Koh Tao Convicts 'Still Hopeful' as Appeal Looms

[StealthEnergiser]

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

So what happened to the wine bottle that you are trying to link WP with did it fall out of the shopping trolley on the way to court ? or did it just disappear like Hannah's clothes .

[Khun Han]

Dmo7 there were several accounts of what was used to hit david. Just my personal opinion but I think it was a push blade . Probably thrown in some bushes, not far from that phone long ago.

You cannot simply discount the wine bottle, just because some cop with little training thought it was the murder weapon before thorough investigation.

Wp was drinking wine.

The wine bottle was directly at the murder scene.

It is not insignificant. It places him there. "Again"

So you're guessing that a push blade was used on David and, from that guess, that it was "probably" discarded in the same place as the broken phone (which was discarded by someone unconnected to the crime by the way). That's a pretty big leap of faith. My own guess (which doesn't require such a huge leap of faith) is that the police went over that location with a fine tooth comb.

Your assertion that the wine bottle in the crime scene photo places WP at the crime scene is another huge leap of faith. My assertion is that if the police could have connected the wine bottle to the B2 they would have. The fact that they didn't means that either the wine bottle has no significance or it places someone at the crime scene who the police don't want placed there.

And, don't you just love how some posters always explain away discrepancies in police 'evidence' and procedures as "poor training" and suchlike ?. As though the Thai police would never resort to underhand practices.

[Khun Han]

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

So what happened to the wine bottle that you are trying to link WP with did it fall out of the shopping trolley on the way to court ? or did it just disappear like Hannah's clothes .

Maybe the shopping trolley was full, and there was no budget for a second trolley ?.

[greenchair]

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

So what happened to the wine bottle that you are trying to link WP with did it fall out of the shopping trolley on the way to court ? or did it just disappear like Hannah's clothes .

Maybe the shopping trolley was full, and there was no budget for a second trolley ?.

Who cares what happened to it .

He says he was drinking wine.

There's a wine bottle at the murder scene.

The phone was given to the friend by someone that was wweeeeelllll connected to the crime.

Circumstantial evidence

+++++++ = a crime.

[greenchair]

And as for the rtp going over any area with a fine tooth comb,

Lol. Is that before they trample all the evidence into the ground or after they leave all the evidence behind and have to go back 3 days later, like the erawan bombing.

[rockingrobin]

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

So what happened to the wine bottle that you are trying to link WP with did it fall out of the shopping trolley on the way to court ? or did it just disappear like Hannah's clothes .

Maybe the shopping trolley was full, and there was no budget for a second trolley ?.

Who cares what happened to it .

He says he was drinking wine.

There's a wine bottle at the murder scene.

The phone was given to the friend by someone that was wweeeeelllll connected to the crime.

Circumstantial evidence

+++++++ = a crime.

But what we do have is the translator (roti seller) in a tv interview claiming part of the confession involved the use of a wine bottle. However when asked in court he denied ever making such a claim.

Are we expected to believe that WP committed a double homicide and rape, then after stealing Davids phone he simply gave it away , even though he knew it would incriminate him,

[DiscoDan]

Whatever happened to the Dna the defense team claimed was there significant new evidence on Hannah's body in the UK ?

Mr Nakhon said he was unable to provide further details at this time. He did confirm that the evidence was not provided by any British police force or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is believed the information comes from examinations of the bodies of the victims in the UK and is related to DNA found on Ms Witheridge’s body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11725454/Thai-police-officer-describes-finding-bodies-of-British-backpackers-during-murder-trial.html

very significant ? thats if it even existed we never heard any mention of it again did we ?

[Khun Han]

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

So what happened to the wine bottle that you are trying to link WP with did it fall out of the shopping trolley on the way to court ? or did it just disappear like Hannah's clothes .

Maybe the shopping trolley was full, and there was no budget for a second trolley ?.

Who cares what happened to it .

He says he was drinking wine.

There's a wine bottle at the murder scene.

The phone was given to the friend by someone that was wweeeeelllll connected to the crime.

Circumstantial evidence

+++++++ = a crime.

"Who cares what happened to it ."

It's potential evidence.It's hugely important what happened to it. Just Like Hannah's clothes. And the blond hair.

"He says he was drinking wine.

There's a wine bottle at the murder scene."

