I love it when they quote from the judges summary. The more the merrier. They have, by now, exposed it as the work of nonsense and errors that it is for all honest Thai Visa readers to see. Hopefully they and others are doing the same thing all over the www .

You can love it all you want. That is what the judges believe and what they put in writing: They don't find the direct testimony of the defendants to be credible. That is their opinion and that at least in part likely a basis for their ruling. Because of that ruling the defendants are now convicted and sitting in jail waiting an appeal.

This isn't high tech DNA or forensic pathology analysis: This is standard meat & potatoes courtroom procedure that when a defendant is asked to give testimony as to their whereabouts and doings as an alibi for the time and place in question, it isn't pretty when the judges later put out in writing that they think answers they were given are bullsh---t

Love that why don't you.

Edited June 7, 201610 yr by JLCrab

It seems some people love bullsh1t put out by officialdom, and believe that it can only be challenged on officialdom's terms and conditions. History has shown that to be often the case, but not always when the challenges are multi-fold and strong enough.

I suppose some people are just 'officialdom groupies' .

Officialdom is what has two persons sitting in jail whether they are genuinely guilty of the crimes for which they have been convicted or not. That is today . Tomorrow may be different. But that's tomorrow.

BTW since you mentioned the possible assassination of a Samui Court judge in a post above, maybe by non-officialdom challenges you have in mind something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marin_County_courthouse_incident (History from 1970 in California)

Edited June 7, 201610 yr by JLCrab

It seems that some people are here for entertainment and .... to antagonize/provoke posters.

I'd like to see truth and justice prevail ....... let's see some evidence of their guilt of murder if it was the B2, otherwise posters will continue to question the verdict.

I think it is pointless trying to convince the "guilty" believers otherwise, because despite all of the facts showing that this was a complete and utter farce and a total miscarriage of justice, these facts are just ignored.

There are other factors at play here and it's my belief that hidden agendas/ulterior motives are the reasons why this guilty verdict is supported by just a few, when every man and his dog, including "blind freddie", can see that it is a set up.

That being the case no amount of discussion will do any good, so best not to enter into any or "take the bait", but simply to restate the facts that have already been laid out, and do this time and time again when any new person comes onto the thread, so these facts are never forgotten. Then it will be plain for all incorruptible people to see the innocence of the two Burmese and how corruption can influence all aspects of Thai society.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, no evidence, nothing which points to the two Burmese being guilty. End of story, so keep restating the points below……..

1). The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial.

2). The lack of CCTV footage of the crimes linking the two men to anywhere other than the crowded beach has caused grave concern and of course without a single piece of CCTV footage, or a single witness to the actual crime, it is hard to believe that any court could find the two men guilty without reasonable doubt and sentence them to death.

3). Their DNA was never found on the murder weapon. The actual DNA on the murder weapon matched neither of the accused.

4). Fingerprints from the accused on the mobile phone that belonged to one of the victims were never produced. This raises the question of who they actually belonged to. There was absolutely no forensic evidence presented by the prosecution connecting the mobile phone to the accused.

5). The prosecution speculated that the motive for the attack was the accused being aroused by both victims having sexual intercourse on the beach. There is no evidence to suggest this ever took place.

6). The Thai autopsy was no more than a four page summary by the doctor. The legally required autopsy file documenting the procedure with step-by-step photos and point to point analysis was never presented.

7). The DNA tests presented by the prosecution were not provided with the necessary supportive documents showing multiple procedures required to meet ISO 17025 standards required in DNA testing, including the chain of custody, method of testing, graph generation and analysis report.

8). The police claimed a 100% DNA match with the accused from samples taken from the victim’s body this is scientifically impossible in any forensic lab anywhere in the world.

9). During the interrogation a hostile interpreter was appointed by the police who cannot read written Thai. The defendants were never properly advised of the murder charges nor their rights under Thai law.

10). The suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders without an attorney present and their statements were entered as part of the prosecution’s evidence. This is a violation of Thai law and grounds for dismissal of the case.

Just to add to the point #7 above. Its known that the 4 page DNA report which lacked extensive information to verify it additionally lacked the approval stamp from the DNA Accreditation body. APLAC refers to such a report as an "Un-Endorsed Report". If one sights an "Endorsed Report" it means that the author represents that the relevant standards were followed. Consequently the question of whether the police lab was accredited is irrelevant although I believe it was.

Because this is Thailand and this website is not your show -- you and others seem to act like the actions of the Court are less important than your passions about what you think about what is or is not.

Maybe the Court has made their decision because, like the preliminary Court on Boxing Day 2014, they don't like being lied to and that's what they think: That because the Prosecution's case is full of holes the Defendants can come in and give answers and testimony that the Court flat out doesn't believe ... and whether it's Thailand or US and a judge panel or a Jury, once they feel they aren't getting straight answers from the defendants those defendants are in big trouble.

At the Boxing Day 2014 prelim the Judge seems to have practically pleaded with the B2: Please give me something as to why this case should not go forward and he got nothing but we know nuthin' and here we are

You have missed the point I and others do not act like the actions of the court are less important, only that the actions of the court are farcical and in most cases beyond belief.

I have searched for the "lies" which have supposedly been uttered by the "defence" and can't find them, so perhaps you would enlighten me and others. The court has chosen to "flat out not believe" some very credible evidence and what you seem to be missing is that there was absolutely no way that they would accept any evidence which would suggest that they were wrong, because the verdict was a foregone conclusion.

That last paragraph of yours is also a nonsense because if you are brought up in front of a judge, accused of doing something you didn't do, of being somewhere that you were not, and of carrying out actions that you didn't, then what are you supposed to say, what can you offer in the way of evidence other than, well I don't know anything of what you are talking about.

If you think that the Burmese case is suspect, then consider the prosecution's case absolutely full of holes and lies and purporting to have irrefutable DNA evidence linked to semen found in the poor girl's body and on a cigarette butt......

Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong said it seemed the two men had shared a cigarette about the time Miller and Witheridge had walked past them, heading to the sandy area of the beach where they were murdered.

He said the DNA of two men was found on the cigarette butt and they matched the DNA found in the semen found inside the female victims body.

Now according to the British autopsy, the poor girl wasn't raped so the idea that semen was found inside the girl's body seems a little far-fetched, but no, it was stated that the DNA match was going to be the telling point in the whole case, but it seems that not only was the poor girl not raped, but that the police cannot show this DNA match because they have "lost it/used it up misplaced it etc etc. Good police work eh?

The prosecution's case consists of a litany of lies and you could name any number of them, with some of them seeming to be so amateurish that no court and I say that again, no court would have considered that evidence. The originally photographed hoe which was supposedly the murder weapon suddenly changes shape and appearance when it is presented in court (amateurish and in keeping with the rest of the prosecution's case) and it is not the same one (oh dear) and of course this very large and unwieldy hoe also made seven or eight very clean puncture marks in the back of David's head (only a fool would put that forward as evidence and only a fool would believe it)......and, and.............

