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

[greenchair]

Koh Tao defence seeks second appeal hearing extension

"The defence team for two Myanmar men facing the death penalty for the murder of two British tourists on Koh Tao will today file a second application to push back an appeal against the sentence".

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/19046-koh-tao-defence-seeks-second-appeal-hearing-extension.html

Even the defense has gone from innocent to "not sure they are innocent or not, but the evidence is not as strong as we think it should be.

Once again, the defence will cherry pick what is suitable to them, while avoiding any issue that does not fit the picture.

Luckily, the courts will look at all of the evidences, to ensure that murderers will not walk free on a technicality.

[boomerangutang]

re; Greenchair's post #205. I'm sorry gal, there are just too many skewed assumptions and wrong data in your post to address.

Ok, I'll give it a go: boy finds m. phone in the sand. takes it home. Shows it to friend. Boy or his friend tells about the murder. One or both boys get spooked, so smash phone and toss it in the weeds. Even if that happened, it's a big fat SO WHAT? I'll say it again, the phone is a canard, a red herring. It signifies scant little. If anything, it shows how RTP/prosecution/judges want to believe some things Wei says, but don't believe anything else he says. It still doesn't incriminate him.

Re; CCTV: there is only one shot of the 3 boys - a 'still shot' on the motorbike 5.5 hrs before the crime. There are some shots of MM closer to the time of the crime, but MM was let go. Why was that? He was let go (my opinion) because he probably knows who the real killers are and because he knew enough to demand a lawyer at the inquisition. RTP didn't want any smart alec like that, so they patted him on the back and told him to get lost. Why didn't prosecution call MM to the stand, or Sean? Obvious: they might incriminate the real perps. Can't have that, can we?

Re; The DNA. If you don't agree the DNA trail is hearsay and in shambles, then you haven't been paying attention and/or have an agenda as thick as the RTP and multi-millionaire-richer police chiefs who oversee the investigation. Just the one fact that some of Hannah's clothes are missing - should be grounds for throwing the whole stinky frame-up out the window.

[boomerangutang]

Koh Tao defence seeks second appeal hearing extension

"The defence team for two Myanmar men facing the death penalty for the murder of two British tourists on Koh Tao will today file a second application to push back an appeal against the sentence".

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/19046-koh-tao-defence-seeks-second-appeal-hearing-extension.html

Even the defense has gone from innocent to "not sure they are innocent or not, but the evidence is not as strong as we think it should be.

Once again, the defence will cherry pick what is suitable to them, while avoiding any issue that does not fit the picture.

Luckily, the courts will look at all of the evidences, to ensure that murderers will not walk free on a technicality.

The murderers are walking free. They have been for 17 months. They never saw one minute in a jail cell. Their names cannot be spoken among RTP. At least 3 mysterious backpacker deaths have taken place on the tiny island since they've been walking around, doing whatever they want. Brit experts are almost as responsible for those mystery deaths as RTP. Why? Because Brits have done less than nothing re; trying to find who the real criminals are.

[sunnyjim5]

I am amazed by the number of "experts" here ...........

"Expert" Lawyers( schooled in Thai Jurisprudence), Investigators and Forensic Scientists etc.

Pity that in reality these "experts" are only skilled in bar stool rhetoric..

[StealthEnergiser]

Thai "police": What is the number of David's phone?

British police: ******

Thai "police": Yes! yes! that's the one we found!

Simple explanation that 99 percent will understand the other 1 percent will try and defend the RTP with an unnecessary answer long enough to write a book trying to confuse us .

I would not like to be on the prosecution side now that a very strong defence is being put together it looks like there are 100 plus defence points at this stage .

The defence will win the appeal and the B2 released RTP supporters will be the ones the back foot .

Edited February 18, 2016 by StealthEnergiser

[greenchair]

We can fight about that number on the phone till the cows come home.

Since the

"the rtp planted the phone "

Theory fell in the mud.

I want ask

What are people's "theories" about who the phone belongs to ,that Wei Phyo "found"at 4am as he was out strolling around next to a murder.

[lucky11]

re; Greenchair's post #205. I'm sorry gal, there are just too many skewed assumptions and wrong data in your post to address.

Ok, I'll give it a go: boy finds m. phone in the sand. takes it home. Shows it to friend. Boy or his friend tells about the murder. One or both boys get spooked, so smash phone and toss it in the weeds. Even if that happened, it's a big fat SO WHAT? I'll say it again, the phone is a canard, a red herring. It signifies scant little. If anything, it shows how RTP/prosecution/judges want to believe some things Wei says, but don't believe anything else he says. It still doesn't incriminate him.