Yes, I expect he was the only person drinking wine on or around that beach that night. Not.

"The phone was given to the friend by someone that was wweeeeelllll connected to the crime."

There is not one single iota of substantiated evidence connecting Wei Phyo to the crime.

"Circumstantial evidence

+++++++ = a crime."

This is more than a leap of faith: It's plain gibberish .

[Khun Han]

And as for the rtp going over any area with a fine tooth comb,

Lol. Is that before they trample all the evidence into the ground or after they leave all the evidence behind and have to go back 3 days later, like the erawan bombing.

And there we have it again: The excuse of police incompetence when things don't rhyme with the mantra.

[Khun Han]

Whatever happened to the Dna the defense team claimed was there significant new evidence on Hannah's body in the UK ?

Mr Nakhon said he was unable to provide further details at this time. He did confirm that the evidence was not provided by any British police force or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is believed the information comes from examinations of the bodies of the victims in the UK and is related to DNA found on Ms Witheridge’s body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11725454/Thai-police-officer-describes-finding-bodies-of-British-backpackers-during-murder-trial.html

very significant ? thats if it even existed we never heard any mention of it again did we ?

You're at it again Dan. It's a reference to the non-existent bite mark that the Thai police claimed was on Hannah's chest and contained saliva DNA. Have you forgotten that you made the absurd claim that the British autopsy couldn't find the bite mark because it had been 'washed out' in the embalming process ?

[DiscoDan]

Whatever happened to the Dna the defense team claimed was there significant new evidence on Hannah's body in the UK ?

Mr Nakhon said he was unable to provide further details at this time. He did confirm that the evidence was not provided by any British police force or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is believed the information comes from examinations of the bodies of the victims in the UK and is related to DNA found on Ms Witheridge’s body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11725454/Thai-police-officer-describes-finding-bodies-of-British-backpackers-during-murder-trial.html

very significant ? thats if it even existed we never heard any mention of it again did we ?

You're at it again Dan. It's a reference to the non-existent bite mark that the Thai police claimed was on Hannah's chest and contained saliva DNA. Have you forgotten that you made the absurd claim that the British autopsy couldn't find the bite mark because it had been 'washed out' in the embalming process ?

You don't need to bite someone to get dna on them it could of been from kissing that has nothing to do with a bit mark being there or not but dna makes a nice headline doesn't it, ?

If the evidence was that significant they could of given the coroner a free holiday to Samui, but again they didn't same as Jane Taupin (came but didn't take stand but couple of nice photos of her and Andy Hall on the beach and having dinner)same as The british dna guy same as the gait guy etc etc

[Khun Han]

Selective amnesia as usual Dan:

The story you linked was in reference to the non-existent bite mark. Go back and check the other reports from the same timelime, or even the discussions in which you yourself were involved at the time. But I expect you'll plead ignorance.

And trying to belittle Jane Taupin. How sad and pathetic is that? It's been explained to you, over and over, that Jane didn't take the witness stand because the prosecution wouldn't produce any evidence for her to analyse.Now, why won't they produce this evidence? Go back and read partington's excellent and expert post which explains why they would be keen to offer this evidence for analysis if it existed, and why they resolutely refuse to offer it for analysis (it doesn't exist, and never did). But I expect you won't, and will just repeat the same old misinformation and slurs ad nauseam in the hope that other posters will get bored of correcting you.

[sambum]

Dmo7 there were several accounts of what was used to hit david. Just my personal opinion but I think it was a push blade . Probably thrown in some bushes, not far from that phone long ago.

You cannot simply discount the wine bottle, just because some cop with little training thought it was the murder weapon before thorough investigation.

Wp was drinking wine.

The wine bottle was directly at the murder scene.

It is not insignificant. It places him there. "Again"

So you're guessing that a push blade was used on David and, from that guess, that it was "probably" discarded in the same place as the broken phone (which was discarded by someone unconnected to the crime by the way). That's a pretty big leap of faith. My own guess (which doesn't require such a huge leap of faith) is that the police went over that location with a fine tooth comb.

Your assertion that the wine bottle in the crime scene photo places WP at the crime scene is another huge leap of faith. My assertion is that if the police could have connected the wine bottle to the B2 they would have. The fact that they didn't means that either the wine bottle has no significance or it places someone at the crime scene who the police don't want placed there.

