be 'my concern', because wounds to David's neck and torso were likely caused by a stubby sharp weapon like a shark's tooth ring. David's body wounds (leaving aside top of head wound) were not caused by a blunt cement-encrusted hoe. We had these discussions months ago, maybe Lucky11 is not aware of these things. Thai forensics was dead wrong on assessing David's wounds, and that's probably the main reason Brit forensics haven't published anything regarding David. Brit forensics don't want to expose Thai forensics as being wrong, because it would affect British-Thai relations (it would anger Thai PM and top brass), particularly in relation to tourism and mutual biz interests. Same reason Brits didn't do their jobs regarding autopsy of fellow Brit Kirsty Jones who was raped/murdered in Chiang Mai years ago.

Just as important as Thai forensics misdiagnosing David's wounds, is the fact that some of the island men who should be suspects, have been shown to proudly sport shark tooth rings. Two that come to mind (there may be others) are: Stingray Man and the cop caught in the photo harassing Sean. Both are bosom buddies with Mon. That's another reason Thai cops have lost or destroyed 60 hours of CCTV from that night - they didn't want anyone seeing Mon or his friends prancing around the clubs with their shark-tooth rings.

Any of those guys who were shown in Facebook photos, prior to the crime, wearing weaponized rings have certainly trashed their rings after the crime. Indeed, every friend or family member of Mon who could have had any involvement with the crime quickly pulled down their Facebook pages immediately after the crime. You can bet they all erased their mobile phone histories also - and possibly got new sim cards.

[AleG]

AleG - I've been reading some older posts on TV regards the phone to try and make some sense of the phone situation and I came across a post you made in the thread below from July of last year -

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/838898-koh-tao-trial-opens-for-2-accused-of-killing-british-tourists/page-203

Miller had two phones, one his regular iPhone (the one allegedly taken by the men on trial) and a cheaper phone that he could actually use while in Thailand since the iPhone was blocked; that's the one found at the beach.

This has been known for a long time already.

That is most interesting and important. Please could you provide a link for the phone found on the beach?

My post is wrong, there was no phone found on the beach, you may thank Boomerangutang for tripping me into making a mistake and not adding "allegedly", like this "that's the (allegedly) one found at the beach.". The talk at the time was that one crime scene photo showed that phone on the beach next to his shorts, but it then became clear that the black rectangular object was actually the end of the belt.

David Miller reportedly had a cheap Samsung phone that he could use with a Thai SIM card. I don't know where that phone is, and I'm sure neither do you, but it's irrelevant since that not the iPhone Wei Phyo took from him.

How long did you spend poring over my posting history to find one instance of me making a mistake?

[jimmybkk]

Putting a hair, or semen sample in a lab work order is certainly possible- and chain of custody can be simply forged- easy as pie.

So why do that AND mess up the lab work ( which would require some cooperation among staffers, too )

In fact the more I think about this case, the more I think the boys were involved in some way- or one of them specifically, maybe not the murder, but the initial stages of the rape.

Just seems like maybe the boys will be boys- rape the farang party thing got out of hand. A third party. The locals weren't killing victims before- this case is different from some factor not yet even touched upon.

From your posts it appears that you have some knowledge of the way things are on Koh Tao, and there's something about this:

"Just seems like maybe the boys will be boys- rape the farang party thing got out of hand. A third party. The locals weren't killing victims before- this case is different from some factor not yet even touched upon."

...that is both interesting and disturbing. Unless I am totally misreading your post It seems like you are suggesting that the rape of foreign women at parties is fairly commonplace on Koh Tao and you are dismissing the severity of such acts as just a case of the boys being boys... Only this time it got out of hand...

"The locals weren't killing victims before..." Do you mean that the locals weren't killing their rape victims before? If not, why refer to them as "victims" and what were they victims of?

If what you're saying is what it sounds like you're saying, and some locals commit acts of rape at these parties apparently with impunity on Koh Tao (as I have read elsewhere), then I would have thought that the most likely place to look for the murderers would be amongst those locals who have been doing the raping. Rape is a violent crime, as is murder. It's a helluva lot easier to believe that a group of serial rapists with no fear of the consequences of their actions could cross the line from rape to rape+murder than it is believe that 2 young Burmese lads would begin their criminal career with double murder + rape + staging of the victims bodies...

"this case is different from some factor not yet even touched upon." Maybe what's different in this case is that there was a big 6'3" guy prepared to step in to try to defend the intended victim.