You have stated that you believe there has been a miscarriage of justice, so why not stick to that and stop thinking of yourself as the shining light whose job it is to "put this thread to right". The facts speak for themselves and to suggest otherwise means you fit this description perfectly......

"Everybody knows that there are people who just don't care what the facts are.

They will put their hands over their ears and they are people who just have a different relationship to the truth than you or I do.

We have to accept that there are people who actually don't care about facts".

Dr. Ben Goldacre

I and others cannot change the verdict of this corrupt court, however we can keep protesting the innocence of the two Burmese and point out the glaring holes in the prosecution's case, mainly because we are fair-minded people and want to see justice done and we hope sincerely that keeping this case out in the open and showing it up for what it really is, may bring pressure on the powers that be to "think again". We live in hope.

In their confession they beat her unconscious before intercourse which means she could not resist hence no sign of rape.

And they keep wittering on that 'knowing' who the real murderers are is pure speculation. It isn't: it's pure fact. We know this because the original head of the investigation, Pol Gen Panya Mamen, unequivocally told us who two of the real murderers are:

"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.

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

Not long after Pol Gen Panya exposed two of the real murderers, his big boss, national police chief Somyot Poonpanmuang, personally took over the case. At the time, Somyot was apparently involved in a large resort property deal with the village headman referred to by Panya. And Somyot and his wife also became considerably more 'unusually rich' than they were already about a month later, with their purchase of 360 million baht of shares in Wattana Capital Public Company Limited. Somyot spent quite a lot of his time during his management of this case 'clearing' the two named murderers, threatening anyone who tried to discuss these two murderers with legal action, and culminating in the utterly bizarre public DNA test pantomime.

Also from the above link:

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.

I guess Andy Hall and the Defense team never read that article.

Btw do you have any more information on the Samui Court Judge who was assassinated?

Edited June 7, 201610 yr by JLCrab

Not long after Pol Gen Panya exposed two of the real murderers, his big boss, national police chief Somyot Poonpanmuang, personally took over the case. At the time, Somyot was apparently involved in a large resort property deal with the village headman referred to by Panya. And Somyot and his wife also became considerably more 'unusually rich' than they were already about a month later, with their purchase of 360 million baht of shares in Wattana Capital Public Company Limited. Somyot spent quite a lot of his time during his management of this case 'clearing' the two named murderers, threatening anyone who tried to discuss these two murderers with legal action, and culminating in the utterly bizarre public DNA test pantomime.

Excuse me but where did you get that information from . Can you give me a reliable media link ?

Especially the information about the property deal .

The guy has info on a Samui Court judge who was assassinated even though such an event best I can tell has never been reported in th Samui Times or elsewhere so maybe he has deep sources that cannot be revealed.

Edited June 7, 201610 yr by JLCrab

Wattana Capital is a PLC.It's shareholders and share dealing history are public information.

Some of the posters who were regular participants in threads where the murder of the senior Koh Samui justice official (not a judge) was discussed, and where the business dealings of Somyot Poonpanmuang were discussed at length appear to be suffering from 'goldfish' syndrome.

I expect this link will soon disappear due to a spurious complaint to Google by the boiler room team working on this one, but it's easy enough to keep re-publishing it on free hosting sites because it's a PDF:

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=WAT%2FIR%2F076%2F2014

It's the third hit on the above linked search.

The murder of a senior Samui Justice official Off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush.

OK -- it must be great to be in the know.

BTW I think the guy above was not questioning that a public record SET transaction took place but just how someone can say that they know the source and timing of those funds and that some kind of quid pro quo took place in receiving those funds

Edited June 7, 201610 yr by JLCrab

Some of the posters who were regular participants in threads where the murder of the senior Koh Samui justice official (not a judge) was discussed, and where the business dealings of Somyot Poonpanmuang were discussed at length appear to be suffering from 'goldfish' syndrome.

I expect this link will soon disappear due to a spurious complaint to Google by the boiler room team working on this one, but it's easy enough to keep re-publishing it on free hosting sites because it's a PDF:

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=WAT%2FIR%2F076%2F2014

It's the third hit on the above linked search.

In Samui Times and the Nation, June 29th 2015

Surat Thani Chief Public Prosecutor Murdered

OK -- murder committed in Meuang Surat Thani not Koh Samui. The word 'Assassination' has political overtones or someone being murdered due to their official capacity or position that murder out of jealousy or robbery does not indicate ... unless (oh forget it).

I won't bother with all the quotes: This article appeared in PBS 23 SEP 2014 and was offered as fact as to who are the real killers:

http://englishnews.t...h/content/63714

However this article appeared on PBS the following day 24 SEP 2014 and was not offered as any semblance of fact:

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/63857

Edited June 8, 201610 yr by JLCrab

Links are corrupted to both SEP 23 & 24 2014 PBS articles. There is an excerpt from the 23 SEP article above. This is excerpt from the 24 Sep article:

Police interrogated Woraphan Toovichien, 49, a village headman and owner of AC Bar which is located near the murder scene, and his brother, Montriwat Toovichien, owner of In Touch resort and caretaker of AC Bar.

Both gave good cooperation to the police and they denied they had any connection. DNA samples of the two brothers were collecting for testing and were later proved to not match with DNA collected from the scene and the victim’s body.

Both were later freed.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol-Lt Panya Mamen said both men gave good cooperation and answer all questions. Both gave very useful information to the police, he said but the police could not elaborate.

They were not arrested but just in police custody, he said.

Edited June 8, 201610 yr by JLCrab

Links are corrupted to both SEP 23 & 24 2014 PBS articles. There is an excerpt from the 23 SEP article above. This is excerpt from the 24 Sep article:

Police interrogated Woraphan Toovichien, 49, a village headman and owner of AC Bar which is located near the murder scene, and his brother, Montriwat Toovichien, owner of In Touch resort and caretaker of AC Bar.

Both gave good cooperation to the police and they denied they had any connection. DNA samples of the two brothers were collecting for testing and were later proved to not match with DNA collected from the scene and the victim’s body.

Both were later freed.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol-Lt Panya Mamen said both men gave good cooperation and answer all questions. Both gave very useful information to the police, he said but the police could not elaborate.

They were not arrested but just in police custody, he said.

Here is a live link to the Sept 24th article and Panya was still very much in charge http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-twist-murder-two-brits-koh-tao/

I’ll add in the shocking and new revelation about Withridge’s vaginal tear does not prove or disprove anything- to claim a rape did not take place because allegedly this laceration happened in the Thai autopsy is misinformation, inference and outright fabrication.

