Koh Tao Convicts 'Still Hopeful' as Appeal Looms

[Khun Han]

The phone was confirmed as David's by UKCA also confirmed by Mr Miller who got the details from David's computer

We also know the phone WP found is the same model as Davids

So what are the odds of 2 phones both in the vicinity of the crime scene that are exactly the same model ?

Who had Davids phone between his Murder and the discovery of the smashed phone that WP gave to his friend ?

How did the person who was holding Davids phone (incriminiting evidence) for 2 weeks know that WP had found a phone that night (same model phone) and that it was dumped behind his friends house smashed to pieces & marinating in a bag of water ?

No media reports after the crime mentioned a mobile phone being stolen so why would they think it was connected to the murder and destroy it ?

And why did WP lie to his friend and say he found the phone in a bar ?

Exclusive: Critical evidence used to sentence two Burmese bar workers to death last year for the brutal murder of two British backpackers in the Thai resort of Koh Tao was secretly supplied by Britain’s elite crime-fighting agency.

But sources close to the case and documents seen by BuzzFeed News have revealed that the National Crime Agency (NCA) passed on the information linking the Burmese suspects to the crime “verbally” without seeking any written assurances that it would not be used to sentence them to death

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomwarren/how-the-nca-helped-put-two-men-on-death-row?utm_term=.fxn1VvraX#.rn29DJlon

Disco the extract from the artice is not the complete picture and does not place the quote in context.

The article also states

' BuzzFeed News has established that the agency received an urgent request from the Thai police for the serial number of Miller’s missing iPhone days after the young backpackers were found dead'

'Capital punishment is still used regularly in Thailand and human rights groups have repeatedly raised concerns that migrant workers in the country are persecuted by police. But officers at the NCA were concerned that other British holiday-makers were at risk with the killers still loose, and they feared that the quality of the crime-scene evidence would deteriorate quickly.'

Therefore before the iphone associated with the B2 is discovered or even before the arrest of the B2 the RTP are in possesion of Davids iphone IMEI

Good spot DMO7.

From the article:

"BuzzFeed News has established that the agency received an urgent request from the Thai police for the serial number of Miller’s missing iPhone days after the young backpackers were found dead"

From DMO7:

"Therefore before the iphone associated with the B2 is discovered or even before the arrest of the B2 the RTP are in possesion of Davids iphone IMEI"

So it's now established that the police were in a position to marry David's IMEI to any phone they wished from very early on in the case. Thanks for that link Disco Dan .

[Aj Mick]

"Do you think every police officer involved in the case is huddled in one big group and all moved as one big swarm ? how do you expect each police officer to know what every other police officer is doing?."

What has kept happening is: every time a large hole in the police's concocted evidence has been exposed (usually by a social media revelation or some decent cross-examination at the trial), they just send a different officer out to contradict the officer who inadvertently messed up their concocted case. Every rational person can see that it's the most basic and infantile lying, but the police don't care because that's how it works in Thailand, and the system just accepts it.

On a personnal note I think it is implausible the cctv was not examined, but somewhat curious why one senior officer would state that .

Is it possible that it may be to do with this report

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/63714

There's one very easy way to find out one way the other and put this one to bed: release all the CCTV from the harbour for that morning for examination. But that won't happen. It will now be unavavailable for some cock-and-bull reason: used up, no budget to release it, blah blah.....

Just a reminder of where things were at a few days after the murders. This is the report from the link above:

The police have arrested a suspect in the murder of two British tourists in Koh Tao and are still hunting for a second suspect who has escaped into Bangkok.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon. He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao. He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said. He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders. He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.

The southern police chief also assured the public that there was no arrest of scapegoats in this murder case as it now is a focal attention of the world. He also dismissed any suggestion of local mafias or influential people that could twist the investigation with promise that local influence would pose no obstacle to the police investigation. Instead the police will eliminate all these mafias, he said.

Meanwhile a police source said the police are also looking into the cooperation of those who helped to arrange the suspect to escape. They also will be arrested.