Re; CCTV: there is only one shot of the 3 boys - a 'still shot' on the motorbike 5.5 hrs before the crime. There are some shots of MM closer to the time of the crime, but MM was let go. Why was that? He was let go (my opinion) because he probably knows who the real killers are and because he knew enough to demand a lawyer at the inquisition. RTP didn't want any smart alec like that, so they patted him on the back and told him to get lost. Why didn't prosecution call MM to the stand, or Sean? Obvious: they might incriminate the real perps. Can't have that, can we?

Re; The DNA. If you don't agree the DNA trail is hearsay and in shambles, then you haven't been paying attention and/or have an agenda as thick as the RTP and multi-millionaire-richer police chiefs who oversee the investigation. Just the one fact that some of Hannah's clothes are missing - should be grounds for throwing the whole stinky frame-up out the window.

Did the defence call MM or Sean to the stand? If not, why not. Surely if these two have beans to spill the defence should have called them and not the prosecution as they are convinced of the B2s guilt..

[lucky11]

We can fight about that number on the phone till the cows come home.

Since the

"the rtp planted the phone "

Theory fell in the mud.

I want ask

What are people's "theories" about who the phone belongs to ,that Wei Phyo "found"at 4am as he was out strolling around next to a murder.

Why are posters even talking about the RTP planting the phone? I was under the impression that was no denial as to the fact that he found the phone (and sunglasses), in a conversation with A Hall.

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Today Koh Samui Court approved Koh Tao defence lawyer team request for appeal submission extension until 24th Mar 16

[boomerangutang]

re; Greenchair's post #205. I'm sorry gal, there are just too many skewed assumptions and wrong data in your post to address.

Ok, I'll give it a go: boy finds m. phone in the sand. takes it home. Shows it to friend. Boy or his friend tells about the murder. One or both boys get spooked, so smash phone and toss it in the weeds. Even if that happened, it's a big fat SO WHAT? I'll say it again, the phone is a canard, a red herring. It signifies scant little. If anything, it shows how RTP/prosecution/judges want to believe some things Wei says, but don't believe anything else he says. It still doesn't incriminate him.

Re; CCTV: there is only one shot of the 3 boys - a 'still shot' on the motorbike 5.5 hrs before the crime. There are some shots of MM closer to the time of the crime, but MM was let go. Why was that? He was let go (my opinion) because he probably knows who the real killers are and because he knew enough to demand a lawyer at the inquisition. RTP didn't want any smart alec like that, so they patted him on the back and told him to get lost. Why didn't prosecution call MM to the stand, or Sean? Obvious: they might incriminate the real perps. Can't have that, can we?

Re; The DNA. If you don't agree the DNA trail is hearsay and in shambles, then you haven't been paying attention and/or have an agenda as thick as the RTP and multi-millionaire-richer police chiefs who oversee the investigation. Just the one fact that some of Hannah's clothes are missing - should be grounds for throwing the whole stinky frame-up out the window.

Did the defence call MM or Sean to the stand? If not, why not. Surely if these two have beans to spill the defence should have called them and not the prosecution as they are convinced of the B2s guilt..

That's easy to answer: Both Sean and MM were let go by police. We don't know if they were told to stay hidden and/or say nothing, but they both went to foreign countries, never to be heard of again. If that's not hushing evidence, I don't know what is. The defense couldn't have found them to bring back. Plus, the defense was trying so hard not to mention things which would implicate those who were original prime suspects ("We know who the murderers are and we will arrest them soon" Panya). The defense wanted to keep the focus on freeing the scapegoats. They knew if they mentioned other more likely suspects, that it would anger the RTP, the Headman, the Prosecution and the Court. They didn't want to anger and alienate everyone, so they kept their focus on defending the defendants. Plus, it's not the defense's responsibility to solve the case. That's the responsibility of the RTP, and they failed badly.

[lucky11]

re; Greenchair's post #205. I'm sorry gal, there are just too many skewed assumptions and wrong data in your post to address.

Ok, I'll give it a go: boy finds m. phone in the sand. takes it home. Shows it to friend. Boy or his friend tells about the murder. One or both boys get spooked, so smash phone and toss it in the weeds. Even if that happened, it's a big fat SO WHAT? I'll say it again, the phone is a canard, a red herring. It signifies scant little. If anything, it shows how RTP/prosecution/judges want to believe some things Wei says, but don't believe anything else he says. It still doesn't incriminate him.

