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

[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?

"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.

I would bother with that Samsung phone if I thought it would be anything but wasting time on a red herring chase, so to speak.

"And it still doesn't explain the iPhone 4s that they declared to be evidence on day one."

Now the goalposts have been moved from the police claiming they had David Miller's iPhone immediately after the murders to just allegedly declaring that they had an iPhone4 as evidence... and the misdirection and obfuscation goes on and on...

[JLCrab]

<snip>.

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.

They didn't have to trash their shark tooth rings -- they were probably confiscated at security before boarding their Nok Air flight.

Edited February 23, 2016 by JLCrab

[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!!

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.

How could the UK forensic experts have missed that - I mean, it must be so obvious, if you can tell simply by looking at photographs that Davids injuries were clearly caused by weaponised shark tooth rings then what are they playing at. I think that they should all go for re-training (maybe have you as an adviser on weaponised shark tooth rings and the damage caused to flesh). You have impressed me, I have to admit, I bet you could tell (if you got a close up of the wounds) how old the shark is and what type of shark it was, maybe even it's sex. I won't question you again on forensics as you clearly have it 'nailed on' and should be considered an authority on the subject!!

As for the so called forensic teams from both countries, they should hang their heads in shame in attempting to cover up this crucial piece of evidence with claims that the injuries are as a result of being hit with the blade of a hoe.

[lucky11]

<snip>.

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.

They didn't have to trash their shark tooth rings -- they were probably confiscated at security before boarding their Nok Air flight.

Agreed, you are strictly not allowed to take weapons onto a plane - as these were 'weaponised shark tooth rings then they most certainly won't be allowed!!

[AleG]

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.

"There is certainly a lot of confusion about how many phones there were and who they belonged to."

That comes as a result of the effort being put into muddling things as much as possible, in the name of finding the "Truth", apparently.

[greenchair]

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.

How could the UK forensic experts have missed that - I mean, it must be so obvious, if you can tell simply by looking at photographs that Davids injuries were clearly caused by weaponised shark tooth rings then what are they playing at. I think that they should all go for re-training (maybe have you as an adviser on weaponised shark tooth rings and the damage caused to flesh). You have impressed me, I have to admit, I bet you could tell (if you got a close up of the wounds) how old the shark is and what type of shark it was, maybe even it's sex. I won't question you again on forensics as you clearly have it 'nailed on' and should be considered an authority on the subject!!

As for the so called forensic teams from both countries, they should hang their heads in shame in attempting to cover up this crucial piece of evidence with claims that the injuries are as a result of being hit with the blade of a hoe.

As Andy hall also nailed his personal take of the forensic evaluation on the head. It is a shame the defense did not call a forensic witness from the UK, but instead decided andy was more knowledgeable on the subject. They certainly were given enough money to do that. It did not need to be a government medical expert. They could have hired a private expert which would have been free to give testimony. I myself am in doubt about david's wounds ,but as the judge said andy is not qualified to comment, so we must accept what was offered until andies team come up with something better.

[jimmybkk]

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?

Hahaha...!!! So it was Boomer's fault, eh? He's always tripping people into missing out the "allegedly", so don't be too hard on yourself. Just out of interest, before you were tripped, where were you going to put the "allegedly" into the statement: "This has been known for a long time already"?

I can't speak for catsanddogs but personally I wouldn't have to pore over any of your posting history because I can recall quite vividly in the early days of the investigation you and your pal JD repeatedly posting as "fact" that Panya Mamen's (the then senior police officer leading the investigation) promotion had been announced and published prior to the murders taking place, which was of course a lie and a deliberate attempt to mislead and despite repeated requests to do so you were unable to name any source for such a revelation, because there isn't one.

I am assuming that seeing as how you were caught red-handed spreading such misinformation you would agree that this was, with hindsight at least, a mistake.