It's amazing what multiple changes of personal can achieve, along with a bit of losing of, using up, and messing with evidence along the way.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Aj Mick

[bannork]

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 Witheridges 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 ?

That's right, for months they protested independent dna testing.

If the UK did not get dna off that girl, pigs would fly too.

The UK has never publicly said they did or did not get any dna from hannah.

Andy makes his posts that he's off to England and perhaps some European countries too .on arrival in UK he posts he's off to see the coroner with a big smile. Everyone thought this would be the day we would all find out the dna doesn't Match.

BUT NO. The defense did a quick back peddle on why they could not retest anything. Their whole stance changed in regard to dna.

And the mantra changed from ,

"They are innocent " to

"Innocent or guilty is not the issue" the investigation was sloppy and the b2 human rights were violated.

Did Andy Hall really go to London at that time? Foreign DNA in Hannah's body is obviously crucial to the case, if the UK found foreign DNA in Hannah would they disclose the details to the Thai police knowing the case carries the death penalty? Is that the reason for their reticence or did they in fact discover none?.

It's like debating with goldfish. As explained many times previously, the Thai autopsy claimed that there was a bite mark on Hannah's chest with trace saliva DNA. The UK autopsy stated that there was no bite mark. There was also an issue raised of sexual assault, but not rape (there is a difference between the two in UK law, but some posters on here had difficulty comprehending it).

So did the UK authorities categorically state there was no trace of any foreign DNA inside or on Hannah's body?

[greenchair]

The UK have kept right mum about whether they found dna or not.

But the elephant in the room is the defense team stopped asking about UK testing after andies visit. Could it be that it's beneficial to their case not to have any UK dna report.

Hmmmm elephants everywhere. ?

[StealthEnergiser]

[Khun Han]

That's right, for months they protested independent dna testing.

If the UK did not get dna off that girl, pigs would fly too.

The UK has never publicly said they did or did not get any dna from hannah.

Andy makes his posts that he's off to England and perhaps some European countries too .on arrival in UK he posts he's off to see the coroner with a big smile. Everyone thought this would be the day we would all find out the dna doesn't Match.

BUT NO. The defense did a quick back peddle on why they could not retest anything. Their whole stance changed in regard to dna.

And the mantra changed from ,

"They are innocent " to

"Innocent or guilty is not the issue" the investigation was sloppy and the b2 human rights were violated.

Did Andy Hall really go to London at that time? Foreign DNA in Hannah's body is obviously crucial to the case, if the UK found foreign DNA in Hannah would they disclose the details to the Thai police knowing the case carries the death penalty? Is that the reason for their reticence or did they in fact discover none?.

It's like debating with goldfish. As explained many times previously, the Thai autopsy claimed that there was a bite mark on Hannah's chest with trace saliva DNA. The UK autopsy stated that there was no bite mark. There was also an issue raised of sexual assault, but not rape (there is a difference between the two in UK law, but some posters on here had difficulty comprehending it).

So did the UK authorities categorically state there was no trace of any foreign DNA inside or on Hannah's body?

The UK autopsy results have not been made public, but the Norfolk Coroner Jacqueline Lake announced that she was so concerned by discrepancies between the UK and Thai autopsy findings that she was taking the unusual step of releasing the UK autopsy report for the trial officials' perusal.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Khun Han

[IslandLover]

bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:

greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:

DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:

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 Witheridges 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 ?

That's right, for months they protested independent dna testing.

If the UK did not get dna off that girl, pigs would fly too.

The UK has never publicly said they did or did not get any dna from hannah.

Andy makes his posts that he's off to England and perhaps some European countries too .on arrival in UK he posts he's off to see the coroner with a big smile. Everyone thought this would be the day we would all find out the dna doesn't Match.

BUT NO. The defense did a quick back peddle on why they could not retest anything. Their whole stance changed in regard to dna.

And the mantra changed from ,

"They are innocent " to

"Innocent or guilty is not the issue" the investigation was sloppy and the b2 human rights were violated.