Re; CCTV: there is only one shot of the 3 boys - a 'still shot' on the motorbike 5.5 hrs before the crime. There are some shots of MM closer to the time of the crime, but MM was let go. Why was that? He was let go (my opinion) because he probably knows who the real killers are and because he knew enough to demand a lawyer at the inquisition. RTP didn't want any smart alec like that, so they patted him on the back and told him to get lost. Why didn't prosecution call MM to the stand, or Sean? Obvious: they might incriminate the real perps. Can't have that, can we?

Re; The DNA. If you don't agree the DNA trail is hearsay and in shambles, then you haven't been paying attention and/or have an agenda as thick as the RTP and multi-millionaire-richer police chiefs who oversee the investigation. Just the one fact that some of Hannah's clothes are missing - should be grounds for throwing the whole stinky frame-up out the window.

Did the defence call MM or Sean to the stand? If not, why not. Surely if these two have beans to spill the defence should have called them and not the prosecution as they are convinced of the B2s guilt..

That's easy to answer: Both Sean and MM were let go by police. We don't know if they were told to stay hidden and/or say nothing, but they both went to foreign countries, never to be heard of again. If that's not hushing evidence, I don't know what is. The defense couldn't have found them to bring back. Plus, the defense was trying so hard not to mention things which would implicate those who were original prime suspects ("We know who the murderers are and we will arrest them soon" Panya). The defense wanted to keep the focus on freeing the scapegoats. They knew if they mentioned other more likely suspects, that it would anger the RTP, the Headman, the Prosecution and the Court. They didn't want to anger and alienate everyone, so they kept their focus on defending the defendants. Plus, it's not the defense's responsibility to solve the case. That's the responsibility of the RTP, and they failed badly.

Others might be involved, but I genuinely believe that the B2 are the killers. Let's assume that they are - they couldn't name names as they would then sabotage their own case and implicate themselves. If they are not, then why do they not call out the real perpetrators? They clearly have some involvement as they have left too many unanswered questions behind and lied on several occasions in a blatant attempt to cover things up!! Maybe nobody else was involved, although some acted extremely strangely and seemed to do a runner to far away places which I admit, draws suspicions towards their involvement!!

[AleG]

He keeps using his 'bible' (the judgement) and keeps exposing it for the pile of nonsense that it is. Mr Christopher Alan Ware had left Thailand long before the smashed iphone was found behind the B2's lodgings. So which phone did he verify as being David's? The one found at the crime scene?

And which IMEI story is it? From the British Embassy? From the Royal Thai Embassy in London? Or given 'off the record' in a phone call from the NCA?

Readers will note that my original post on this matter has caused quite a stir amongst the little hornet's nest of shills. That means we're getting somewhere with this .

Evidently you are putting no effort whatsoever in understanding things.

The quote from the the report I posted is this:

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

It doesn't say anything about Chris Ware being around at the time the phone was found, only that the testimony he gave (which he did in the immediate days after the murders) was used to help identify the phone, for example information about the brand, model and colour of the phone. You seem to think you've caught them in a lie, you only demonstrate you don't think things through.

Of course you just hate to see the court report being referred to, it points at the facts used to arrive to a guilty verdict, and the facts don't fit what you want to believe, therefore they are not welcomed.

Also you don't seem to have understood that both "stories" were presented in court, the UK government and the Miller family confirming it was David's phone.

Finally you keep repeating there was a phone found at the crime scene, this is completely false, you keep repeating it why?

"Readers will note that my original post on this matter has caused quite a stir amongst the little hornet's nest of shills. That means we're getting somewhere with this ."

You are just trolling, aren't you?. You are here, spreading demonstrably false information about a double murder, for your own entertainment. The only place you are getting at with that is to undermine whatever vestiges of credibility you may have ever had; there was no phone found at the crime scene when the bodies were discovered. You keep repeating it, the rest of the gang keeps repeating it, all you do is demonstrating that you are running on vapors, nothing left but to retreat into a fantasy.

[KunMatt]

We can fight about that number on the phone till the cows come home.

Since the

"the rtp planted the phone "

Theory fell in the mud.

I want ask

What are people's "theories" about who the phone belongs to ,that Wei Phyo "found"at 4am as he was out strolling around next to a murder.

You keep trying to equate that the phone equals the murders, which of course it does not. Whatever happened with the phone is not proof that either of the B2 murdered the 2 tourists. There are plenty of other scenarios such as they witnessed a bunch of locals do it and they stole the phone from the scene, but you will only accept the scenario that the B2 definitely killed both victims on their own with one weapon and your biggest proof of this is that you say they stole a phone which belonged to one of the victims, so either you are totally naive (which I don't think you are) or you are here with a purpose which makes you an appalling person when you consider what has happened and what you are doing.