And, don't you just love how some posters always explain away discrepancies in police 'evidence' and procedures as "poor training" and suchlike ?. As though the Thai police would never resort to underhand practices.

I personally liked the statement that justified the contamination of the crime scene by saying that they did not have enough police to do the task, so they enlisted the help of some locals!

[greenchair]

Let's talk about the wine bottle shall we! !! So in the original confession wp says he was drinking wine on the beach.

Near the murder, not at the murder of course.

Then for months posters, were saying where's the wine bottle? there is no wine bottle! ! The police have lied.

And suddenly after the trial up pops a picture of the wine bottle, right next to David as he was being carried out.

Hmmmm , now how many people do you suppose were drinking wine at the murder scene

(oops sorry, near) that had the victims phone, that were wandering around at 4 am.

So what happened to the wine bottle that you are trying to link WP with did it fall out of the shopping trolley on the way to court ? or did it just disappear like Hannah's clothes .

Maybe the shopping trolley was full, and there was no budget for a second trolley ?.

Who cares what happened to it .

He says he was drinking wine.

There's a wine bottle at the murder scene.

The phone was given to the friend by someone that was wweeeeelllll connected to the crime.

Circumstantial evidence

+++++++ = a crime.

"Who cares what happened to it ."

It's potential evidence.It's hugely important what happened to it. Just Like Hannah's clothes. And the blond hair.

"He says he was drinking wine.

There's a wine bottle at the murder scene."

Yes, I expect he was the only person drinking wine on or around that beach that night. Not.

"The phone was given to the friend by someone that was wweeeeelllll connected to the crime."

There is not one single iota of substantiated evidence connecting Wei Phyo to the crime.

"Circumstantial evidence

+++++++ = a crime."

This is more than a leap of faith: It's plain gibberish .

No, Khun Han. He was the only person at the scene

drinking wine and

At 4am and

With victims phone and

Left butts behind and

Cannot be excluded from a dna match. And

Lied about the phone to friend and

Changed his story frequently and

Went swimming in the rain after the crime and

Left his belongings at scene and

Went back to clean up and and and

[IslandLover]

greenchair, on 21 May 2016 - 02:55, said:

No, Khun Han. He was the only person at the scene

drinking wine and

At 4am and

With victims phone and

Left butts behind and

Cannot be excluded from a dna match. And

Lied about the phone to friend and

Changed his story frequently and

Went swimming in the rain after the crime and

Left his belongings at scene and

Went back to clean up and and and

And where exactly does that leave Zaw Lin? You haven't mentioned him, yet he has also been convicted of the rape and murders, and sentenced to death along with Wai Phyo. Please explain why you think Zaw Lin is guilty?

[Khun Han]

greenchair, on 21 May 2016 - 02:55, said:

No, Khun Han. He was the only person at the scene

drinking wine and

At 4am and

With victims phone and

Left butts behind and

Cannot be excluded from a dna match. And

Lied about the phone to friend and

Changed his story frequently and

Went swimming in the rain after the crime and

Left his belongings at scene and

Went back to clean up and and and

He was on a different part the beach drinking wine much earlier than when the crime took place. Weren't there some facebook posts made by people who attended a party on the beach much later, after AC bar closed, in front of said bar and VERY adjacent to the crime scene?

Victim's phone only if you believe the police. Which victim? It was Hannah's phone until that was discredited by a video surfacing of Hannah's phone being handed into the police by her friends. Several 'found' iphones were uncovered by police raids at the time.

Cannot be excluded from a match to DNA on the handle on the hoe with a 25% match, which is meaningless, as pointed out by experts, because that 25% match is also a possible match to a huge number of people.

Left his belongings on the beach, not at the scene. And went back to get those belongings with another man (who was declared innocent and set free by the police), not to clean up. It was Mon Tuvichien who 'cleaned up' the crime scene in the early hours of the morning (and we have actual photos to prove this), remember?