Did Andy Hall really go to London at that time? Foreign DNA in Hannah's body is obviously crucial to the case, if the UK found foreign DNA in Hannah would they disclose the details to the Thai police knowing the case carries the death penalty? Is that the reason for their reticence or did they in fact discover none?.

The British pathologists were unable to extract any testable DNA from Hannah's body due to the state the body was in after it had been shipped from Thailand. This information comes from a member of the Witheridge family and I'm not prepared to elaborate further for obvious reasons. The differences between the Thai autopsy and the British one that we know about (i.e. that which has been reported in the press) is that the British pathologists found no sign of anal rape or bite marks. There are other discrepancies which have not been publicly disclosed. These were all known to the trial judges but were ignored in their final court judgment.

Edited May 22, 2016 by IslandLover

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 22 May 2016 - 07:28, said:

DiscoDan, on 22 May 2016 - 07:01, said:

Still peddling the lie that the cctv at the pier wasn't checked you really are getting desperate.

Police Colonel Ruangtong told the court police had indeed checked the CCTV images from the cameras at the port but they had not shown anything.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/koh_tao_murder_trial_defendents_did_not_have_representation_during_interrogations_court_hears_1_4211590

(Article Written by Andy Hall favorite journalist Sarah Yuen)

I don't see why the court would need to watch cctv of a pier with no one on it for a few hours when they had over 4000 of pages of evidence to get through do you ?

We also know there was a second weapon this was reported by a german reporter at the court the only reason it did not make it on a certain persons twitter feed was most probably due to the fact it did not help the defense.

Blonde hair was a fallen hair (confirmed by truthers favorite ex barista Robert Holmes) a hair has to be pulled out to have dna, it was consumed in testing and not lost.

Its up to prosecution what they use to get a conviction if they choose not to use Hannah's clothes as evidence that's up to them, and even if dna was found on her clothes what would that prove ? they already have dna from inside the victim.

Disco

So what we have is trait developing where one police officer doesnt know what another one is doing

First it was the not blood stained trousers in Milers luggage

Next evidence lost or used up / not lost everything is available,/ well actually maybe some is not available

Then

Under questioning, Pol. Col. Ruangtong contradicted earlier testimony, from another senior police officer, who had said CCTV images of the port area were not checked after the bodies were found, even though any perpetrator may have had time to take the early boat to the mainland.

Police Colonel Ruangtong told the court police had indeed checked the CCTV images from the cameras at the port but they had not shown anything

The perfect case as been riddled with statements , contradictions from day one right up to the court case, is it any wonder people have suspicions

So, which one of these two cops was telling the truth? It's a bit like the one who perjured himself in court regarding the testing of the hair sample found in Hannah's hand, which by the way, still had the root attached and was said not to belong to either of the victims or the accused.

[jerojero]

The real story, whether they are innocent or guilty, is the way they were railroaded into guilty verdict...given the obvious inept RTP investigation and Court bias.

Edited May 22, 2016 by jerojero

[DiscoDan]

The phone was confirmed as David's by UKCA also confirmed by Mr Miller who got the details from David's computer

We also know the phone WP found is the same model as Davids

So what are the odds of 2 phones both in the vicinity of the crime scene that are exactly the same model ?

Who had Davids phone between his Murder and the discovery of the smashed phone that WP gave to his friend ?

How did the person who was holding Davids phone (incriminiting evidence) for 2 weeks know that WP had found a phone that night (same model phone) and that it was dumped behind his friends house smashed to pieces & marinating in a bag of water ?

No media reports after the crime mentioned a mobile phone being stolen so why would they think it was connected to the murder and destroy it ?

And why did WP lie to his friend and say he found the phone in a bar ?

Exclusive: Critical evidence used to sentence two Burmese bar workers to death last year for the brutal murder of two British backpackers in the Thai resort of Koh Tao was secretly supplied by Britain’s elite crime-fighting agency.