Speaking of Panya Mamen, perhaps now is not a bad time to remind ourselves that a lot of apparent contradictions in the details of evidence collected at or around the time of the murders that is now being dismissed by certain posters for whatever reason can be attributed to a pivotal point in the investigation, which was Panya Mamen being yanked off the case and replaced by someone "more suitable", at which point the investigation took a swift and sharp u-turn, despite the fact that Panya Mamen appeared to be doing a pretty good job and had even tracked one suspect to where he was holed up in Bangkok.

So it's perhaps no surprise to note that most of the evidence collected during Panya Mamen's time leading the investigation when the evidence was fresh and before everyone on the island had closed ranks is now being dismissed by certain posters as "a mistake", blamed on a hazy recollection of events or else simply overwritten and ignored by "new" contradictory evidence.

When a major incident occurs there are good reasons why police will rush to the scene and start taking statements from witnesses and suspects - it is because this is when the events will be freshest in the minds of those who witnessed the incident and also to prevent those who may have been involved from having time to get their stories straight. As such, witness accounts at the time of an incident and evidence collected from the crime scene should be taken very seriously, although, as displayed so beautifully by Greenchair in a recent post, some posters apparently disagree:

"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.

[lucky11]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

[DM07]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

...too funny, dude!

You haven't seen any pictures, but clearly it is a ridiculous idea!

By the way no one is saying, it actually WAS a sharktooth- ring!

What we - the guys, who think the truth is out there!- say is, that the wounds (and most of us have seen pictures) were 99,9% not inflicted with a smashing hoe, but with a much smaller weapon!

[joebrown]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

If you haven't seen pictures of David's wounds you are most likely in a minority of 1 out of all the people who post regularly on the KT murders threads. If in fact you haven't, which I very much doubt is the case, then you are hardly in a position to pass comment on shark-tooth rings etc., are you?

[greenchair]

Mr Jimmy, the reason the investigation took a swift turn had absolutely nothing to do with the change of guard.

In the beginning, the police were pulling in anybody and everybody that they had a smidgeon of a lead on. That lead came from Sean, who implicated mon in a very public tv interview. This forced the police to follow up mon and his lot. At the time the police had not finished looking at all video footage and had not aprehended the burmese. After looking at footage and investigating, they came up with a group of burmese. One of those was Wei Phyo, when he confessed, he also directed them to the phone behind his bungalow. Many things fell into place at that time , and that is why the focus of the investigation changed. It is purely coincidence, the change of guard happened at that time. Similar to there were many top police removed from their positions at the time, tv posters all thought it was to do with Koh Tao when in fact, it was to do with the high ranking officer that had all the antique. Another reason was the politics of the time had many top officials from every agency being transferred. Absolutely nothing to do with the Koh Tao murders.

[jayjay78]

Mr Jimmy, the reason the investigation took a swift turn had absolutely nothing to do with the change of guard.

In the beginning, the police were pulling in anybody and everybody that they had a smidgeon of a lead on. That lead came from Sean, who implicated mon in a very public tv interview. This forced the police to follow up mon and his lot. At the time the police had not finished looking at all video footage and had not aprehended the burmese. After looking at footage and investigating, they came up with a group of burmese. One of those was Wei Phyo, when he confessed, he also directed them to the phone behind his bungalow. Many things fell into place at that time , and that is why the focus of the investigation changed. It is purely coincidence, the change of guard happened at that time. Similar to there were many top police removed from their positions at the time, tv posters all thought it was to do with Koh Tao when in fact, it was to do with the high ranking officer that had all the antique. Another reason was the politics of the time had many top officials from every agency being transferred. Absolutely nothing to do with the Koh Tao murders.

Of course you could be wrong as round about the same time there were reports of Thai's being caught attempting to destroy evidence and give misleading information to the police. Why would local Thai's attempt to destroy evidence that links them to the attacks? No need to reply to that

Edited February 23, 2016 by jayjay78

[joebrown]

Mr Jimmy, the reason the investigation took a swift turn had absolutely nothing to do with the change of guard.