Even though it's boring to correct misinformation by the same posters over and over and over again, I will continue to do so.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Khun Han

[greenchair]

greenchair, on 21 May 2016 - 02:55, said:

No, Khun Han. He was the only person at the scene

drinking wine and

At 4am and

With victims phone and

Left butts behind and

Cannot be excluded from a dna match. And

Lied about the phone to friend and

Changed his story frequently and

Went swimming in the rain after the crime and

Left his belongings at scene and

Went back to clean up and and and

And where exactly does that leave Zaw Lin? You haven't mentioned him, yet he has also been convicted of the rape and murders, and sentenced to death along with Wai Phyo. Please explain why you think Zaw Lin is guilty?

Well there lies the problem.

Zaw has a very different story and his story was presented to all of us, which led us all to believe the innocent of both.

He was drinking on the beach.

He back to the room and went to sleep. Where mm found him in the morning. His dna was supposedly found in the 2nd cavity, however it was mixed. Very difficult to say conclusively that it was his.

Based on his story, if that is all there is! !!I think he may well be innocent.

Mm had more against him than Zaw Lin. And "I was with my girlfriend doesn't cut it with me.

However, if he wants to let wp ride on his shirt tail in efforts to save him, then he is a silly man. I personally think the lawyers used his story to save wp. They should have had separate lawyers and trials as is their right. The prosecutors would have had a very hard time convicting him without wp story also. They (especially Zaw Lin )

Were very poorly advised.

[Khun Han]

^" His dna was supposedly found in the 2nd cavity"

No such DNA has ever been produced as evidence. It's just a police claim, which they have repeatedly declined to back up with substantive evidence when asked to do so.

[rockingrobin]

greenchair, on 21 May 2016 - 02:55, said:

No, Khun Han. He was the only person at the scene

drinking wine and

At 4am and

With victims phone and

Left butts behind and

Cannot be excluded from a dna match. And

Lied about the phone to friend and

Changed his story frequently and

Went swimming in the rain after the crime and

Left his belongings at scene and

Went back to clean up and and and

And where exactly does that leave Zaw Lin? You haven't mentioned him, yet he has also been convicted of the rape and murders, and sentenced to death along with Wai Phyo. Please explain why you think Zaw Lin is guilty?

Well there lies the problem.

Zaw has a very different story and his story was presented to all of us, which led us all to believe the innocent of both.

He was drinking on the beach.

He back to the room and went to sleep. Where mm found him in the morning. His dna was supposedly found in the 2nd cavity, however it was mixed. Very difficult to say conclusively that it was his.

Based on his story, if that is all there is! !!I think he may well be innocent.

Mm had more against him than Zaw Lin. And "I was with my girlfriend doesn't cut it with me.

However, if he wants to let wp ride on his shirt tail in efforts to save him, then he is a silly man. I personally think the lawyers used his story to save wp. They should have had separate lawyers and trials as is their right. The prosecutors would have had a very hard time convicting him without wp story also. They (especially Zaw Lin )

Were very poorly advised.

But ZL account backs up WP , they both went swimming and according to the RTP they boh confessed

Edited May 21, 2016 by rockingrobin

[balo]

I think we all agree that the trial was not up to western standard, still thanks to the media attention it got it was a trial very different from a normal murder trial in Thailand. I am pretty sure that B2 will not get the death sentence if that will give some of you any comfort. , I see that death sentence is mentioned all the time in this thread but that will not happen.

Are they 100% completely innocent ? No , I don't think so , and then you can speculate all you want about other suspects that are involved , We are all hoping new evidence will appear soon.

Edited May 21, 2016 by balo

[greenchair]

greenchair, on 21 May 2016 - 02:55, said:

No, Khun Han. He was the only person at the scene

drinking wine and

At 4am and

With victims phone and

Left butts behind and

Cannot be excluded from a dna match. And

Lied about the phone to friend and

Changed his story frequently and

Went swimming in the rain after the crime and

Left his belongings at scene and

Went back to clean up and and and

And where exactly does that leave Zaw Lin? You haven't mentioned him, yet he has also been convicted of the rape and murders, and sentenced to death along with Wai Phyo. Please explain why you think Zaw Lin is guilty?

Well there lies the problem.

Zaw has a very different story and his story was presented to all of us, which led us all to believe the innocent of both.

He was drinking on the beach.

He back to the room and went to sleep. Where mm found him in the morning. His dna was supposedly found in the 2nd cavity, however it was mixed. Very difficult to say conclusively that it was his.

Based on his story, if that is all there is! !!I think he may well be innocent.