But sources close to the case and documents seen by BuzzFeed News have revealed that the National Crime Agency (NCA) passed on the information linking the Burmese suspects to the crime “verbally” without seeking any written assurances that it would not be used to sentence them to death

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomwarren/how-the-nca-helped-put-two-men-on-death-row?utm_term=.fxn1VvraX#.rn29DJlon

Disco the extract from the artice is not the complete picture and does not place the quote in context.

The article also states

' BuzzFeed News has established that the agency received an urgent request from the Thai police for the serial number of Miller’s missing iPhone days after the young backpackers were found dead'

'Capital punishment is still used regularly in Thailand and human rights groups have repeatedly raised concerns that migrant workers in the country are persecuted by police. But officers at the NCA were concerned that other British holiday-makers were at risk with the killers still loose, and they feared that the quality of the crime-scene evidence would deteriorate quickly.'

Therefore before the iphone associated with the B2 is discovered or even before the arrest of the B2 the RTP are in possesion of Davids iphone IMEI

Good spot DMO7.

From the article:

"BuzzFeed News has established that the agency received an urgent request from the Thai police for the serial number of Miller’s missing iPhone days after the young backpackers were found dead"

From DMO7:

"Therefore before the iphone associated with the B2 is discovered or even before the arrest of the B2 the RTP are in possesion of Davids iphone IMEI"

So it's now established that the police were in a position to marry David's IMEI to any phone they wished from very early on in the case. Thanks for that link Disco Dan .

Days after they were found dead,

Which means the got the phone (18) days after they were found dead and then an urgent request was made

If they had the phone they day of the murders then put a request in days later it would not be urgent would it ?

[DiscoDan]

bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:

greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:

DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:

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 Witheridges 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 ?

That's right, for months they protested independent dna testing.

If the UK did not get dna off that girl, pigs would fly too.

The UK has never publicly said they did or did not get any dna from hannah.

Andy makes his posts that he's off to England and perhaps some European countries too .on arrival in UK he posts he's off to see the coroner with a big smile. Everyone thought this would be the day we would all find out the dna doesn't Match.

BUT NO. The defense did a quick back peddle on why they could not retest anything. Their whole stance changed in regard to dna.

And the mantra changed from ,

"They are innocent " to

"Innocent or guilty is not the issue" the investigation was sloppy and the b2 human rights were violated.

Did Andy Hall really go to London at that time? Foreign DNA in Hannah's body is obviously crucial to the case, if the UK found foreign DNA in Hannah would they disclose the details to the Thai police knowing the case carries the death penalty? Is that the reason for their reticence or did they in fact discover none?.

The British pathologists were unable to extract any testable DNA from Hannah's body due to the state the body was in after it had been shipped from Thailand. This information comes from a member of the Witheridge family and I'm not prepared to elaborate further for obvious reasons. The differences between the Thai autopsy and the British one that we know about (i.e. that which has been reported in the press) is that the British pathologists found no sign of anal rape or bite marks. There are other discrepancies which have not been publicly disclosed. These were all known to the trial judges but were ignored in their final court judgment.

Dragging the Witheridge's private family comments on a public forum without their permission ?

Or making this stuff up?

Just reading the comments on this website it seem you are or were on of the admins, is this you islandlover ?

http://thailandjustice.com/judge-orders-not-to-allow-re-examination-of-evidence-until-first-day-of-trial/

[DiscoDan]

The phone the police found was Davids other phone and it was not an Iphone,you already know this but still try to decieve.

Only according to the police (who changed their story).

link ?

[Khun Han]

"Days after they were found dead,

Which means the got the phone (18) days after they were found dead and then an urgent request was made

If they had the phone they day of the murders then put a request in days later it would not be urgent would it ?"

You're hopeless Dan . Your timescale would be referred to as 'weeks', just as 80 days would be referred to as 'months' and 800 days would be referred to as 'years'.