In the beginning, the police were pulling in anybody and everybody that they had a smidgeon of a lead on. That lead came from Sean, who implicated mon in a very public tv interview. This forced the police to follow up mon and his lot. At the time the police had not finished looking at all video footage and had not aprehended the burmese. After looking at footage and investigating, they came up with a group of burmese. One of those was Wei Phyo, when he confessed, he also directed them to the phone behind his bungalow. Many things fell into place at that time , and that is why the focus of the investigation changed. It is purely coincidence, the change of guard happened at that time. Similar to there were many top police removed from their positions at the time, tv posters all thought it was to do with Koh Tao when in fact, it was to do with the high ranking officer that had all the antique. Another reason was the politics of the time had many top officials from every agency being transferred. Absolutely nothing to do with the Koh Tao murders.

Of course you could be wrong as round about the same time there were reports of Thai's being caught attempting to destroy evidence and give misleading information to the police. Why would local Thai's attempt to destroy evidence that links them to the attacks? No need to reply to that

Not forgetting of course, that before Maymen was 'moved' the police had already indicated they had evidence to implicate Mon in the murders and another suspect had fled to Bangkok. I wonder what that evidence was and which rubbish bin it was later deposited in, and then incinerated?

[greenchair]

Mr Jimmy, the reason the investigation took a swift turn had absolutely nothing to do with the change of guard.

In the beginning, the police were pulling in anybody and everybody that they had a smidgeon of a lead on. That lead came from Sean, who implicated mon in a very public tv interview. This forced the police to follow up mon and his lot. At the time the police had not finished looking at all video footage and had not aprehended the burmese. After looking at footage and investigating, they came up with a group of burmese. One of those was Wei Phyo, when he confessed, he also directed them to the phone behind his bungalow. Many things fell into place at that time , and that is why the focus of the investigation changed. It is purely coincidence, the change of guard happened at that time. Similar to there were many top police removed from their positions at the time, tv posters all thought it was to do with Koh Tao when in fact, it was to do with the high ranking officer that had all the antique. Another reason was the politics of the time had many top officials from every agency being transferred. Absolutely nothing to do with the Koh Tao murders.

Of course you could be wrong as round about the same time there were reports of Thai's being caught attempting to destroy evidence and give misleading information to the police. Why would local Thai's attempt to destroy evidence that links them to the attacks? No need to reply to that

That's just a hearsay fairytale. Like the hearsay the defense tried to slide this case by on. This is a chat forum , so you had the right to reply to my post, I shall take the liberty to reply to you. As far as I'm concerned, the only ones I need to listen to is the b2 of the events of their night. It did not pass the smell test.

Everything the prosecution brought forth, was corroborated by the b2. The b2 have more knowledge about this case. You should investigate their testimony.

[jayjay78]

Mr Jimmy, the reason the investigation took a swift turn had absolutely nothing to do with the change of guard.

In the beginning, the police were pulling in anybody and everybody that they had a smidgeon of a lead on. That lead came from Sean, who implicated mon in a very public tv interview. This forced the police to follow up mon and his lot. At the time the police had not finished looking at all video footage and had not aprehended the burmese. After looking at footage and investigating, they came up with a group of burmese. One of those was Wei Phyo, when he confessed, he also directed them to the phone behind his bungalow. Many things fell into place at that time , and that is why the focus of the investigation changed. It is purely coincidence, the change of guard happened at that time. Similar to there were many top police removed from their positions at the time, tv posters all thought it was to do with Koh Tao when in fact, it was to do with the high ranking officer that had all the antique. Another reason was the politics of the time had many top officials from every agency being transferred. Absolutely nothing to do with the Koh Tao murders.

Of course you could be wrong as round about the same time there were reports of Thai's being caught attempting to destroy evidence and give misleading information to the police. Why would local Thai's attempt to destroy evidence that links them to the attacks? No need to reply to that

That's just a hearsay fairytale. Like the hearsay the defense tried to slide this case by on. This is a chat forum , so you had the right to reply to my post, I shall take the liberty to reply to you. As far as I'm concerned, the only ones I need to listen to is the b2 of the events of their night. It did not pass the smell test.