As I said before in this thread, the hoe was not used to kill David and even if you have never seen or held one to realise it's capabilities all you need to do is to look at the injuries on both victims to realise that the same weapon was not used to cause such massively different injuries, to say otherwise is just further proof of deliberate ignorance for a reason. But despite everything else all you want to talk about is a phone which may or may have been stolen by one of the B2. The fact that you are trying so hard to derail any conversation by continually posting about something relatively irrelevant to the actual murders and you use the flawed trial verdict as your major source of proof just shows that you are either here to wind everyone up or you are here because it is in your best interests to post as much misinformation as possible to try and confuse anybody trying to read up on the case, so whichever it is it's a pretty abhorrent thing for you to do.

[AleG]

We can fight about that number on the phone till the cows come home.

Since the

"the rtp planted the phone "

Theory fell in the mud.

I want ask

What are people's "theories" about who the phone belongs to ,that Wei Phyo "found"at 4am as he was out strolling around next to a murder.

Why are posters even talking about the RTP planting the phone? I was under the impression that was no denial as to the fact that he found the phone (and sunglasses), in a conversation with A Hall.

I think this paragraph, which I copied from a debate against a religious fanatic (and that should tell you something) explains why:

"My mind is definitely opened unlike yours, yours is blinded by faith and a doctrinal obligation to defend the sacred fables against all reason. That's what apologetics is all about, you assume your conclusions at the onset for reasons that have nothing to do with actual information and then you make up whatever excuse necessary to rationalize or justify your baseless assumptions regardless of what the facts are."

[lucky11]

We can fight about that number on the phone till the cows come home.

Since the

"the rtp planted the phone "

Theory fell in the mud.

I want ask

What are people's "theories" about who the phone belongs to ,that Wei Phyo "found"at 4am as he was out strolling around next to a murder.

You keep trying to equate that the phone equals the murders, which of course it does not. Whatever happened with the phone is not proof that either of the B2 murdered the 2 tourists. There are plenty of other scenarios such as they witnessed a bunch of locals do it and they stole the phone from the scene, but you will only accept the scenario that the B2 definitely killed both victims on their own with one weapon and your biggest proof of this is that you say they stole a phone which belonged to one of the victims, so either you are totally naive (which I don't think you are) or you are here with a purpose which makes you an appalling person when you consider what has happened and what you are doing.

As I said before in this thread, the hoe was not used to kill David and even if you have never seen or held one to realise it's capabilities all you need to do is to look at the injuries on both victims to realise that the same weapon was not used to cause such massively different injuries, to say otherwise is just further proof of deliberate ignorance for a reason. But despite everything else all you want to talk about is a phone which may or may have been stolen by one of the B2. The fact that you are trying so hard to derail any conversation by continually posting about something relatively irrelevant to the actual murders and you use the flawed trial verdict as your major source of proof just shows that you are either here to wind everyone up or you are here because it is in your best interests to post as much misinformation as possible to try and confuse anybody trying to read up on the case, so whichever it is it's a pretty abhorrent thing for you to do.

Greenchair is discussing the phone (element) BECAUSE this thread is about the phone - seems a justifiable reason to me!!

Are you trying to make everyone go off-topic because you don't like what is being revealed!!

[KunMatt]

We can fight about that number on the phone till the cows come home.

Since the

"the rtp planted the phone "

Theory fell in the mud.

I want ask

What are people's "theories" about who the phone belongs to ,that Wei Phyo "found"at 4am as he was out strolling around next to a murder.

You keep trying to equate that the phone equals the murders, which of course it does not. Whatever happened with the phone is not proof that either of the B2 murdered the 2 tourists. There are plenty of other scenarios such as they witnessed a bunch of locals do it and they stole the phone from the scene, but you will only accept the scenario that the B2 definitely killed both victims on their own with one weapon and your biggest proof of this is that you say they stole a phone which belonged to one of the victims, so either you are totally naive (which I don't think you are) or you are here with a purpose which makes you an appalling person when you consider what has happened and what you are doing.