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 22 May 2016 - 19:24, said:DiscoDan, on 22 May 2016 - 19:24, said:

IslandLover, on 22 May 2016 - 17:11, said:IslandLover, on 22 May 2016 - 17:11, said:

The British pathologists were unable to extract any testable DNA from Hannah's body due to the state the body was in after it had been shipped from Thailand. This information comes from a member of the Witheridge family and I'm not prepared to elaborate further for obvious reasons. The differences between the Thai autopsy and the British one that we know about (i.e. that which has been reported in the press) is that the British pathologists found no sign of anal rape or bite marks. There are other discrepancies which have not been publicly disclosed. These were all known to the trial judges but were ignored in their final court judgment.

Dragging the Witheridge's private family comments on a public forum without their permission ?

Or making this stuff up?

Just reading the comments on this website it seem you are or were on of the admins, is this you islandlover ?

http://thailandjustice.com/judge-orders-not-to-allow-re-examination-of-evidence-until-first-day-of-trial/

No, I'm not making any of it up but you can believe what you like. At least I'm honest and open, unlike you, Tony121/Wifflewaffle/DiscoDan/CSI Samui/Tony Samui or whatever you like to call yourself.

Edited May 22, 2016 by IslandLover

[greenchair]

bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:

greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:

DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:

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 Witheridges 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 ?

That's right, for months they protested independent dna testing.

If the UK did not get dna off that girl, pigs would fly too.

The UK has never publicly said they did or did not get any dna from hannah.

Andy makes his posts that he's off to England and perhaps some European countries too .on arrival in UK he posts he's off to see the coroner with a big smile. Everyone thought this would be the day we would all find out the dna doesn't Match.

BUT NO. The defense did a quick back peddle on why they could not retest anything. Their whole stance changed in regard to dna.

And the mantra changed from ,

"They are innocent " to

"Innocent or guilty is not the issue" the investigation was sloppy and the b2 human rights were violated.

Did Andy Hall really go to London at that time? Foreign DNA in Hannah's body is obviously crucial to the case, if the UK found foreign DNA in Hannah would they disclose the details to the Thai police knowing the case carries the death penalty? Is that the reason for their reticence or did they in fact discover none?.

The British pathologists were unable to extract any testable DNA from Hannah's body due to the state the body was in after it had been shipped from Thailand. This information comes from a member of the Witheridge family and I'm not prepared to elaborate further for obvious reasons. The differences between the Thai autopsy and the British one that we know about (i.e. that which has been reported in the press) is that the British pathologists found no sign of anal rape or bite marks. There are other discrepancies which have not been publicly disclosed. These were all known to the trial judges but were ignored in their final court judgment.

That is just hearsay that a family member said that, with absolutely no evidence or reference to back it up. You probably heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend.

The same goes for the she was not backly raped. Runs along the same lines of andies testimony she was not raped a all.

If you could provide a reference to any of the above I will be the first to apologise.

But I don't think I will have to. ??

[Khun Han]

The phone the police found was Davids other phone and it was not an Iphone,you already know this but still try to decieve.

Only according to the police (who changed their story).

link ?

I don't know why I'm bothering. You'll ask for it again the next time this sub-discussion crops up!

http://www.thephuketnews.com/autopsy-points-to-sex-struggle-in-koh-tao-murders-48760.php

"Police also found a pair of Ware's blood-stained pants from in Miller's luggage and an Apple iPhone with long blonde hairs snagged on it."

Note the date of the linked article before trying to muddy the waters.

[greenchair]

That's right, for months they protested independent dna testing.

If the UK did not get dna off that girl, pigs would fly too.

The UK has never publicly said they did or did not get any dna from hannah.

Andy makes his posts that he's off to England and perhaps some European countries too .on arrival in UK he posts he's off to see the coroner with a big smile. Everyone thought this would be the day we would all find out the dna doesn't Match.

BUT NO. The defense did a quick back peddle on why they could not retest anything. Their whole stance changed in regard to dna.

And the mantra changed from ,

"They are innocent " to

"Innocent or guilty is not the issue" the investigation was sloppy and the b2 human rights were violated.

Did Andy Hall really go to London at that time? Foreign DNA in Hannah's body is obviously crucial to the case, if the UK found foreign DNA in Hannah would they disclose the details to the Thai police knowing the case carries the death penalty? Is that the reason for their reticence or did they in fact discover none?.