Everything the prosecution brought forth, was corroborated by the b2. The b2 have more knowledge about this case. You should investigate their testimony.

Hearsay fairytale? Is everything Pol Maj Gen Kittipong Kaosam-ang says a hearsay fairytale?

Meanwhile, Pol Maj Gen Kittipong Kaosam-ang, a Surat Thani police commander, asked the media not to report in-depth investigation results, saying it may give some clues to the culprits. But he revealed that Thais may have been involved in the murders and had tried to destroy evidence linking them to the attacks. Some people on Koh Tao had given false information to police in a bid to divert attention.

Edited February 23, 2016 by jayjay78

[DiscoDan]

Mr Jimmy, the reason the investigation took a swift turn had absolutely nothing to do with the change of guard.

In the beginning, the police were pulling in anybody and everybody that they had a smidgeon of a lead on. That lead came from Sean, who implicated mon in a very public tv interview. This forced the police to follow up mon and his lot. At the time the police had not finished looking at all video footage and had not aprehended the burmese. After looking at footage and investigating, they came up with a group of burmese. One of those was Wei Phyo, when he confessed, he also directed them to the phone behind his bungalow. Many things fell into place at that time , and that is why the focus of the investigation changed. It is purely coincidence, the change of guard happened at that time. Similar to there were many top police removed from their positions at the time, tv posters all thought it was to do with Koh Tao when in fact, it was to do with the high ranking officer that had all the antique. Another reason was the politics of the time had many top officials from every agency being transferred. Absolutely nothing to do with the Koh Tao murders.

Of course you could be wrong as round about the same time there were reports of Thai's being caught attempting to destroy evidence and give misleading information to the police. Why would local Thai's attempt to destroy evidence that links them to the attacks? No need to reply to that

Not forgetting of course, that before Maymen was 'moved' the police had already indicated they had evidence to implicate Mon in the murders and another suspect had fled to Bangkok. I wonder what that evidence was and which rubbish bin it was later deposited in, and then incinerated?

Even though while this was going on they were still trying to find the people who had been sitting on the log playing guitar, you seem to always forget that part.

[lucky11]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

...too funny, dude!

You haven't seen any pictures, but clearly it is a ridiculous idea!

By the way no one is saying, it actually WAS a sharktooth- ring!

What we - the guys, who think the truth is out there!- say is, that the wounds (and most of us have seen pictures) were 99,9% not inflicted with a smashing hoe, but with a much smaller weapon!

Like a weaponised shark tooth perhaps.

[DM07]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

...too funny, dude!

You haven't seen any pictures, but clearly it is a ridiculous idea!

By the way no one is saying, it actually WAS a sharktooth- ring!

What we - the guys, who think the truth is out there!- say is, that the wounds (and most of us have seen pictures) were 99,9% not inflicted with a smashing hoe, but with a much smaller weapon!

Like a weaponised shark tooth perhaps.

One of many possibilities, smart@$$!

[fab99]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

It is quite convenient because if you had seen the pictures, I am quite certain you couldn't reasonably say the wounds were inflicted by the hoe (and no blood from David was found on the hoe by the way, only Hannah's).

How did David die??? It is not an irrelevant question, as the scenario used during the B2 trial is really not credible:

There were more than 1 weapon, David put up a fight (and the B2 didn't get a scratch from this fight...), the 2 victims had the hoe in their hand, it was not a surprise attack and if they were not surprised, I am highly curious to know how the B2, small as they are and probably drunk that night, could have killed the 2 victims, David particularly...

There were more than 2 people involved and more than 1 weapon, I am not sure that the B2 were not involved (I agree that the phone is suspect but I tend to believe that they wouldnt have discarded it like that if they had been the killers). And considering the reported threats to the locals, the journalists and the interpreters, I believe some Thais were involved too.

We certainly don't know the whole story yet and as long as all the culprits aren't behind bars or executed, justice hasn't been done.

And by the way, you can't say the british forensics missed the small wounds as the british autopsy on David has never been made public, for a reason that is difficult to grasp...