It is very possible Witheridge was not conscious when she was sexually violated. Not resisting. The initial confessions made the claim she was unconscious.

Here' my rebuttal to the 10 point meme that has been posted repeatedly throughout the thread....

1). The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial.

Rebuttal: “All said to have carried vital DNA .” That’s a misleading inference- who said this? And where can I find a reputable source that mentions a wine bottle was included in original evidence? The cigarette butt had DNA extracted from it and that was evidence and a DNA match as presented in those reports. That evidence was offered to defense for retesting, but defense declined. It was never “ used up..” wasn’t that more of ill-advised police comments made to press being touted as testimony and “evidence.” So many times police make these sort of comments, unprofessional, sure, to those of us from the west especially, but evidence of a vast cover-up? Hardy If Thai police would make it a mandatory policy to not allow personnel’s unauthorized, off–the-cuff opinions to be uttered to press, it would go a long way in restoring a semblance of professional ability.

2). The lack of CCTV footage of the crimes linking the two men to anywhere other than the crowded beach has caused grave concern and of course without a single piece of CCTV footage, or a single witness to the actual crime, it is hard to believe that any court could find the two men guilty without reasonable doubt and sentence them to death.

Rebuttal; “Hard to believe” is a highly subjective opinion and is not admissible as evidence. There is no CCTV on the beach and it is well established the convicted were in the vicinity of the crime.

3). Their DNA was never found on the murder weapon. The actual DNA on the murder weapon matched neither of the accused.

Rebuttal; Cloth can be used to hold a weapon, indeed it is standard criminal behavior to cover up a crime in this manner.

4). Fingerprints from the accused on the mobile phone that belonged to one of the victims were never produced. This raises the question of who they actually belonged to. There was absolutely no forensic evidence presented by the prosecution connecting the mobile phone to the accused.

Rebuttal; Question of “ who they belonged to…” meaning what? Fingerprints or the phone? Again standard procedure for criminals to wipe off surfaces that might later yield incriminating evidence. Also the phone may have been handled by several people smearing prints.

5). The prosecution speculated that the motive for the attack was the accused being aroused by both victims having sexual intercourse on the beach. There is no evidence to suggest this ever took place.

Rebuttal; Mr. Miller was nude- this is certainly suggestive he was embarking upon a sexual encounter.

6). The Thai autopsy was no more than a four page summary by the doctor. The legally required autopsy file documenting the procedure with step-by-step photos and point to point analysis was never presented.

Rebuttal; Was it asked for by defense? Why not? And what standard is this requirement- Thai or UK?

7). The DNA tests presented by the prosecution were not provided with the necessary supportive documents showing multiple procedures required to meet ISO 17025 standards required in DNA testing, including the chain of custody, method of testing, graph generation and analysis report.

Rebuttal; Judges are not forensic scientists, the reports are highly complicated and were condensed into a simpler form judges could understand. It was up to the defense to present experts to refute a prosecution’s case. They did not which might lead one to believe defense really does not want the DNA evidence looked at too carefully

8). The police claimed a 100% DNA match with the accused from samples taken from the victim’s body this is scientifically impossible in any forensic lab anywhere in the world.

Rebuttal: This statement does specify which police stated this or when. Police often make ill advised, off the cuff remarks to anyone who’ll listen- they are not forensic scientists either. It may well have been a personal opinion “ I know it’s true 100%” completely taken out of context and used as “ evidence” of a conspiracy.

9). During the interrogation a hostile interpreter was appointed by the police who cannot read written Thai. The defendants were never properly advised of the murder charges nor their rights under Thai law.

Rebuttal:This too is not specific. Which interrogation- when they were first interviewed? Or when police were connecting them to the crime? Why does an interpreter in an verbal interview need to know how to read Thai?

10). The suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders without an attorney present and their statements were entered as part of the prosecution’s evidence. This is a violation of Thai law and grounds for dismissal of the case.

Rebuttal; Once arrested, anything they said was admissible on any inquiry. But true, lack of an attorney present is the one detail, a technicality, that might see them released. It has worked time and again for other criminals. However seeing the high profile of this case and the connection with perceived tourist safety, I would not expect the judges to fall for this trick.

Edited June 8, 201610 yr by Moonsterk

Links are corrupted to both SEP 23 & 24 2014 PBS articles. There is an excerpt from the 23 SEP article above. This is excerpt from the 24 Sep article:

Police interrogated Woraphan Toovichien, 49, a village headman and owner of AC Bar which is located near the murder scene, and his brother, Montriwat Toovichien, owner of In Touch resort and caretaker of AC Bar.

Both gave good cooperation to the police and they denied they had any connection. DNA samples of the two brothers were collecting for testing and were later proved to not match with DNA collected from the scene and the victim’s body.

Both were later freed.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol-Lt Panya Mamen said both men gave good cooperation and answer all questions. Both gave very useful information to the police, he said but the police could not elaborate.

They were not arrested but just in police custody, he said.

Here is a live link to the Sept 24th article and Panya was still very much in charge http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-twist-murder-two-brits-koh-tao/

I’ll add in the shocking and new revelation about Withridge’s vaginal tear does not prove or disprove anything- to claim a rape did not take place because allegedly this laceration happened in the Thai autopsy is misinformation, inference and outright fabrication.

It is very possible Witheridge was not conscious when she was sexually violated. Not resisting. The initial confessions made the claim she was unconscious.

Here' my rebuttal to the 10 point meme that has been posted repeatedly throughout the thread....

1). The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial.

Rebuttal: “All said to have carried vital DNA .” That’s a misleading inference- who said this? And where can I find a reputable source that mentions a wine bottle was included in original evidence? The cigarette butt had DNA extracted from it and that was evidence and a DNA match as presented in those reports. That evidence was offered to defense for retesting, but defense declined. It was never “ used up..” wasn’t that more of ill-advised police comments made to press being touted as testimony and “evidence.” So many times police make these sort of comments, unprofessional, sure, to those of us from the west especially, but evidence of a vast cover-up? Hardy If Thai police would make it a mandatory policy to not allow personnel’s unauthorized, off–the-cuff opinions to be uttered to press, it would go a long way in restoring a semblance of professional ability.

2). The lack of CCTV footage of the crimes linking the two men to anywhere other than the crowded beach has caused grave concern and of course without a single piece of CCTV footage, or a single witness to the actual crime, it is hard to believe that any court could find the two men guilty without reasonable doubt and sentence them to death.

Rebuttal; “Hard to believe” is a highly subjective opinion and is not admissible as evidence. There is no CCTV on the beach and it is well established the convicted were in the vicinity of the crime.

3). Their DNA was never found on the murder weapon. The actual DNA on the murder weapon matched neither of the accused.

Rebuttal; Cloth can be used to hold a weapon, indeed it is standard criminal behavior to cover up a crime in this manner.