It's like debating with goldfish. As explained many times previously, the Thai autopsy claimed that there was a bite mark on Hannah's chest with trace saliva DNA. The UK autopsy stated that there was no bite mark. There was also an issue raised of sexual assault, but not rape (there is a difference between the two in UK law, but some posters on here had difficulty comprehending it).

So did the UK authorities categorically state there was no trace of any foreign DNA inside or on Hannah's body?

The UK autopsy results have not been made public, but the Norfolk Coroner Jacqueline Lake announced that she was so concerned by discrepancies between the UK and Thai autopsy findings that she was taking the unusual step of releasing the UK autopsy report for the trial officials' perusal.

And where is the link to that Khun Han? ??

[Khun Han]

"And where is the link to that Khun Han? ??"

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thai_murder_trial_told_of_autopsy_discrepancies_in_reports_relating_to_hannah_witheridge_1_4245105?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it

Just in case you're unsure as to how and when autopsy reports in suspicious deaths are released in the UK: "Autopsy results and reports will not be given out until the case file is complete. If the death was suspicious or the autopsy report contains sensitive material that could jeopardise a criminal investigation, there will be a delay before it is released to the public. You will have to wait until the investigation is closed and the file is complete before receiving your copy." From:

http://www.ehow.co.uk/how_4867782_obtain-autopsy-reports-results.html

[DiscoDan]

DiscoDan, on 22 May 2016 - 19:24, said:DiscoDan, on 22 May 2016 - 19:24, said:

IslandLover, on 22 May 2016 - 17:11, said:IslandLover, on 22 May 2016 - 17:11, said:

The British pathologists were unable to extract any testable DNA from Hannah's body due to the state the body was in after it had been shipped from Thailand. This information comes from a member of the Witheridge family and I'm not prepared to elaborate further for obvious reasons. The differences between the Thai autopsy and the British one that we know about (i.e. that which has been reported in the press) is that the British pathologists found no sign of anal rape or bite marks. There are other discrepancies which have not been publicly disclosed. These were all known to the trial judges but were ignored in their final court judgment.

Dragging the Witheridge's private family comments on a public forum without their permission ?

Or making this stuff up?

Just reading the comments on this website it seem you are or were on of the admins, is this you islandlover ?

http://thailandjustice.com/judge-orders-not-to-allow-re-examination-of-evidence-until-first-day-of-trial/

No, I'm not making any of it up but you can believe what you like. At least I'm honest and open, unlike you, Tony121/Wifflewaffle/DiscoDan/CSI Samui/Tony Samui or whatever you like to call yourself.

Its the same name and avatar as you thats what made me ask, and the poster clearly states they put the information on the webpage not the author so they must be admin/owner.

Btw I think you mean Hannah's journey back home she was not shipped she is not a piece of luggage.

[IslandLover]

greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 19:57, said:greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 19:57, said:

IslandLover, on 22 May 2016 - 17:11, said:IslandLover, on 22 May 2016 - 17:11, said:

The British pathologists were unable to extract any testable DNA from Hannah's body due to the state the body was in after it had been shipped from Thailand. This information comes from a member of the Witheridge family and I'm not prepared to elaborate further for obvious reasons. The differences between the Thai autopsy and the British one that we know about (i.e. that which has been reported in the press) is that the British pathologists found no sign of anal rape or bite marks. There are other discrepancies which have not been publicly disclosed. These were all known to the trial judges but were ignored in their final court judgment.

That is just hearsay that a family member said that, with absolutely no evidence or reference to back it up. You probably heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend.

The same goes for the she was not backly raped. Runs along the same lines of andies testimony she was not raped a all.

If you could provide a reference to any of the above I will be the first to apologise.

But I don't think I will have to. ??

