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

[AGareth2]

violently raped?

what did the UK autopsy say?

[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@$$!

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.

Mea culpa!

[lucky11]

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...

Washington Post - Author Terence McCoy on the 10th October 2014.

[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...

Washington Post - Author Terence McCoy on the 10th October 2014.

So you think the RTP spoke to the Washington Post?? Come on, I know you try hard to pretend to be stupid but this is a bit too much right?

Find the original quote that the Washington Post got the translation from.

Edited February 23, 2016 by KunMatt

[lucky11]

violently raped?

what did the UK autopsy say?

I didn't think that it had been released to the public - so I don't know. Do you?

[lucky11]

violently raped?

what did the UK autopsy say?

I seem to remember that she had internal injuries - a tear somewhere near her anus?

[lucky11]

violently raped?

what did the UK autopsy say?

double post.

Edited February 23, 2016 by lucky11

[lucky11]

I'm not in the newspaper business or a qualified investigator.

[lucky11]

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...

Washington Post - Author Terence McCoy on the 10th October 2014.

So you think the RTP spoke to the Washington Post?? Come on, I know you try hard to pretend to be stupid but this is a bit too much right?

Find the original quote that the Washington Post got the translation from.

Do the B2's defence team talk to the Guardian, Daily Mirror, Telegraph, Daily Mail? Now you find out where they get their translations from!!

[KunMatt]

So if you cannot proof your source then don't try to pass it off as evidence that contributed to 2 men's death sentences.

Your constant tactic of acting dumb and/or focusing on one word for a week to disrupt this forum has run its course. Everyone is well aware if your games now. No need to keep up the act.

[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...

Washington Post - Author Terence McCoy on the 10th October 2014.

So you think the RTP spoke to the Washington Post?? Come on, I know you try hard to pretend to be stupid but this is a bit too much right?

Find the original quote that the Washington Post got the translation from.

Do the B2's defence team talk to the Guardian, Daily Mirror, Telegraph, Daily Mail? Now you find out where they get their translations from!!

At the moment I'm just trying to establish your argument that the B2 are guilty because you found the word "when" in the middle of a translated sentence. You cannot back it up so drop it.

[lucky11]

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...

Washington Post - Author Terence McCoy on the 10th October 2014.

So you think the RTP spoke to the Washington Post?? Come on, I know you try hard to pretend to be stupid but this is a bit too much right?

Find the original quote that the Washington Post got the translation from.

Do the B2's defence team talk to the Guardian, Daily Mirror, Telegraph, Daily Mail? Now you find out where they get their translations from!!

At the moment I'm just trying to establish your argument that the B2 are guilty because you found the word "when" in the middle of a translated sentence. You cannot back it up so drop it.

......and so you are going to find out where the British newspaper get their translations from later. OK, I'll wait.

At least the word 'when' is in the logical and correct place - what about JH's word 'IF' that wasn't, but you all jumped in and said it changes everything - I say all, but AH was rather perturbed by it all as he pleaded with Head to 'stay with it and not abandon the cause'!!

[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...

Washington Post - Author Terence McCoy on the 10th October 2014.

So you think the RTP spoke to the Washington Post?? Come on, I know you try hard to pretend to be stupid but this is a bit too much right?

Find the original quote that the Washington Post got the translation from.

Do the B2's defence team talk to the Guardian, Daily Mirror, Telegraph, Daily Mail? Now you find out where they get their translations from!!

A lot of the information from the trial came from a UK journalist called Sarah Yuen who was at the trial. She wrote for the EDP and her LinkedIn says she speaks Thai.

If you were following the trial at the time you will remember that she reported a lot of things in the EDP which the defence didn't report.

[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?

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.

Yes, JBkk - no poring over old threads was necessary.

[jayjay78]

violently raped?

what did the UK autopsy say?

I seem to remember that she had internal injuries - a tear somewhere near her anus?

Your memory is breathtakingly wrong. A tear was apparent on her vulva, wrong orifice Lucky11.

The UK autopsy confirmed no evidence of anal rape.

Edited February 23, 2016 by jayjay78

[catsanddogs]

violently raped?

what did the UK autopsy say?

Norfolk coroner said 'sexually assaulted'. I heard it with my own ears. She never said rape.

[KunMatt]

What, this Sarah Yuen?