4). Fingerprints from the accused on the mobile phone that belonged to one of the victims were never produced. This raises the question of who they actually belonged to. There was absolutely no forensic evidence presented by the prosecution connecting the mobile phone to the accused.

Rebuttal; Question of “ who they belonged to…” meaning what? Fingerprints or the phone? Again standard procedure for criminals to wipe off surfaces that might later yield incriminating evidence. Also the phone may have been handled by several people smearing prints.

5). The prosecution speculated that the motive for the attack was the accused being aroused by both victims having sexual intercourse on the beach. There is no evidence to suggest this ever took place.

Rebuttal; Mr. Miller was nude- this is certainly suggestive he was embarking upon a sexual encounter.

6). The Thai autopsy was no more than a four page summary by the doctor. The legally required autopsy file documenting the procedure with step-by-step photos and point to point analysis was never presented.

Rebuttal; Was it asked for by defense? Why not? And what standard is this requirement- Thai or UK?

7). The DNA tests presented by the prosecution were not provided with the necessary supportive documents showing multiple procedures required to meet ISO 17025 standards required in DNA testing, including the chain of custody, method of testing, graph generation and analysis report.

Rebuttal; Judges are not forensic scientists, the reports are highly complicated and were condensed into a simpler form judges could understand. It was up to the defense to present experts to refute a prosecution’s case. They did not which might lead one to believe defense really does not want the DNA evidence looked at too carefully

8). The police claimed a 100% DNA match with the accused from samples taken from the victim’s body this is scientifically impossible in any forensic lab anywhere in the world.

Rebuttal: This statement does specify which police stated this or when. Police often make ill advised, off the cuff remarks to anyone who’ll listen- they are not forensic scientists either. It may well have been a personal opinion “ I know it’s true 100%” completely taken out of context and used as “ evidence” of a conspiracy.

9). During the interrogation a hostile interpreter was appointed by the police who cannot read written Thai. The defendants were never properly advised of the murder charges nor their rights under Thai law.

Rebuttal:This too is not specific. Which interrogation- when they were first interviewed? Or when police were connecting them to the crime? Why does an interpreter in an verbal interview need to know how to read Thai?

10). The suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders without an attorney present and their statements were entered as part of the prosecution’s evidence. This is a violation of Thai law and grounds for dismissal of the case.

Rebuttal; Once arrested, anything they said was admissible on any inquiry. But true, lack of an attorney present is the one detail, a technicality, that might see them released. It has worked time and again for other criminals. However seeing the high profile of this case and the connection with perceived tourist safety, I would not expect the judges to fall for this trick.

your rebuttal reads like drivel to me...sorry.

And they keep wittering on that 'knowing' who the real murderers are is pure speculation. It isn't: it's pure fact. We know this because the original head of the investigation, Pol Gen Panya Mamen, unequivocally told us who two of the real murderers are:

"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.

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

Not long after Pol Gen Panya exposed two of the real murderers, his big boss, national police chief Somyot Poonpanmuang, personally took over the case. At the time, Somyot was apparently involved in a large resort property deal with the village headman referred to by Panya. And Somyot and his wife also became considerably more 'unusually rich' than they were already about a month later, with their purchase of 360 million baht of shares in Wattana Capital Public Company Limited. Somyot spent quite a lot of his time during his management of this case 'clearing' the two named murderers, threatening anyone who tried to discuss these two murderers with legal action, and culminating in the utterly bizarre public DNA test pantomime.

The boiler room team have been hard at work since I made the above post: the Thai PBS article i quoted from has now been taken down.

Here is a link to a Google search for the story (I'd suggest the boiler room team don't click on it: it'll depress them because it's all over the web):

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Eighth+Region+Police+Command+commissioner+Pol+Lt-Gen+Panya+Mamen+identified+the+first+suspect+as+Mon

Here is the same article in the Chiangrai Times:

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/koh-tao-murder-suspect-arrested-another-on-the-run.html

I've taken screenshots of that one .

Any honest person interested in this case will be puzzled as to why some media news articles disappear after links to them have been put on here and elsewhere. It's the real murderers' internet boiler room team attempting to re-write the history of this case.

Links are corrupted to both SEP 23 & 24 2014 PBS articles. There is an excerpt from the 23 SEP article above. This is excerpt from the 24 Sep article:

Police interrogated Woraphan Toovichien, 49, a village headman and owner of AC Bar which is located near the murder scene, and his brother, Montriwat Toovichien, owner of In Touch resort and caretaker of AC Bar.

Both gave good cooperation to the police and they denied they had any connection. DNA samples of the two brothers were collecting for testing and were later proved to not match with DNA collected from the scene and the victim’s body.

Both were later freed.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol-Lt Panya Mamen said both men gave good cooperation and answer all questions. Both gave very useful information to the police, he said but the police could not elaborate.

They were not arrested but just in police custody, he said.

Here is a live link to the Sept 24th article and Panya was still very much in charge http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-twist-murder-two-brits-koh-tao/

I’ll add in the shocking and new revelation about Withridge’s vaginal tear does not prove or disprove anything- to claim a rape did not take place because allegedly this laceration happened in the Thai autopsy is misinformation, inference and outright fabrication.

It is very possible Witheridge was not conscious when she was sexually violated. Not resisting. The initial confessions made the claim she was unconscious.

Here' my rebuttal to the 10 point meme that has been posted repeatedly throughout the thread....

1). The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial.

Rebuttal: “All said to have carried vital DNA .” That’s a misleading inference- who said this? And where can I find a reputable source that mentions a wine bottle was included in original evidence? The cigarette butt had DNA extracted from it and that was evidence and a DNA match as presented in those reports. That evidence was offered to defense for retesting, but defense declined. It was never “ used up..” wasn’t that more of ill-advised police comments made to press being touted as testimony and “evidence.” So many times police make these sort of comments, unprofessional, sure, to those of us from the west especially, but evidence of a vast cover-up? Hardy If Thai police would make it a mandatory policy to not allow personnel’s unauthorized, off–the-cuff opinions to be uttered to press, it would go a long way in restoring a semblance of professional ability.

2). The lack of CCTV footage of the crimes linking the two men to anywhere other than the crowded beach has caused grave concern and of course without a single piece of CCTV footage, or a single witness to the actual crime, it is hard to believe that any court could find the two men guilty without reasonable doubt and sentence them to death.

Rebuttal; “Hard to believe” is a highly subjective opinion and is not admissible as evidence. There is no CCTV on the beach and it is well established the convicted were in the vicinity of the crime.

3). Their DNA was never found on the murder weapon. The actual DNA on the murder weapon matched neither of the accused.

Rebuttal; Cloth can be used to hold a weapon, indeed it is standard criminal behavior to cover up a crime in this manner.