As I said before in this thread, the hoe was not used to kill David and even if you have never seen or held one to realise it's capabilities all you need to do is to look at the injuries on both victims to realise that the same weapon was not used to cause such massively different injuries, to say otherwise is just further proof of deliberate ignorance for a reason. But despite everything else all you want to talk about is a phone which may or may have been stolen by one of the B2. The fact that you are trying so hard to derail any conversation by continually posting about something relatively irrelevant to the actual murders and you use the flawed trial verdict as your major source of proof just shows that you are either here to wind everyone up or you are here because it is in your best interests to post as much misinformation as possible to try and confuse anybody trying to read up on the case, so whichever it is it's a pretty abhorrent thing for you to do.

Greenchair is discussing the phone (element) BECAUSE this thread is about the phone - seems a justifiable reason to me!!

Are you trying to make everyone go off-topic because you don't like what is being revealed!!

No, he (you!) is saying that because the B2 stole the phone then they are definitely the murderers and no other explanation is possible.

[bannork]

re; Greenchair's post #205. I'm sorry gal, there are just too many skewed assumptions and wrong data in your post to address.

Ok, I'll give it a go: boy finds m. phone in the sand. takes it home. Shows it to friend. Boy or his friend tells about the murder. One or both boys get spooked, so smash phone and toss it in the weeds. Even if that happened, it's a big fat SO WHAT? I'll say it again, the phone is a canard, a red herring. It signifies scant little. If anything, it shows how RTP/prosecution/judges want to believe some things Wei says, but don't believe anything else he says. It still doesn't incriminate him.

Re; CCTV: there is only one shot of the 3 boys - a 'still shot' on the motorbike 5.5 hrs before the crime. There are some shots of MM closer to the time of the crime, but MM was let go. Why was that? He was let go (my opinion) because he probably knows who the real killers are and because he knew enough to demand a lawyer at the inquisition. RTP didn't want any smart alec like that, so they patted him on the back and told him to get lost. Why didn't prosecution call MM to the stand, or Sean? Obvious: they might incriminate the real perps. Can't have that, can we?

Re; The DNA. If you don't agree the DNA trail is hearsay and in shambles, then you haven't been paying attention and/or have an agenda as thick as the RTP and multi-millionaire-richer police chiefs who oversee the investigation. Just the one fact that some of Hannah's clothes are missing - should be grounds for throwing the whole stinky frame-up out the window.

Did the defence call MM or Sean to the stand? If not, why not. Surely if these two have beans to spill the defence should have called them and not the prosecution as they are convinced of the B2s guilt..

That's easy to answer: Both Sean and MM were let go by police. We don't know if they were told to stay hidden and/or say nothing, but they both went to foreign countries, never to be heard of again. If that's not hushing evidence, I don't know what is. The defense couldn't have found them to bring back. Plus, the defense was trying so hard not to mention things which would implicate those who were original prime suspects ("We know who the murderers are and we will arrest them soon" Panya). The defense wanted to keep the focus on freeing the scapegoats. They knew if they mentioned other more likely suspects, that it would anger the RTP, the Headman, the Prosecution and the Court. They didn't want to anger and alienate everyone, so they kept their focus on defending the defendants. Plus, it's not the defense's responsibility to solve the case. That's the responsibility of the RTP, and they failed badly.

How do you mean Sean is hushed? At the last call he was living in Italy, he could sell his story to any tabloid tomorrow

Surely as the resident guitarist, 'concierge' and hanger on at the AC bar. he must know something?

And his photos of himself cowering behind the 7-11 counter whilst the glares of Mon and his brother look down on him, apparently threatening to hang him for the murders.

He's either a complete bullsh..tter or up to his eyeballs in the whole tragedy.

[Khun Han]

"It doesn't say anything about Chris Ware being around at the time the phone was found, only that the testimony he gave (which he did in the immediate days after the murders) was used to help identify the phone, for example information about the brand, model and colour of the phone."

Complete and utter bs. "Yes officer, It was a black iphone." " Oh good. Thanks for that. That narrows it down to only a few hundred million potential owners." Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

And the RTP either got the IMEI from the British Embassy (British Embassy denied this), from the Royal Thai Embassy in London, or in an off the record phone call from the NCA. It can only be one of those three because they are all mutually exclusive, whatever pairings you put them in. Why you think you can pull the wool over peoples' eyes all the time is something you'd need to talk to a professional counsellor about.

[Mudcrab]

As someone who has spent quite some time in Myanmar and has experienced the local culture it is not beyond belief that the two convicted murderers did actually commit the crime.

Up country people have very strong beliefs and it is possible that two drunk Burmese guys came across two people copulating on the beach and simply could not control their urges and the whole episode spiralled out of control.