By Sarah Yuen in Koh Samui

One of the Burmese men accused of raping and killing British backpackers Hannah Witheridge and David Miller freely admitted his guilt to police officers, according to a Thai solicitor who was asked to observe the interrogation.

Lawyer Pittaya Yaipetch told the court that migrant worker Zaw Lin admitted following and attacking the British couple on a beach on the Thai island of Koh Tao in the early hours of 15 September last year, along with his co-accused, Wei Phyo.

"The suspect told the investigating police officer that he was with the co-accused on the beach at about 3am when the victims walked past them.

"He said they went to a place further along the beach and started kissing," said Mr Yaipetch.

For the full article go to Sky News 19th August 2015

I love the bit whereby this confession, observed by qualified Thai lawyer Pittaya Yaipetch and said to be given freely changed, the moment the HR watch got to them NB: freely is his word not mine.

Yeah that's the one. So now do you believe and understand that not everything reported in the Western media came from the defence team? Or is there one word somewhere that is confusing you?

[KunMatt]

Does the word 'freely' confuse you or do you disbelieve the honesty of a Thai lawyer who witnessed the original and true confession of their involvement in this heinous crime (pre-HR jumping in and telling them to claim torture) which clearly was a lie?

You didn't answer my question and now you're trying to change the subject yet again.

That lawyer is the one that appeared just before the trial, right? The lawyer that was supposedly present during the B2 interrogations but he took no notes, photos or made any reports about any of it at the time, right? He just appeared out of nowhere for the trial. I bet it must be really difficult to bribe someone to say something in Thailand, don't you think??

And the B2 being tortured has been firmly established, even the Koh Tao loyalists have admitted that, you best touch base with your partners about that one.

Edited February 23, 2016 by KunMatt

[lucky11]

Does the word 'freely' confuse you or do you disbelieve the honesty of a Thai lawyer who witnessed the original and true confession of their involvement in this heinous crime (pre-HR jumping in and telling them to claim torture) which clearly was a lie?

You didn't answer my question and now you're trying to change the subject yet again.

That lawyer is the one that appeared just before the trial, right? The lawyer that was supposedly present during the B2 interrogations but he took no notes, photos or made any reports about any of it at the time, right? He just appeared out of nowhere for the trial. I bet it must be really difficult to bribe someone to say something in Thailand, don't you think??

If you are going to argue the case against the corruption of the case then you have to use sources that are not involved in the corruption, i.e. not the RTP, not the courts and not the prosecution, otherwise what's the point?

And the B2 being tortured has been firmly established, even the Koh Tao loyalists have admitted that, you best touch base with your partners about that one.

I wouldn't get too carried away if I was you.

I don't think that claiming that a lawyer, the RTP and the Thai courts are corrupt is a very wise thing to do on this forum - not too late to edit it, it's your call!!

[KunMatt]

Does the word 'freely' confuse you or do you disbelieve the honesty of a Thai lawyer who witnessed the original and true confession of their involvement in this heinous crime (pre-HR jumping in and telling them to claim torture) which clearly was a lie?

You didn't answer my question and now you're trying to change the subject yet again.

That lawyer is the one that appeared just before the trial, right? The lawyer that was supposedly present during the B2 interrogations but he took no notes, photos or made any reports about any of it at the time, right? He just appeared out of nowhere for the trial. I bet it must be really difficult to bribe someone to say something in Thailand, don't you think??

If you are going to argue the case against the corruption of the case then you have to use sources that are not involved in the corruption, i.e. not the RTP, not the courts and not the prosecution, otherwise what's the point?

And the B2 being tortured has been firmly established, even the Koh Tao loyalists have admitted that, you best touch base with your partners about that one.

I wouldn't get too carried away if I was you.

I don't think that claiming that a lawyer, the RTP and the Thai courts are corrupt is a very wise thing to do on this forum - not too late to edit it, it's your call!!

So how many of your false claims have I shot down today before you ignored it and changed the subject? Is it 3 so far?

[lucky11]

Does the word 'freely' confuse you or do you disbelieve the honesty of a Thai lawyer who witnessed the original and true confession of their involvement in this heinous crime (pre-HR jumping in and telling them to claim torture) which clearly was a lie?

You didn't answer my question and now you're trying to change the subject yet again.