4). Fingerprints from the accused on the mobile phone that belonged to one of the victims were never produced. This raises the question of who they actually belonged to. There was absolutely no forensic evidence presented by the prosecution connecting the mobile phone to the accused.

Rebuttal; Question of “ who they belonged to…” meaning what? Fingerprints or the phone? Again standard procedure for criminals to wipe off surfaces that might later yield incriminating evidence. Also the phone may have been handled by several people smearing prints.

5). The prosecution speculated that the motive for the attack was the accused being aroused by both victims having sexual intercourse on the beach. There is no evidence to suggest this ever took place.

Rebuttal; Mr. Miller was nude- this is certainly suggestive he was embarking upon a sexual encounter.

6). The Thai autopsy was no more than a four page summary by the doctor. The legally required autopsy file documenting the procedure with step-by-step photos and point to point analysis was never presented.

Rebuttal; Was it asked for by defense? Why not? And what standard is this requirement- Thai or UK?

7). The DNA tests presented by the prosecution were not provided with the necessary supportive documents showing multiple procedures required to meet ISO 17025 standards required in DNA testing, including the chain of custody, method of testing, graph generation and analysis report.

Rebuttal; Judges are not forensic scientists, the reports are highly complicated and were condensed into a simpler form judges could understand. It was up to the defense to present experts to refute a prosecution’s case. They did not which might lead one to believe defense really does not want the DNA evidence looked at too carefully

8). The police claimed a 100% DNA match with the accused from samples taken from the victim’s body this is scientifically impossible in any forensic lab anywhere in the world.

Rebuttal: This statement does specify which police stated this or when. Police often make ill advised, off the cuff remarks to anyone who’ll listen- they are not forensic scientists either. It may well have been a personal opinion “ I know it’s true 100%” completely taken out of context and used as “ evidence” of a conspiracy.

9). During the interrogation a hostile interpreter was appointed by the police who cannot read written Thai. The defendants were never properly advised of the murder charges nor their rights under Thai law.

Rebuttal:This too is not specific. Which interrogation- when they were first interviewed? Or when police were connecting them to the crime? Why does an interpreter in an verbal interview need to know how to read Thai?

10). The suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders without an attorney present and their statements were entered as part of the prosecution’s evidence. This is a violation of Thai law and grounds for dismissal of the case.

Rebuttal; Once arrested, anything they said was admissible on any inquiry. But true, lack of an attorney present is the one detail, a technicality, that might see them released. It has worked time and again for other criminals. However seeing the high profile of this case and the connection with perceived tourist safety, I would not expect the judges to fall for this trick.

I will take another posters advice see below.

No comment to this post for the following reason:

Given that a survey conducted on ThaiVisa found that over 92% of respondents believe the 2 Burmese lads are not guilty of the murders, there is little need for propaganda to promote their point of view. The facts are fairly well summed up in the article, and elsewhere, including on these forums.

http://www.thaivisa....ers-are-guilty/

Dishonest and manipulative obfuscation is more likely the disingenuous agenda of vested interests, charged with keeping the heat off those who belong where the 2 Burmese are now

It's in their vested interests to get this thread (and any other Koh Tao thread) closed down in order to remove it from the public's gaze. Which it shouldn't be, because continuing attention to the plight of the B2 should never be extinguished until they are rightfully acquitted of any crime against the two victims - and justice is seen to be done.

Some of the posters who were regular participants in threads where the murder of the senior Koh Samui justice official (not a judge) was discussed, and where the business dealings of Somyot Poonpanmuang were discussed at length appear to be suffering from 'goldfish' syndrome.

I expect this link will soon disappear due to a spurious complaint to Google by the boiler room team working on this one, but it's easy enough to keep re-publishing it on free hosting sites because it's a PDF:

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=WAT%2FIR%2F076%2F2014

It's the third hit on the above linked search.

In Samui Times and the Nation, June 29th 2015

Surat Thani Chief Public Prosecutor Murdered

Thanks for that. He was even more senior than I'd remembered.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/2014/11/07/1415364373/

Links are corrupted to both SEP 23 & 24 2014 PBS articles. There is an excerpt from the 23 SEP article above. This is excerpt from the 24 Sep article:

Police interrogated Woraphan Toovichien, 49, a village headman and owner of AC Bar which is located near the murder scene, and his brother, Montriwat Toovichien, owner of In Touch resort and caretaker of AC Bar.

Both gave good cooperation to the police and they denied they had any connection. DNA samples of the two brothers were collecting for testing and were later proved to not match with DNA collected from the scene and the victim’s body.

Both were later freed.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol-Lt Panya Mamen said both men gave good cooperation and answer all questions. Both gave very useful information to the police, he said but the police could not elaborate.

They were not arrested but just in police custody, he said.

Here is a live link to the Sept 24th article and Panya was still very much in charge http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-twist-murder-two-brits-koh-tao/

I’ll add in the shocking and new revelation about Withridge’s vaginal tear does not prove or disprove anything- to claim a rape did not take place because allegedly this laceration happened in the Thai autopsy is misinformation, inference and outright fabrication.

It is very possible Witheridge was not conscious when she was sexually violated. Not resisting. The initial confessions made the claim she was unconscious.

Here' my rebuttal to the 10 point meme that has been posted repeatedly throughout the thread....

1). The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial.

Rebuttal: “All said to have carried vital DNA .” That’s a misleading inference- who said this? And where can I find a reputable source that mentions a wine bottle was included in original evidence? The cigarette butt had DNA extracted from it and that was evidence and a DNA match as presented in those reports. That evidence was offered to defense for retesting, but defense declined. It was never “ used up..” wasn’t that more of ill-advised police comments made to press being touted as testimony and “evidence.” So many times police make these sort of comments, unprofessional, sure, to those of us from the west especially, but evidence of a vast cover-up? Hardy If Thai police would make it a mandatory policy to not allow personnel’s unauthorized, off–the-cuff opinions to be uttered to press, it would go a long way in restoring a semblance of professional ability.

2). The lack of CCTV footage of the crimes linking the two men to anywhere other than the crowded beach has caused grave concern and of course without a single piece of CCTV footage, or a single witness to the actual crime, it is hard to believe that any court could find the two men guilty without reasonable doubt and sentence them to death.

Rebuttal; “Hard to believe” is a highly subjective opinion and is not admissible as evidence. There is no CCTV on the beach and it is well established the convicted were in the vicinity of the crime.

3). Their DNA was never found on the murder weapon. The actual DNA on the murder weapon matched neither of the accused.

Rebuttal; Cloth can be used to hold a weapon, indeed it is standard criminal behavior to cover up a crime in this manner.

4). Fingerprints from the accused on the mobile phone that belonged to one of the victims were never produced. This raises the question of who they actually belonged to. There was absolutely no forensic evidence presented by the prosecution connecting the mobile phone to the accused.