Remember Myanmar is a country where you will rarely see two young lovers holding hands...god forbid kissing in public.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Mudcrab

[AleG]

"It doesn't say anything about Chris Ware being around at the time the phone was found, only that the testimony he gave (which he did in the immediate days after the murders) was used to help identify the phone, for example information about the brand, model and colour of the phone."

Complete and utter bs. "Yes officer, It was a black iphone." " Oh good. Thanks for that. That narrows it down to only a few hundred million potential owners." Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

And the RTP either got the IMEI from the British Embassy (British Embassy denied this), from the Royal Thai Embassy in London, or in an off the record phone call from the NCA. It can only be one of those three because they are all mutually exclusive, whatever pairings you put them in. Why you think you can pull the wool over peoples' eyes all the time is something you'd need to talk to a professional counsellor about.

The police knew there was a black iPhone missing from Miller, obviously from testimony of people who knew him and that he had such phone, such as...oh, I don't know, Chris Ware.

What is pathetic is how hard you try not to be exposed to facts and reason.

"And the RTP either got the IMEI from the British Embassy (British Embassy denied this), from the Royal Thai Embassy in London, or in an off the record phone call from the NCA. It can only be one of those three because they are all mutually exclusive, whatever pairings you put them in. Why you think you can pull the wool over peoples' eyes all the time is something you'd need to talk to a professional counsellor about."

The only person here trying to pull a wool over people's eyes is you, for example by claiming that your three options are the only ones possible, conveniently ignoring the most likely one, that the investigators got the IMEI number by reading it from the smashed phone found were Wei Phyo said it would be, which just happens to be the one concordant with the order of events described in the article in the OP, that the request to the UK authorities came after the two Burmese were detained as suspects; the confirmation that the IMEI matched David Miller's phone came from the NCA through the British Embassy in Thailand and through David Miller's father through the Thai Embassy in the UK, you are just flailing around trying to muddle things.

[KunMatt]

As someone who has spent quite some time in Myanmar and has experienced the local culture it is not beyond belief that the two convicted murderers did actually commit the crime. Up country people have very strong beliefs and it is possible that two drunk Burmese guys came across two people copulating on the beach and simply could not control their urges. Remember Myanmar is a country where you will rarely see two young lovers holding hands...god forbid kissing in public.

If the B2 did the murders on their own then it was really nice of all the Koh Tao locals to go out of their way to try and help the B2 get away with it by with holding vital CCTV, Mon admitting he was the running man. washing one of the murder weapons, hushing up all the local witnesses etc.

[lucky11]

We can fight about that number on the phone till the cows come home.

Since the

"the rtp planted the phone "

Theory fell in the mud.

I want ask

What are people's "theories" about who the phone belongs to ,that Wei Phyo "found"at 4am as he was out strolling around next to a murder.

You keep trying to equate that the phone equals the murders, which of course it does not. Whatever happened with the phone is not proof that either of the B2 murdered the 2 tourists. There are plenty of other scenarios such as they witnessed a bunch of locals do it and they stole the phone from the scene, but you will only accept the scenario that the B2 definitely killed both victims on their own with one weapon and your biggest proof of this is that you say they stole a phone which belonged to one of the victims, so either you are totally naive (which I don't think you are) or you are here with a purpose which makes you an appalling person when you consider what has happened and what you are doing.

As I said before in this thread, the hoe was not used to kill David and even if you have never seen or held one to realise it's capabilities all you need to do is to look at the injuries on both victims to realise that the same weapon was not used to cause such massively different injuries, to say otherwise is just further proof of deliberate ignorance for a reason. But despite everything else all you want to talk about is a phone which may or may have been stolen by one of the B2. The fact that you are trying so hard to derail any conversation by continually posting about something relatively irrelevant to the actual murders and you use the flawed trial verdict as your major source of proof just shows that you are either here to wind everyone up or you are here because it is in your best interests to post as much misinformation as possible to try and confuse anybody trying to read up on the case, so whichever it is it's a pretty abhorrent thing for you to do.

Greenchair is discussing the phone (element) BECAUSE this thread is about the phone - seems a justifiable reason to me!!

Are you trying to make everyone go off-topic because you don't like what is being revealed!!

No, he (you!) is saying that because the B2 stole the phone then they are definitely the murderers and no other explanation is possible.

The reply you gave was to Greenchair, not me.

"But despite everything else all you want to talk about is a phone which may or may have been stolen by one of the B2". Your quote to GC - decrying the fact that she wants to talk about the phone. What exactly would you like her to discuss other than about the phone whereby she can stay on-topic?