This case won't go away so easily...

[joebrown]

Mr Jimmy, the reason the investigation took a swift turn had absolutely nothing to do with the change of guard.

In the beginning, the police were pulling in anybody and everybody that they had a smidgeon of a lead on. That lead came from Sean, who implicated mon in a very public tv interview. This forced the police to follow up mon and his lot. At the time the police had not finished looking at all video footage and had not aprehended the burmese. After looking at footage and investigating, they came up with a group of burmese. One of those was Wei Phyo, when he confessed, he also directed them to the phone behind his bungalow. Many things fell into place at that time , and that is why the focus of the investigation changed. It is purely coincidence, the change of guard happened at that time. Similar to there were many top police removed from their positions at the time, tv posters all thought it was to do with Koh Tao when in fact, it was to do with the high ranking officer that had all the antique. Another reason was the politics of the time had many top officials from every agency being transferred. Absolutely nothing to do with the Koh Tao murders.

Of course you could be wrong as round about the same time there were reports of Thai's being caught attempting to destroy evidence and give misleading information to the police. Why would local Thai's attempt to destroy evidence that links them to the attacks? No need to reply to that

Not forgetting of course, that before Maymen was 'moved' the police had already indicated they had evidence to implicate Mon in the murders and another suspect had fled to Bangkok. I wonder what that evidence was and which rubbish bin it was later deposited in, and then incinerated?

Even though while this was going on they were still trying to find the people who had been sitting on the log playing guitar, you seem to always forget that part.

Yes, I agree the police enquiries were incomplete at that time.......So, you aren't disputing the police stated they had evidence to implicate Mon and the suspect who'd fled to Bangkok. That's fine by me. Can't help wondering where that evidence might be nowadays. Have you any ideas?

[joebrown]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

...too funny, dude!

You haven't seen any pictures, but clearly it is a ridiculous idea!

By the way no one is saying, it actually WAS a sharktooth- ring!

What we - the guys, who think the truth is out there!- say is, that the wounds (and most of us have seen pictures) were 99,9% not inflicted with a smashing hoe, but with a much smaller weapon!

Like a weaponised shark tooth perhaps.

One of many possibilities, smart@$$!

Lucky's already he hasn't seen the photos of David's wounds so his replies or comments on the subject are irrelevant. Don't feed him, you'll only get more nonsense in return!

[KunMatt]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

...too funny, dude!

You haven't seen any pictures, but clearly it is a ridiculous idea!

By the way no one is saying, it actually WAS a sharktooth- ring!

What we - the guys, who think the truth is out there!- say is, that the wounds (and most of us have seen pictures) were 99,9% not inflicted with a smashing hoe, but with a much smaller weapon!

Like a weaponised shark tooth perhaps.

One of many possibilities, smart@$$!

Lucky's already he hasn't seen the photos of David's wounds so his replies or comments on the subject are irrelevant. Don't feed him, you'll only get more nonsense in return!

Exactly. Ill informed and ignorant about the case as he is, it's obvious that he is not here for a discussion about what really happened. He's only here to pretend to misunderstand some petty item and then bang on about it for as long as he can so the board gets flooded with his nonsense. That is honestly why he spends all day every day on here. Best to just ignore everything he has to say.

[smedly]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

it might be a really good idea to take a look before making an ill informed comment on the subject, David Millar had some very obvious and very strange puncture wounds on various parts of his body that would be consistent with such a weapon, nobody here is saying much more than that apart from the fact that no mention of these wounds have been made in any official capacity (in Thailand) so they were basically ignored for some reason - as yet no report has been made public from the UK

Remember that in Thailand the defence it seems is limited in scope and not allowed to contest/introduce evidence unless it is presented to the court by the prosecution - this brings up the issue of the photos that the police/prosecution refused to present to the court and made some daft excuse that they had no money - how ridiculous is that - we are talking about crime scene photos

Plus the introduction of such evidence would in fact be seen as an attempt to implicate other peoples involvement in the assault and murder of David - something else I believe that is not allowed as it is the responsibility of the police investigation team to look into such matters and it seems they didn't

so in summary - the Thai autopsy didn't report on these injuries - the police/prosecution did not present the crime scene photos showing these injuries - so the defence team are not allowed to discuss it or introduce it to the court - anyone see anything wrong with that ?.....I do

[lucky11]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

It is quite convenient because if you had seen the pictures, I am quite certain you couldn't reasonably say the wounds were inflicted by the hoe (and no blood from David was found on the hoe by the way, only Hannah's).