Rebuttal; Question of “ who they belonged to…” meaning what? Fingerprints or the phone? Again standard procedure for criminals to wipe off surfaces that might later yield incriminating evidence. Also the phone may have been handled by several people smearing prints.

5). The prosecution speculated that the motive for the attack was the accused being aroused by both victims having sexual intercourse on the beach. There is no evidence to suggest this ever took place.

Rebuttal; Mr. Miller was nude- this is certainly suggestive he was embarking upon a sexual encounter.

6). The Thai autopsy was no more than a four page summary by the doctor. The legally required autopsy file documenting the procedure with step-by-step photos and point to point analysis was never presented.

Rebuttal; Was it asked for by defense? Why not? And what standard is this requirement- Thai or UK?

7). The DNA tests presented by the prosecution were not provided with the necessary supportive documents showing multiple procedures required to meet ISO 17025 standards required in DNA testing, including the chain of custody, method of testing, graph generation and analysis report.

Rebuttal; Judges are not forensic scientists, the reports are highly complicated and were condensed into a simpler form judges could understand. It was up to the defense to present experts to refute a prosecution’s case. They did not which might lead one to believe defense really does not want the DNA evidence looked at too carefully

8). The police claimed a 100% DNA match with the accused from samples taken from the victim’s body this is scientifically impossible in any forensic lab anywhere in the world.

Rebuttal: This statement does specify which police stated this or when. Police often make ill advised, off the cuff remarks to anyone who’ll listen- they are not forensic scientists either. It may well have been a personal opinion “ I know it’s true 100%” completely taken out of context and used as “ evidence” of a conspiracy.

9). During the interrogation a hostile interpreter was appointed by the police who cannot read written Thai. The defendants were never properly advised of the murder charges nor their rights under Thai law.

Rebuttal:This too is not specific. Which interrogation- when they were first interviewed? Or when police were connecting them to the crime? Why does an interpreter in an verbal interview need to know how to read Thai?

10). The suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders without an attorney present and their statements were entered as part of the prosecution’s evidence. This is a violation of Thai law and grounds for dismissal of the case.

Rebuttal; Once arrested, anything they said was admissible on any inquiry. But true, lack of an attorney present is the one detail, a technicality, that might see them released. It has worked time and again for other criminals. However seeing the high profile of this case and the connection with perceived tourist safety, I would not expect the judges to fall for this trick.

your rebuttal reads like drivel to me...sorry.

I have to agree on your comment because the rebuttals are a load of nonsense and it seems as if the poster has lost the plot on a few areas..............I won't go into detail on all of them, however this one is typical and a classic: –

"Their DNA was never found on the murder weapon. The actual DNA on the murder weapon matched neither of the accused".

"Rebuttal; Cloth can be used to hold a weapon, indeed it is standard criminal behavior to cover up a crime in this manner".

Errm..........The defence are simply saying that there is absolutely no proof that the accused used "the murder weapon" because nothing was found on it to link it to them. That's a fact, there was absolutely no proof, so for someone to come back and say, "yeah, but they could have used a cloth" beggars belief.

Read carefully: – NO PROOF, so everything else is just pure speculation as are most of the "rebuttals" seen above. And the poster seems to have overlooked the very important point mentioned in just about every thread on this subject that the reason the defence refused the offer to retest the DNA, was because no ACTUAL DNA was available for retesting and what they were offered was simply something like a piece of paper saying that the samples matched. The RTP actually did come back and suggest that the DNA sample was "not available" (I use this term favourably when in fact the excuses were farcical).

And as for point 7). Again the writer seems to have lost the plot because this was never about what was presented to the judges to make something "understandable". This point basically says that the correct multiple procedures were not followed in the DNA testing (if there even was any) and therefore this should not be allowed to be presented as evidence. Standard procedures in most countries when gathering information, however in this case they weren't followed (even by their own protocols and standards), so that information presented by the prosecution should have been thrown out.

I won't go on because even the simplest and most uninformed poster could look at the so-called rebuttals and see that they are worth diddly squat.

Because this is Thailand and this website is not your show -- you and others seem to act like the actions of the Court are less important than your passions about what you think about what is or is not.

Maybe the Court has made their decision because, like the preliminary Court on Boxing Day 2014, they don't like being lied to and that's what they think: That because the Prosecution's case is full of holes the Defendants can come in and give answers and testimony that the Court flat out doesn't believe ... and whether it's Thailand or US and a judge panel or a Jury, once they feel they aren't getting straight answers from the defendants those defendants are in big trouble.

At the Boxing Day 2014 prelim the Judge seems to have practically pleaded with the B2: Please give me something as to why this case should not go forward and he got nothing but we know nuthin' and here we are

You have missed the point I and others do not act like the actions of the court are less important, only that the actions of the court are farcical and in most cases beyond belief.

I have searched for the "lies" which have supposedly been uttered by the "defence" and can't find them, so perhaps you would enlighten me and others. The court has chosen to "flat out not believe" some very credible evidence and what you seem to be missing is that there was absolutely no way that they would accept any evidence which would suggest that they were wrong, because the verdict was a foregone conclusion.

That last paragraph of yours is also a nonsense because if you are brought up in front of a judge, accused of doing something you didn't do, of being somewhere that you were not, and of carrying out actions that you didn't, then what are you supposed to say, what can you offer in the way of evidence other than, well I don't know anything of what you are talking about.

If you think that the Burmese case is suspect, then consider the prosecution's case absolutely full of holes and lies and purporting to have irrefutable DNA evidence linked to semen found in the poor girl's body and on a cigarette butt......

Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong said it seemed the two men had shared a cigarette about the time Miller and Witheridge had walked past them, heading to the sandy area of the beach where they were murdered.

He said the DNA of two men was found on the cigarette butt and they matched the DNA found in the semen found inside the female victims body.

Now according to the British autopsy, the poor girl wasn't raped so the idea that semen was found inside the girl's body seems a little far-fetched, but no, it was stated that the DNA match was going to be the telling point in the whole case, but it seems that not only was the poor girl not raped, but that the police cannot show this DNA match because they have "lost it/used it up misplaced it etc etc. Good police work eh?

The prosecution's case consists of a litany of lies and you could name any number of them, with some of them seeming to be so amateurish that no court and I say that again, no court would have considered that evidence. The originally photographed hoe which was supposedly the murder weapon suddenly changes shape and appearance when it is presented in court (amateurish and in keeping with the rest of the prosecution's case) and it is not the same one (oh dear) and of course this very large and unwieldy hoe also made seven or eight very clean puncture marks in the back of David's head (only a fool would put that forward as evidence and only a fool would believe it)......and, and.............

You have stated that you believe there has been a miscarriage of justice, so why not stick to that and stop thinking of yourself as the shining light whose job it is to "put this thread to right". The facts speak for themselves and to suggest otherwise means you fit this description perfectly......