[KunMatt]

"But despite everything else all you want to talk about is a phone which may or may have been stolen by one of the B2". Your quote to GC - decrying the fact that she wants to talk about the phone. What exactly would you like her to discuss other than about the phone whereby she can stay on-topic? [/size][/font][/color][/background]

Yes, I know your game, this is what you always do, you pretend to not understand something and then harp on and on about a supposed misunderstanding for a week. Yes, this thread is about the phone, my point is that possession of the phone is not evidence of a murder especially when there is so much other proof that points to other people being involved, as I said the B2 could have been with the murderers and stolen the phone from the crime scene, it obviously does not automatically make them the murderers because they have a stolen phone found behind their house.

I fully expect you to reply with the exact same point you already wrote above and pretending that you don't understand what I just said. Go on, do it.

Edited February 18, 2016 by KunMatt

[Khun Han]

Oh dear Aleg. 'The Boy Who Was Late For School' (or: here we go with more convoluted excuses).

Chris Ware stating that David Miller owned an iphone is not evidence of anything other than that he owned an iphone (as do hundreds of millions of other people, and probably several thousand people on Koh Tao at any given time). As corroborating evidence, it's meaningless.

And the NCA don't have any need to go 'off the record' with the British Embassy. Their mutual dealings are 'off the record' anyway, as far as anyone outside the loop is concerned. But the British Embassy connection was denied anyway, and the RTP (as on many other occasions during the trial) were caught in a lie.

[AleG]

We can fight about that number on the phone till the cows come home.

Since the

"the rtp planted the phone "

Theory fell in the mud.

I want ask

What are people's "theories" about who the phone belongs to ,that Wei Phyo "found"at 4am as he was out strolling around next to a murder.

You keep trying to equate that the phone equals the murders, which of course it does not. Whatever happened with the phone is not proof that either of the B2 murdered the 2 tourists. There are plenty of other scenarios such as they witnessed a bunch of locals do it and they stole the phone from the scene, but you will only accept the scenario that the B2 definitely killed both victims on their own with one weapon and your biggest proof of this is that you say they stole a phone which belonged to one of the victims, so either you are totally naive (which I don't think you are) or you are here with a purpose which makes you an appalling person when you consider what has happened and what you are doing.

As I said before in this thread, the hoe was not used to kill David and even if you have never seen or held one to realise it's capabilities all you need to do is to look at the injuries on both victims to realise that the same weapon was not used to cause such massively different injuries, to say otherwise is just further proof of deliberate ignorance for a reason. But despite everything else all you want to talk about is a phone which may or may have been stolen by one of the B2. The fact that you are trying so hard to derail any conversation by continually posting about something relatively irrelevant to the actual murders and you use the flawed trial verdict as your major source of proof just shows that you are either here to wind everyone up or you are here because it is in your best interests to post as much misinformation as possible to try and confuse anybody trying to read up on the case, so whichever it is it's a pretty abhorrent thing for you to do.

Greenchair is discussing the phone (element) BECAUSE this thread is about the phone - seems a justifiable reason to me!!

Are you trying to make everyone go off-topic because you don't like what is being revealed!!

As en exercise let's deconstruct KunMatt's post, shall we?

-"You keep trying to equate that the phone equals the murders,"

Strawman Argument, deliberately misrepresents Greenchair's views.

-"Whatever happened with the phone is not proof that either of the B2 murdered the 2 tourists."

What did happened with it is strong evidence against them, as per their own testimony.

-"There are plenty of other scenarios such as they witnessed a bunch of locals do it and they stole the phone from the scene, but you will only accept the scenario that the B2 definitely killed both victims on their own with one weapon"

Ignore their testimony and actual evidence, invoke imaginary scenarios not supported by either instead... Also, again, a Strawman Argument.

"your biggest proof of this is that you say they stole a phone which belonged to one of the victims"

Another Strawman Argument. Greenchair's position, as she has explained several times, is not just that they had that phone, but their actions regarding it are highly suspicious and not ones to be expected from people uninvolved in the crime.

-"so either you are totally naive (which I don't think you are) or you are here with a purpose which makes you an appalling person when you consider what has happened and what you are doing."

The tired, old tactic of accusing people of having some vague but nefarious hidden motives to hold a particular opinion.

-"As I said before in this thread, the hoe was not used to kill David and even if you have never seen or held one to realise it's capabilities all you need to do is to look at the injuries on both victims to realise that the same weapon was not used to cause such massively different injuries"

He says... contradicting what the professionals who performed the autopsy on the bodies determined (and the defense didn't contest), because apparently he thinks he knows better by virtue of having no qualifications and poring over a few photos on Internet... This is formally known as an Argument from Ignorance.