That lawyer is the one that appeared just before the trial, right? The lawyer that was supposedly present during the B2 interrogations but he took no notes, photos or made any reports about any of it at the time, right? He just appeared out of nowhere for the trial. I bet it must be really difficult to bribe someone to say something in Thailand, don't you think??

If you are going to argue the case against the corruption of the case then you have to use sources that are not involved in the corruption, i.e. not the RTP, not the courts and not the prosecution, otherwise what's the point?

And the B2 being tortured has been firmly established, even the Koh Tao loyalists have admitted that, you best touch base with your partners about that one.

I wouldn't get too carried away if I was you.

I don't think that claiming that a lawyer, the RTP and the Thai courts are corrupt is a very wise thing to do on this forum - not too late to edit it, it's your call!!

So how many of your false claims have I shot down today before you ignored it and changed the subject? Is it 3 so far?

Name them - I think that I am doing the shooting and not you BTW!!

[balo]

Still members are attacking each other , they never learn .

[Lancashireman]

Still members are attacking each other , they never learn .

It can be mildly entertaining, but some make sensible comments only to treated like a child.

The anonymity they hide behind creates the fun, but we all have an opinion. How brave would they be if they were exposed?

Edited February 23, 2016 by Lancashireman

[KunMatt]

Still members are attacking each other , they never learn .

Not attacking, just challenging every pathetic falsehood put forward by the same member.

[lucky11]

Still members are attacking each other , they never learn .

Not attacking, just challenging every pathetic falsehood put forward by the same member.

Let's call a truce on this - I think that we have conflicting views about everything and shall have to agree to disagree on each others positions!!

[KunMatt]

Name them - I think that I am doing the shooting and not you BTW!!

Just read from post 598 onwards. You make it very clear that you are not really interested in the case, nor the victims, nor the 2 men on death row for it. So why are you here if not just to wind up this forum?

[lucky11]

Still members are attacking each other , they never learn .

Not attacking, just challenging every pathetic falsehood put forward by the same member.

Let's call a truce on this - I think that we have conflicting views about everything and shall have to agree to disagree on each others positions!!

OK, peace among the warring tribes has been restored!!.

[apetley]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/897293-Kho-Tao-'Interpreter'---Dead,-apparent-poisoning#entry10454329

Anyone seen anything in the Thai news?

[AleG]

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...

The problem with all what you are saying is that you assume, without any basis, that all injuries were directly caused by the assault; how do you know that the smaller cuts are not the result of falling against and/or being dragged over rocks for example?

Because that's infinitely more reasonable assumption than being attacked with, of all things, a shark tooth ring...

Besides that, the court report clearly says that the fatal injuries (or at least the ones that led to his death) were consistent with the use of the hoe... which also had his blood on it.

I know one thing for sure, if the UK autopsy would have found any indication that anything but the hoe was used on Miller his family would had never endorsed the investigation and verdict as they did; apparently you all think to know better than them.

[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...

The problem with all what you are saying is that you assume, without any basis, that all injuries were directly caused by the assault; how do you know that the smaller cuts are not the result of falling against and/or being dragged over rocks for example?

Because that's infinitely more reasonable assumption than being attacked with, of all things, a shark tooth ring...

Besides that, the court report clearly says that the fatal injuries (or at least the ones that led to his death) were consistent with the use of the hoe... which also had his blood on it.

I know one thing for sure, if the UK autopsy would have found any indication that anything but the hoe was used on Miller his family would had never endorsed the investigation and verdict as they did; apparently you all think to know better than them.

What you say is simply not true... David's blood has never been found on the hoe, only Hannah's, it is one of the main reasons (that and the multiple small wounds) that make us really doubt it is the only murder weapon, and how can you call the investigation good enough (and deliver a death sentence) if even the murder weapon isn't clearly identified...

Again, David's blood wasn't found on the blade, (if you can find a source that says otherwise, I would be surprised and would admit I am wrong), David and Hannah's DNA (not from blood) was found on the handle though during the analysis by Pornthip, which make it highly probable that the victims handled the weapon... quite different from the scenario used during the reenactment by the B2...

EDIT ; source : http://news.sky.com/story/1556915/thai-murders-suspects-dna-not-on-weapon

Edited February 23, 2016 by fab99