How did David die??? It is not an irrelevant question, as the scenario used during the B2 trial is really not credible:

There were more than 1 weapon, David put up a fight (and the B2 didn't get a scratch from this fight...), the 2 victims had the hoe in their hand, it was not a surprise attack and if they were not surprised, I am highly curious to know how the B2, small as they are and probably drunk that night, could have killed the 2 victims, David particularly...

There were more than 2 people involved and more than 1 weapon, I am not sure that the B2 were not involved (I agree that the phone is suspect but I tend to believe that they wouldnt have discarded it like that if they had been the killers). And considering the reported threats to the locals, the journalists and the interpreters, I believe some Thais were involved too.

We certainly don't know the whole story yet and as long as all the culprits aren't behind bars or executed, justice hasn't been done.

And by the way, you can't say the british forensics missed the small wounds as the british autopsy on David has never been made public, for a reason that is difficult to grasp...

This case won't go away so easily...

You raise some good points - I, too do not deny that others could have been involved (and may possibly be the killers). But I vehemently believe that the B2 raped Hannah in violent fashion. I have seen the what Taupin has said about the DNA evidence (via Pornthip) in court and in essence, it seems to implicate the B2 hands down!! Practically all of the claims given by the defence to dismiss this evidence are technical ones, with most based on the fact that it didn't include statistics.

Here's something interesting that she said - to get matches at 17 locations is 10 billion to one - the DNA ( found in the semen inside Hannah) matched at 16 places with the B2's DNA - but, statistics weren't done and so it MUST (in capital letters) insisted Pornthip, be ruled invalid!! Of course, if 5 or 10 people raped her then that would bring the odds down considerably, but I don't think that is the case.

In countering the RTP's claim that they had found DNA on the outside of a condom - they replied that they couldn't have done as they never used condom's when. they sexually assaulted her.

[KunMatt]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

It is quite convenient because if you had seen the pictures, I am quite certain you couldn't reasonably say the wounds were inflicted by the hoe (and no blood from David was found on the hoe by the way, only Hannah's).

How did David die??? It is not an irrelevant question, as the scenario used during the B2 trial is really not credible:

There were more than 1 weapon, David put up a fight (and the B2 didn't get a scratch from this fight...), the 2 victims had the hoe in their hand, it was not a surprise attack and if they were not surprised, I am highly curious to know how the B2, small as they are and probably drunk that night, could have killed the 2 victims, David particularly...

There were more than 2 people involved and more than 1 weapon, I am not sure that the B2 were not involved (I agree that the phone is suspect but I tend to believe that they wouldnt have discarded it like that if they had been the killers). And considering the reported threats to the locals, the journalists and the interpreters, I believe some Thais were involved too.

We certainly don't know the whole story yet and as long as all the culprits aren't behind bars or executed, justice hasn't been done.

And by the way, you can't say the british forensics missed the small wounds as the british autopsy on David has never been made public, for a reason that is difficult to grasp...

This case won't go away so easily...

You raise some good points - I, too do not deny that others could have been involved (and may possibly be the killers). But I vehemently believe that the B2 raped Hannah in violent fashion. I have seen the what Taupin has said about the DNA evidence (via Pornthip) in court and in essence, it seems to implicate the B2 hands down!! Practically all of the claims given by the defence to dismiss this evidence are technical ones, with most based on the fact that it didn't include statistics.