Mm had more against him than Zaw Lin. And "I was with my girlfriend doesn't cut it with me.

However, if he wants to let wp ride on his shirt tail in efforts to save him, then he is a silly man. I personally think the lawyers used his story to save wp. They should have had separate lawyers and trials as is their right. The prosecutors would have had a very hard time convicting him without wp story also. They (especially Zaw Lin )

Were very poorly advised.

But ZL account backs up WP , they both went swimming and according to the RTP they boh confessed

No. Only wp confessed. Zl signed the already typed up document. Because he was told his friend already signed it. He possibly didn't even know what was in it.

[greenchair]

And sorry rockin Robin, zl was not with mm or wp for a least a couple of hours between around 4am to 6am. And neither was mm with his girlfriend.they were both down at the beach.

Edited May 21, 2016 by greenchair

[shillhater]

And sorry rockin Robin, zl was not with mm or wp for a least a couple of hours between around 4am to 6am. And neither was mm with his girlfriend.they were both down at the beach.

you have proof to back this up?...or is it just more porkies and or wishful thinking ?

[Khun Han]

No. Only wp confessed. Zl signed the already typed up document. Because he was told his friend already signed it. He possibly didn't even know what was in it.

BOTH of them definitely didn't know "what was in it".

Edited May 21, 2016 by Khun Han

[Khun Han]

Dmo7 there were several accounts of what was used to hit david. Just my personal opinion but I think it was a push blade . Probably thrown in some bushes, not far from that phone long ago.

You cannot simply discount the wine bottle, just because some cop with little training thought it was the murder weapon before thorough investigation.

Wp was drinking wine.

The wine bottle was directly at the murder scene.

It is not insignificant. It places him there. "Again"

So you're guessing that a push blade was used on David and, from that guess, that it was "probably" discarded in the same place as the broken phone (which was discarded by someone unconnected to the crime by the way). That's a pretty big leap of faith. My own guess (which doesn't require such a huge leap of faith) is that the police went over that location with a fine tooth comb.

Your assertion that the wine bottle in the crime scene photo places WP at the crime scene is another huge leap of faith. My assertion is that if the police could have connected the wine bottle to the B2 they would have. The fact that they didn't means that either the wine bottle has no significance or it places someone at the crime scene who the police don't want placed there.

And, don't you just love how some posters always explain away discrepancies in police 'evidence' and procedures as "poor training" and suchlike ?. As though the Thai police would never resort to underhand practices.

I personally liked the statement that justified the contamination of the crime scene by saying that they did not have enough police to do the task, so they enlisted the help of some locals!

? One can just picture the jubilation and high-fives in the boiler room after they came up with this one.

[rockingrobin]

Greenchiar with regards the confession I will refer you to the court testimony of the independent lawyer brought in by the RTP to observe the interrogation.

ZL freely admitted to following and attacking the victims

[greenchair]

Khun Han sweetie.

Wp told the police where the phone was. If he never told, it would never have been found. I think wp held back the details of David's murder and the police filled it for him. Maybe he didn't want to drop his friend mm right in it. It is certainly possible, the police added details of zl. But wp original account of himself was pretty close to the truth. After that, he changed his story every 5 minutes to match the media frenzy.

[rockingrobin]

Khun Han sweetie.

Wp told the police where the phone was. If he never told, it would never have been found. I think wp held back the details of David's murder and the police filled it for him. Maybe he didn't want to drop his friend mm right in it. It is certainly possible, the police added details of zl. But wp original account of himself was pretty close to the truth. After that, he changed his story every 5 minutes to match the media frenzy.

How would WP know where the phone is , from court testimony , his friend smashed the phone up and threw it away

[greenchair]

And sorry rockin Robin, zl was not with mm or wp for a least a couple of hours between around 4am to 6am. And neither was mm with his girlfriend.they were both down at the beach.

you have proof to back this up?...or is it just more porkies and or wishful thinking ?

Read the court transcript. it's all in there. Right out of wp and zl sweet little mouths. And it was not in a hidden room to be recanted later. That's why many people changed after the morning tryst and the phone "story" were made public.

[Khun Han]

^"many people" translates as greenchair and her imaginary friends . As pointed out in a thread a few months ago, Berybert correctly outed greenchair as insincere in her earlier support of the B2 long before she "changed".