I can provide a reference to the discrepancies between the two autopsies that were revealed in open court, i.e. no signs of anal rape and no bite marks. There were other things discussed regarding the differences in the autopsies but some of the details are redacted. I don't have time to look for it now but you can search for it yourself. It was in a post by Sarah Yuen on Andy Hall's facebook during the trial. It was also reported by (presumably) Sarah on ThaiVisa last year. Sarah Yuen attended all the trial sessions and understands Thai as far as I know.

As to my comments about the state of the body, well it's up to you if you believe it or not. It is not hearsay. It was even reported in the press that the British pathologists were unable to extract any testable DNA from Hannah's body due to "partial embalming".

It is an accepted fact that Hannah was sexually assaulted, and I'm not disputing it. Whether that means actual rape or not is open to question.

[IslandLover]

DiscoDan, on 22 May 2016 - 22:00, said:

IslandLover, on 22 May 2016 - 19:37, said:

DiscoDan, on 22 May 2016 - 19:24, said:DiscoDan, on 22 May 2016 - 19:24, said:DiscoDan, on 22 May 2016 - 19:24, said:

IslandLover, on 22 May 2016 - 17:11, said:IslandLover, on 22 May 2016 - 17:11, said:IslandLover, on 22 May 2016 - 17:11, said:

The British pathologists were unable to extract any testable DNA from Hannah's body due to the state the body was in after it had been shipped from Thailand. This information comes from a member of the Witheridge family and I'm not prepared to elaborate further for obvious reasons. The differences between the Thai autopsy and the British one that we know about (i.e. that which has been reported in the press) is that the British pathologists found no sign of anal rape or bite marks. There are other discrepancies which have not been publicly disclosed. These were all known to the trial judges but were ignored in their final court judgment.

Dragging the Witheridge's private family comments on a public forum without their permission ?

Or making this stuff up?

Just reading the comments on this website it seem you are or were on of the admins, is this you islandlover ?

http://thailandjustice.com/judge-orders-not-to-allow-re-examination-of-evidence-until-first-day-of-trial/

No, I'm not making any of it up but you can believe what you like. At least I'm honest and open, unlike you, Tony121/Wifflewaffle/DiscoDan/CSI Samui/Tony Samui or whatever you like to call yourself.

Its the same name and avatar as you thats what made me ask, and the poster clearly states they put the information on the webpage not the author so they must be admin/owner.

Btw I think you mean Hannah's journey back home she was not shipped she is not a piece of luggage.

Dead bodies are shipped in a coffin in the cargo hold of an aircraft as cargo, not as baggage! Do you think they are allocated a seat on the plane, for G*ds sake? Sorry to be so blunt but that's how it is. Yes, it was Hannah's final journey home but that's how she travelled.

So what if I am the Admin of a webpage? What relevance does that have to my posts on ThaiVisa? I'm not engaging in any illegal activity.

[DiscoDan]

The phone the police found was Davids other phone and it was not an Iphone,you already know this but still try to decieve.

Only according to the police (who changed their story).

link ?

I don't know why I'm bothering. You'll ask for it again the next time this sub-discussion crops up!

http://www.thephuketnews.com/autopsy-points-to-sex-struggle-in-koh-tao-murders-48760.php

"Police also found a pair of Ware's blood-stained pants from in Miller's luggage and an Apple iPhone with long blonde hairs snagged on it."

Note the date of the linked article before trying to muddy the waters.

Sorry articles just states I phone not I phone 4 it could of been an older model

[Khun Han]

^Wasn't David's second phone a different brand to Apple?

[Khun Han]

This is an iphone 4s connected to the investigation. It's not broken. Who's is it? It'certainly not Hannah's: Her phone was pink.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Khun Han

[rockingrobin]

"Days after they were found dead,

Which means the got the phone (18) days after they were found dead and then an urgent request was made

If they had the phone they day of the murders then put a request in days later it would not be urgent would it ?"

You're hopeless Dan . Your timescale would be referred to as 'weeks', just as 80 days would be referred to as 'months' and 800 days would be referred to as 'years'.