Here's something interesting that she said - to get matches at 17 locations is 10 billion to one - the DNA ( found in the semen inside Hannah) matched at 16 places with the B2's DNA - but, statistics weren't done and so it MUST (in capital letters) insisted Pornthip, be ruled invalid!! Of course, if 5 or 10 people raped her then that would bring the odds down considerably, but I don't think that is the case.

In countering the RTP's claim that they had found DNA on the outside of a condom - they replied that they couldn't have done as they never used condom's when. they sexually assaulted her.

So sow you are gonna focus on a single word used in a TRANSLATION from Thai to English and use this semantics as evidence top support a death sentence verdict? Go and find the original Thai quote and let's discuss what it actually says.

[greenchair]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

It is quite convenient because if you had seen the pictures, I am quite certain you couldn't reasonably say the wounds were inflicted by the hoe (and no blood from David was found on the hoe by the way, only Hannah's).

How did David die??? It is not an irrelevant question, as the scenario used during the B2 trial is really not credible:

There were more than 1 weapon, David put up a fight (and the B2 didn't get a scratch from this fight...), the 2 victims had the hoe in their hand, it was not a surprise attack and if they were not surprised, I am highly curious to know how the B2, small as they are and probably drunk that night, could have killed the 2 victims, David particularly...

There were more than 2 people involved and more than 1 weapon, I am not sure that the B2 were not involved (I agree that the phone is suspect but I tend to believe that they wouldnt have discarded it like that if they had been the killers). And considering the reported threats to the locals, the journalists and the interpreters, I believe some Thais were involved too.

We certainly don't know the whole story yet and as long as all the culprits aren't behind bars or executed, justice hasn't been done.

And by the way, you can't say the british forensics missed the small wounds as the british autopsy on David has never been made public, for a reason that is difficult to grasp...

This case won't go away so easily...

You raise some good points - I, too do not deny that others could have been involved (and may possibly be the killers). But I vehemently believe that the B2 raped Hannah in violent fashion. I have seen the what Taupin has said about the DNA evidence (via Pornthip) in court and in essence, it seems to implicate the B2 hands down!! Practically all of the claims given by the defence to dismiss this evidence are technical ones, with most based on the fact that it didn't include statistics.

Here's something interesting that she said - to get matches at 17 locations is 10 billion to one - the DNA ( found in the semen inside Hannah) matched at 16 places with the B2's DNA - but, statistics weren't done and so it MUST (in capital letters) insisted Pornthip, be ruled invalid!! Of course, if 5 or 10 people raped her then that would bring the odds down considerably, but I don't think that is the case.

In countering the RTP's claim that they had found DNA on the outside of a condom - they replied that they couldn't have done as they never used condom's when. they sexually assaulted her.

Excellent post.

[lucky11]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

It is quite convenient because if you had seen the pictures, I am quite certain you couldn't reasonably say the wounds were inflicted by the hoe (and no blood from David was found on the hoe by the way, only Hannah's).

How did David die??? It is not an irrelevant question, as the scenario used during the B2 trial is really not credible:

There were more than 1 weapon, David put up a fight (and the B2 didn't get a scratch from this fight...), the 2 victims had the hoe in their hand, it was not a surprise attack and if they were not surprised, I am highly curious to know how the B2, small as they are and probably drunk that night, could have killed the 2 victims, David particularly...

There were more than 2 people involved and more than 1 weapon, I am not sure that the B2 were not involved (I agree that the phone is suspect but I tend to believe that they wouldnt have discarded it like that if they had been the killers). And considering the reported threats to the locals, the journalists and the interpreters, I believe some Thais were involved too.

We certainly don't know the whole story yet and as long as all the culprits aren't behind bars or executed, justice hasn't been done.

And by the way, you can't say the british forensics missed the small wounds as the british autopsy on David has never been made public, for a reason that is difficult to grasp...

This case won't go away so easily...

You raise some good points - I, too do not deny that others could have been involved (and may possibly be the killers). But I vehemently believe that the B2 raped Hannah in violent fashion. I have seen the what Taupin has said about the DNA evidence (via Pornthip) in court and in essence, it seems to implicate the B2 hands down!! Practically all of the claims given by the defence to dismiss this evidence are technical ones, with most based on the fact that it didn't include statistics.