-"to say otherwise is just further proof of deliberate ignorance for a reason."

Again ascribing ulterior motives for disagreeing with his unsubstantiated claims.

-"But despite everything else all you want to talk about is a phone which may or may have been stolen by one of the B2."

-"The fact that you are trying so hard to derail any conversation..."

Derailing a thread, by talking about issues central to the topic topic of the thread... right.

-"... by continually posting about something relatively irrelevant to the actual murders"

Belongings from one of the victims being in possession of the suspects, the suspects actions being concordant with the beheaviour of someone trying to destroy incriminating evidence (as per their own testimony), all that, according to KunMatt is "relatively irrelevant to the actual murders". I mean, what to say to that but

-"you use the flawed trial verdict as your major source of proof"

As opposed to just plucking theories and "facts" out of thin air to support alternative theories?

In any case, another Strawman Argument, she is not using the verdict as a source of proof, she is using the facts disclosed during the trial as evidence, so a complete misrepresentation.

-"shows that you are either here to wind everyone up or you are here because it is in your best interests to post as much misinformation as possible to try and confuse anybody trying to read up on the case, so whichever it is it's a pretty abhorrent thing for you to do."

To finish it off, and for the third time, insinuate some vested interest for holding a position and attack Greenchairs character based on that assumption.

The term omnishambles comes to mind to describe a post like that.

[AleG]

As someone who has spent quite some time in Myanmar and has experienced the local culture it is not beyond belief that the two convicted murderers did actually commit the crime. Up country people have very strong beliefs and it is possible that two drunk Burmese guys came across two people copulating on the beach and simply could not control their urges. Remember Myanmar is a country where you will rarely see two young lovers holding hands...god forbid kissing in public.

If the B2 did the murders on their own then it was really nice of all the Koh Tao locals to go out of their way to try and help the B2 get away with it by with holding vital CCTV, Mon admitting he was the running man. washing one of the murder weapons, hushing up all the local witnesses etc.

And all of that is true because the echo chamber told you so, right?

By the way, you happened to have missed post #186

[AleG]

Oh dear Aleg. 'The Boy Who Was Late For School' (or: here we go with more convoluted excuses).

Chris Ware stating that David Miller owned an iphone is not evidence of anything other than that he owned an iphone (as do hundreds of millions of other people, and probably several thousand people on Koh Tao at any given time). As corroborating evidence, it's meaningless.

And the NCA don't have any need to go 'off the record' with the British Embassy. Their mutual dealings are 'off the record' anyway, as far as anyone outside the loop is concerned. But the British Embassy connection was denied anyway, and the RTP (as on many other occasions during the trial) were caught in a lie.

Chris Ware (at least) providing information about David Miller's phone and the fact that the phone was missing was evidence that a particular type of phone was taken from the victim, therefore the police knew what to look for based on that information.

You are trying to be smart, it's not working.

[greenchair]

Finally Khun Han, a slight admission to the truth. All I want is for posters to acknowledge facts that can longer be refuted. That it is possible and probable that the phone was taken from the scene.

No Khun Han, it does not prove murder. It does prove, they are lying to cover up. Even now, they could reveal the truth. But no, they choose to remain silent. I do not believe they acted alone, they may not have held the weapon even. But they were there. So unless they want to fess up, they are just as guilty as anyone else that was there. The law in thailand says, if you stand and watch a crime and do nothing to assist, you are just as guilty as the person doing the action.

We can remember the jody foster movie.

[Khun Han]

"But.....but.....the cat ate my homework.....and I was sucked into a black hole on the way to school, and I know all the details of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and can prove it.....and I know lots of big words and I'm cleverer than you, so I'm right and you're wrong.....and.....and....."

[KunMatt]

Finally Khun Han, a slight admission to the truth. All I want is for posters to acknowledge facts that can longer be refuted. That it is possible and probable that the phone was taken from the scene.

No Khun Han, it does not prove murder. It does prove, they are lying to cover up. Even now, they could reveal the truth. But no, they choose to remain silent. I do not believe they acted alone, they may not have held the weapon even. But they were there. So unless they want to fess up, they are just as guilty as anyone else that was there. The law in thailand says, if you stand and watch a crime and do nothing to assist, you are just as guilty as the person doing the action.

We can remember the jody foster movie.

Finally you've gone off script and said something reasonable for a change, yes the scenario that they were only accomplices or witnesses to the murder is a very real one. If you believe that they were only involved but may not have held the murder weapon then why have you stated so many times that you are glad that they will be executed asap?