"Everybody knows that there are people who just don't care what the facts are.

They will put their hands over their ears and they are people who just have a different relationship to the truth than you or I do.

We have to accept that there are people who actually don't care about facts".

Dr. Ben Goldacre

I and others cannot change the verdict of this corrupt court, however we can keep protesting the innocence of the two Burmese and point out the glaring holes in the prosecution's case, mainly because we are fair-minded people and want to see justice done and we hope sincerely that keeping this case out in the open and showing it up for what it really is, may bring pressure on the powers that be to "think again". We live in hope.

In their confession they beat her unconscious before intercourse which means she could not resist hence no sign of rape.

Of course I understand now........... in their supposedly "freely given" (not under duress) confession, extracted by non-corrupt police with the help of a pancake seller who didn't really understand Thai or their Burmese regional dialect, they "admitted" beating her unconscious before sex, but didn't explain why they then felt the need to cut her head in half (yes I saw the photographs) or indeed how two small men managed to overpower two bigger built farangs.

And of course semen would have been found inside of the poor girl, however no concrete evidence of this has ever been provided, other than a statement saying that "it wasn't available".

You surely cannot be serious believing this load of nonsense, this especially from a statement which was supposedly taken under duress and this when three doctors independently confirmed that there were signs of physical harm to the two Burmese.

Because this is Thailand and this website is not your show -- you and others seem to act like the actions of the Court are less important than your passions about what you think about what is or is not.

Maybe the Court has made their decision because, like the preliminary Court on Boxing Day 2014, they don't like being lied to and that's what they think: That because the Prosecution's case is full of holes the Defendants can come in and give answers and testimony that the Court flat out doesn't believe ... and whether it's Thailand or US and a judge panel or a Jury, once they feel they aren't getting straight answers from the defendants those defendants are in big trouble.

At the Boxing Day 2014 prelim the Judge seems to have practically pleaded with the B2: Please give me something as to why this case should not go forward and he got nothing but we know nuthin' and here we are

You have missed the point I and others do not act like the actions of the court are less important, only that the actions of the court are farcical and in most cases beyond belief.

I have searched for the "lies" which have supposedly been uttered by the "defence" and can't find them, so perhaps you would enlighten me and others. The court has chosen to "flat out not believe" some very credible evidence and what you seem to be missing is that there was absolutely no way that they would accept any evidence which would suggest that they were wrong, because the verdict was a foregone conclusion.

That last paragraph of yours is also a nonsense because if you are brought up in front of a judge, accused of doing something you didn't do, of being somewhere that you were not, and of carrying out actions that you didn't, then what are you supposed to say, what can you offer in the way of evidence other than, well I don't know anything of what you are talking about.

If you think that the Burmese case is suspect, then consider the prosecution's case absolutely full of holes and lies and purporting to have irrefutable DNA evidence linked to semen found in the poor girl's body and on a cigarette butt......

Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong said it seemed the two men had shared a cigarette about the time Miller and Witheridge had walked past them, heading to the sandy area of the beach where they were murdered.

He said the DNA of two men was found on the cigarette butt and they matched the DNA found in the semen found inside the female victims body.

Now according to the British autopsy, the poor girl wasn't raped so the idea that semen was found inside the girl's body seems a little far-fetched, but no, it was stated that the DNA match was going to be the telling point in the whole case, but it seems that not only was the poor girl not raped, but that the police cannot show this DNA match because they have "lost it/used it up misplaced it etc etc. Good police work eh?

The prosecution's case consists of a litany of lies and you could name any number of them, with some of them seeming to be so amateurish that no court and I say that again, no court would have considered that evidence. The originally photographed hoe which was supposedly the murder weapon suddenly changes shape and appearance when it is presented in court (amateurish and in keeping with the rest of the prosecution's case) and it is not the same one (oh dear) and of course this very large and unwieldy hoe also made seven or eight very clean puncture marks in the back of David's head (only a fool would put that forward as evidence and only a fool would believe it)......and, and.............

You have stated that you believe there has been a miscarriage of justice, so why not stick to that and stop thinking of yourself as the shining light whose job it is to "put this thread to right". The facts speak for themselves and to suggest otherwise means you fit this description perfectly......

"Everybody knows that there are people who just don't care what the facts are.

They will put their hands over their ears and they are people who just have a different relationship to the truth than you or I do.

We have to accept that there are people who actually don't care about facts".

Dr. Ben Goldacre

I and others cannot change the verdict of this corrupt court, however we can keep protesting the innocence of the two Burmese and point out the glaring holes in the prosecution's case, mainly because we are fair-minded people and want to see justice done and we hope sincerely that keeping this case out in the open and showing it up for what it really is, may bring pressure on the powers that be to "think again". We live in hope.

"That last paragraph of yours is also a nonsense because if you are brought up in front of a judge, accused of doing something you didn't do, of being somewhere that you were not, and of carrying out actions that you didn't, then what are you supposed to say, what can you offer in the way of evidence other than, well I don't know anything of what you are talking about."

In my opinion, he was establishing the ground rules about who couldn't be discussed. Otherwise his question, as you have pointed out, was a nonsensical one that an accused claiming to not be involved in the murder could not answer in the affirmative. It's not the type of opening question you would see asked by a judge in a first world country.

Thank you . I have said that what I enjoy is watching people make fools of themselves. The Daily Mail said in a 2016 story about 'Murders in Paradise' documentary that 750, 000 persons from UK visit Koh Tao each year. If you look on Tripadvisor, which I did for the first time yesterday, you will see in months of Forum pages not one hint that KT is dangerous place.

So I agree that maybe it does make a difference to you but even at this late date it doesn't seem to make much a difference to anyone else who decides to visit KT.

But maybe one of those persons who is sitting on tangible evidence to out the real killers will someday overcome their fear of retribution and come forward to give those responsible but what they genuinely deserve -- if there is such a person. But I do enjoy reading all the convoluted explanations as to why they won't.

That`s twice you`ve made this claim now,can you link to that article please because according to UK Government website less that 1,000,000 UK citizens visited Thailand last year.Are you seriously saying that over 75% of those people visited Koh Toa?

Maybe it should read 75,000,i could believe that figure.

And they keep wittering on that 'knowing' who the real murderers are is pure speculation. It isn't: it's pure fact. We know this because the original head of the investigation, Pol Gen Panya Mamen, unequivocally told us who two of the real murderers are:

"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.

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

Yes, very interesting observation , the web administrator at Thai PBS has removed the article . It's been up there for everyone to read since 2014.

I wonder why , maybe they read Thaivisa.

It's not only Thai PBS articles that disappear after being linked to in these discussions. Somebody is making a very big effort to get information which points to the real murderers removed from the internet. It's just another aspect of the wider conspiracy to shield the real murderers from justice.