[greenchair]

Who cares what phone Chris Ware is talking about.

We are talking about the phone that Wei Phyo "found" at the beach. This is not an accusation by the police.

Wei Phyo came up with it all by himself.

How many phones do you think were laying on the beach at 4am.

The prosecutor did put forth, evidence that the phone belonged to David. And as the judge said, since the defense did not dispute any evidence at all about the phone, he must conclude they agreed with the prosecution on the phone issue .

What we are saying is the lies and deception surrounding the phone (as told by wp) show that he lied at the very beginning to his friend about the phone. That the friend had knowledge that it may have come from the murder, and tried to destroy and hide.

That they hid this tidbit for a couple of weeks. The police matching the Id number was just the icing on a cake of many layers. Even the not guilty campers have accepted the phone is David's. You must keep up with the antics canuckamuck.

So in your mind the phone first identified as David's never happened. Or it was some strange coincidence. Because the police definitely were saying this phone was found at the scene. Of course they first tried to assign it to Hannah. but then they were corrected when they were told they already had Hannah's phone. And even that should raise some doubts about the evidence. Because what the heck is going on when they can't even discern that they had two phones assigned to the same person.

But you say who cares about that phone. It is just a mysterious twist of fate that put a phone identical to one belonging to a victim (even to be identified as so by a friend) right at the scene. But it is indisputable that the police had in their hands the exact model and make of phone that the victim had in his possession - the day after the crime.

You say ignore it, because the defence did. I would love to see proof that the defence is satisfied that this phone is irrelevant. That they chose not to pursue this angle speaks more of the limitations of time allowed for the trial. Much of the defence strategy seemed coloured by what they felt was a smoking gun, I wish they would have spent more time tearing down the wet paper bag the prosecution called a case. But their choices do not in any way change the inconsistencies that most of us here see so clearly.

I would say the phone found at the scene is very relevant. And this is the relevance: If the police had David's phone all along, then the fact that got its IMEI number would be meaningless, except that they also want to say they found it behind the house of the accused. This sort of thing demands clarity. They declared two phones to be David's.

There is certainly a lot of confusion about how many phones there were and who they belonged to. When there are several police putting in their own take to the media, things are bound to get mixed up. Many of the officers bleated off their mouth without thinking. That is why I always go back to the b2 own testimony and see where it matches or doesn't match with the police. After reading some of the court documents, it seems the judge did a similar thing.

In regards to the phone, Wei Phyo was convicted of stealing David's phone and ordered to pay compensation of 17000 baht to the family. This was a separate charge from the murder charge. Only Wei Phyo was charged for this. The defense and Wei Phyo accepted this charge and the judge did not need to consider any arguments in that charge.

This means that both Wei Phyo and the defense team are quite comfortable with that ruling. The issue of the other phones is fairies and elves talking from every direction. Waste your time on it if you want. I choose not to.

[canuckamuck]

AleG - I've been reading some older posts on TV regards the phone to try and make some sense of the phone situation and I came across a post you made in the thread below from July of last year -

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/838898-koh-tao-trial-opens-for-2-accused-of-killing-british-tourists/page-203

Miller had two phones, one his regular iPhone (the one allegedly taken by the men on trial) and a cheaper phone that he could actually use while in Thailand since the iPhone was blocked; that's the one found at the beach.

This has been known for a long time already.

That is most interesting and important. Please could you provide a link for the phone found on the beach?

My post is wrong, there was no phone found on the beach, you may thank Boomerangutang for tripping me into making a mistake and not adding "allegedly", like this "that's the (allegedly) one found at the beach.". The talk at the time was that one crime scene photo showed that phone on the beach next to his shorts, but it then became clear that the black rectangular object was actually the end of the belt.

David Miller reportedly had a cheap Samsung phone that he could use with a Thai SIM card. I don't know where that phone is, and I'm sure neither do you, but it's irrelevant since that not the iPhone Wei Phyo took from him.

How long did you spend poring over my posting history to find one instance of me making a mistake?

"David Miller reportedly had a cheap Samsung phone that he could use with a Thai SIM card. I don't know where that phone is, and I'm sure neither do you, but it's irrelevant since that not the iPhone Wei Phyo took from him."

You could do your argument a big favor by proving the existence of the Samsung. And it still doesn't explain the iPhone 4s that they declared to be evidence on day one.