Here's something interesting that she said - to get matches at 17 locations is 10 billion to one - the DNA ( found in the semen inside Hannah) matched at 16 places with the B2's DNA - but, statistics weren't done and so it MUST (in capital letters) insisted Pornthip, be ruled invalid!! Of course, if 5 or 10 people raped her then that would bring the odds down considerably, but I don't think that is the case.

In countering the RTP's claim that they had found DNA on the outside of a condom - they replied that they couldn't have done as they never used condom's when. they sexually assaulted her.

So sow you are gonna focus on a single word used in a TRANSLATION from Thai to English and use this semantics as evidence top support a death sentence verdict? Go and find the original Thai quote and let's discuss what it actually says.

That's good, tell everyone to ignore me..........and who is the first one to jump in minutes later!!.

This piece of information appeared in the WP in one of the most (defensive) articles of the B2 towards claiming their complete innocence. Now why should it be that the author of this piece (remember he was convinced of their innocence) state such a thing - unless of course the implications of it escaped him, but not me!!

[StealthEnergiser]

To be honest, I haven't seen any pics of David's wounds, but this shark tooth theory is pretty ridiculous and needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves!!

It is quite convenient because if you had seen the pictures, I am quite certain you couldn't reasonably say the wounds were inflicted by the hoe (and no blood from David was found on the hoe by the way, only Hannah's).

How did David die??? It is not an irrelevant question, as the scenario used during the B2 trial is really not credible:

There were more than 1 weapon, David put up a fight (and the B2 didn't get a scratch from this fight...), the 2 victims had the hoe in their hand, it was not a surprise attack and if they were not surprised, I am highly curious to know how the B2, small as they are and probably drunk that night, could have killed the 2 victims, David particularly...

There were more than 2 people involved and more than 1 weapon, I am not sure that the B2 were not involved (I agree that the phone is suspect but I tend to believe that they wouldnt have discarded it like that if they had been the killers). And considering the reported threats to the locals, the journalists and the interpreters, I believe some Thais were involved too.

We certainly don't know the whole story yet and as long as all the culprits aren't behind bars or executed, justice hasn't been done.

And by the way, you can't say the british forensics missed the small wounds as the british autopsy on David has never been made public, for a reason that is difficult to grasp...

This case won't go away so easily...

You raise some good points - I, too do not deny that others could have been involved (and may possibly be the killers). But I vehemently believe that the B2 raped Hannah in violent fashion. I have seen the what Taupin has said about the DNA evidence (via Pornthip) in court and in essence, it seems to implicate the B2 hands down!! Practically all of the claims given by the defence to dismiss this evidence are technical ones, with most based on the fact that it didn't include statistics.

Here's something interesting that she said - to get matches at 17 locations is 10 billion to one - the DNA ( found in the semen inside Hannah) matched at 16 places with the B2's DNA - but, statistics weren't done and so it MUST (in capital letters) insisted Pornthip, be ruled invalid!! Of course, if 5 or 10 people raped her then that would bring the odds down considerably, but I don't think that is the case.

In countering the RTP's claim that they had found DNA on the outside of a condom - they replied that they couldn't have done as they never used condom's when. they sexually assaulted her.

So sow you are gonna focus on a single word used in a TRANSLATION from Thai to English and use this semantics as evidence top support a death sentence verdict? Go and find the original Thai quote and let's discuss what it actually says.

Good Post Khun Matt you won't see her for the rest of the day.

[KunMatt]

That's good, tell everyone to ignore me..........and who is the first one to jump in minutes later!!.

This piece of information appeared in the WP in one of the most (defensive) articles of the B2 towards claiming their complete innocence. Now why should it be that the author of this piece (remember he was convinced of their innocence) state such a thing - unless of course the implications of it escaped him, but not me!!

Source the original quote...

[bkkgooner]

The longer this case goes on the more I believe that the correct people were arrested and brought to trial.