Thank you . I have said that what I enjoy is watching people make fools of themselves. The Daily Mail said in a 2016 story about 'Murders in Paradise' documentary that 750, 000 persons from UK visit Koh Tao each year. If you look on Tripadvisor, which I did for the first time yesterday, you will see in months of Forum pages not one hint that KT is dangerous place.

So I agree that maybe it does make a difference to you but even at this late date it doesn't seem to make much a difference to anyone else who decides to visit KT.

But maybe one of those persons who is sitting on tangible evidence to out the real killers will someday overcome their fear of retribution and come forward to give those responsible but what they genuinely deserve -- if there is such a person. But I do enjoy reading all the convoluted explanations as to why they won't.

That`s twice you`ve made this claim now,can you link to that article please because according to UK Government website less that 1,000,000 UK citizens visited Thailand last year.Are you seriously saying that over 75% of those people visited Koh Toa?

Maybe it should read 75,000,i could believe that figure.

I don't really care what the number is just that they keep on coming as in the Pub Crawl photos but here is their contact page if you got a problem:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-1227210/Contact-Us.html

It's not only Thai PBS articles that disappear after being linked to in these discussions. Somebody is making a very big effort to get information which points to the real murderers removed from the internet. It's just another aspect of the wider conspiracy to shield the real murderers from justice.

That's OK -- you keep posting about the 'real killers' or "real murderers" and one day, if someone goes to Google and queries "Koh Tao Real Killers" or "Koh Tao real murderers" it will go straight to your ThaiVisa posts top of the first Google results page.

Links are corrupted to both SEP 23 & 24 2014 PBS articles. There is an excerpt from the 23 SEP article above. This is excerpt from the 24 Sep article:

Police interrogated Woraphan Toovichien, 49, a village headman and owner of AC Bar which is located near the murder scene, and his brother, Montriwat Toovichien, owner of In Touch resort and caretaker of AC Bar.

Both gave good cooperation to the police and they denied they had any connection. DNA samples of the two brothers were collecting for testing and were later proved to not match with DNA collected from the scene and the victims body.

Both were later freed.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol-Lt Panya Mamen said both men gave good cooperation and answer all questions. Both gave very useful information to the police, he said but the police could not elaborate.

They were not arrested but just in police custody, he said.

Here is a live link to the Sept 24th article and Panya was still very much in charge http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-twist-murder-two-brits-koh-tao/

Ill add in the shocking and new revelation about Withridges vaginal tear does not prove or disprove anything- to claim a rape did not take place because allegedly this laceration happened in the Thai autopsy is misinformation, inference and outright fabrication.

It is very possible Witheridge was not conscious when she was sexually violated. Not resisting. The initial confessions made the claim she was unconscious.

Here' my rebuttal to the 10 point meme that has been posted repeatedly throughout the thread....

1). The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial.

Rebuttal: All said to have carried vital DNA . Thats a misleading inference- who said this? And where can I find a reputable source that mentions a wine bottle was included in original evidence? The cigarette butt had DNA extracted from it and that was evidence and a DNA match as presented in those reports. That evidence was offered to defense for retesting, but defense declined. It was never used up.. wasnt that more of ill-advised police comments made to press being touted as testimony and evidence. So many times police make these sort of comments, unprofessional, sure, to those of us from the west especially, but evidence of a vast cover-up? Hardy If Thai police would make it a mandatory policy to not allow personnels unauthorized, offthe-cuff opinions to be uttered to press, it would go a long way in restoring a semblance of professional ability.

2). The lack of CCTV footage of the crimes linking the two men to anywhere other than the crowded beach has caused grave concern and of course without a single piece of CCTV footage, or a single witness to the actual crime, it is hard to believe that any court could find the two men guilty without reasonable doubt and sentence them to death.

Rebuttal; Hard to believe is a highly subjective opinion and is not admissible as evidence. There is no CCTV on the beach and it is well established the convicted were in the vicinity of the crime.

3). Their DNA was never found on the murder weapon. The actual DNA on the murder weapon matched neither of the accused.

Rebuttal; Cloth can be used to hold a weapon, indeed it is standard criminal behavior to cover up a crime in this manner.

4). Fingerprints from the accused on the mobile phone that belonged to one of the victims were never produced. This raises the question of who they actually belonged to. There was absolutely no forensic evidence presented by the prosecution connecting the mobile phone to the accused.

Rebuttal; Question of who they belonged to meaning what? Fingerprints or the phone? Again standard procedure for criminals to wipe off surfaces that might later yield incriminating evidence. Also the phone may have been handled by several people smearing prints.

5). The prosecution speculated that the motive for the attack was the accused being aroused by both victims having sexual intercourse on the beach. There is no evidence to suggest this ever took place.

Rebuttal; Mr. Miller was nude- this is certainly suggestive he was embarking upon a sexual encounter.

6). The Thai autopsy was no more than a four page summary by the doctor. The legally required autopsy file documenting the procedure with step-by-step photos and point to point analysis was never presented.

Rebuttal; Was it asked for by defense? Why not? And what standard is this requirement- Thai or UK?

7). The DNA tests presented by the prosecution were not provided with the necessary supportive documents showing multiple procedures required to meet ISO 17025 standards required in DNA testing, including the chain of custody, method of testing, graph generation and analysis report.

Rebuttal; Judges are not forensic scientists, the reports are highly complicated and were condensed into a simpler form judges could understand. It was up to the defense to present experts to refute a prosecutions case. They did not which might lead one to believe defense really does not want the DNA evidence looked at too carefully

8). The police claimed a 100% DNA match with the accused from samples taken from the victims body this is scientifically impossible in any forensic lab anywhere in the world.

Rebuttal: This statement does specify which police stated this or when. Police often make ill advised, off the cuff remarks to anyone wholl listen- they are not forensic scientists either. It may well have been a personal opinion I know its true 100% completely taken out of context and used as evidence of a conspiracy.

9). During the interrogation a hostile interpreter was appointed by the police who cannot read written Thai. The defendants were never properly advised of the murder charges nor their rights under Thai law.

Rebuttal:This too is not specific. Which interrogation- when they were first interviewed? Or when police were connecting them to the crime? Why does an interpreter in an verbal interview need to know how to read Thai?

10). The suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders without an attorney present and their statements were entered as part of the prosecutions evidence. This is a violation of Thai law and grounds for dismissal of the case.

Rebuttal; Once arrested, anything they said was admissible on any inquiry. But true, lack of an attorney present is the one detail, a technicality, that might see them released. It has worked time and again for other criminals. However seeing the high profile of this case and the connection with perceived tourist safety, I would not expect the judges to fall for this trick.

your rebuttal reads like drivel to me...sorry.

Well I think that you have put in a lot of good thinking.A good effort. Angiolo