The article states why they verbally provided the IMEI, killers on the loose

[StealthEnergiser]

Burmese men convicted of Koh Tao British backpacker murders file appeal challenging DNA

23 MAY 2016 • 3:51AM

Lawyers for the two Burmese men sentenced to death for the British backpacker murders in Thailand have filed a lengthy appeal challenging the dispute DNA evidence used to convicted them.

The legal team lodged the 198-page appeal at the courthouse in Koh Samui on Monday morning, accompanied by the migrant workers’ mothers who flew in from Burma.

The lawyers and mothers then left the island to travel to Bangkok to visit the condemned inmates on death row in the high-security Bang Kwag prison.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/burmese-men-to-appeal-conviction-in-koh-tao-murders-of-british-b/

[Moonsterk]

bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:bannork, on 22 May 2016 - 03:44, said:

greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:greenchair, on 22 May 2016 - 01:37, said:

DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:DiscoDan, on 20 May 2016 - 18:14, said:

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 Witheridges 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 ?

That's right, for months they protested independent dna testing.

If the UK did not get dna off that girl, pigs would fly too.

The UK has never publicly said they did or did not get any dna from hannah.

Andy makes his posts that he's off to England and perhaps some European countries too .on arrival in UK he posts he's off to see the coroner with a big smile. Everyone thought this would be the day we would all find out the dna doesn't Match.

BUT NO. The defense did a quick back peddle on why they could not retest anything. Their whole stance changed in regard to dna.

And the mantra changed from ,

"They are innocent " to

"Innocent or guilty is not the issue" the investigation was sloppy and the b2 human rights were violated.

Did Andy Hall really go to London at that time? Foreign DNA in Hannah's body is obviously crucial to the case, if the UK found foreign DNA in Hannah would they disclose the details to the Thai police knowing the case carries the death penalty? Is that the reason for their reticence or did they in fact discover none?.

The British pathologists were unable to extract any testable DNA from Hannah's body due to the state the body was in after it had been shipped from Thailand. This information comes from a member of the Witheridge family and I'm not prepared to elaborate further for obvious reasons. The differences between the Thai autopsy and the British one that we know about (i.e. that which has been reported in the press) is that the British pathologists found no sign of anal rape or bite marks. There are other discrepancies which have not been publicly disclosed. These were all known to the trial judges but were ignored in their final court judgment.

See there's a noxious chemical called.... what is it oh yeah, .... Formaldehyde and see it is pumped through the body and can well you know change stuff and make any further examinations- difficult.

[Moonsterk]

Are they also on the "hours" of reviewed CCTV-footage of the pier, where boats may have left in the early hours of....oh...right...the RTP decided, that footage wasn't relevant!

My sincere apologeze!

Not!

Another mistruth spoken as fact... oh so many.... regurgitations of crappy reporting into " facts" quoted on fb and then re quoted and posted here as arguments.

[Moonsterk]

It is an accepted fact that Hannah was sexually assaulted, and I'm not disputing it. Whether that means actual rape or not is open to question.

What's the difference between rape and sexual assault? I use Sex assault as rape is so often used in a pornographic manner sexualises assault. (And was the anal reference Phuket Wan misreporting David's alleged rape? - a report that was deleted with no correction issued. )

I would like to clarify something re was she sexually abused or not... When a woman is unconscious (or already dead) there are few signs of vaginal bruising. It does mean she was not sexually abused- just she was not in pain, and resisting while it occurred.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Moonsterk

[rockingrobin]

It is an accepted fact that Hannah was sexually assaulted, and I'm not disputing it. Whether that means actual rape or not is open to question.

What's the difference between rape and sexual assault? I use Sex assault as rape is so often used in a pornographic manner sexualises assault. (And was the anal reference Phuket Wan misreporting David's alleged rape? - a report that was deleted with no correction issued. )

I would like to clarify something re was she sexually abused or not... When a woman is unconscious (or already dead) there are few signs of vaginal bruising. It does mean she was not sexually abused- just she was not in pain, and resisting while it occurred.

The anal rape as no connection to the Phuket Wan article you mention, but you would know that already

Edited May 23, 2016 by rockingrobin