Koh Tao murders appeal reveals shocking new evidence suggesting unfair trial and wrongful conviction

[Khun Han]

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.

You will notice the word "coming" in the reply to your request. People 'go' to a place that is being written about, they 'come' to a place where the writer is residing. It's not the first time he's made this Freudian slip .

[JLCrab]

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.

You will notice the word "coming" in the reply to your request. People 'go' to a place that is being written about, they 'come' to a place where the writer is residing. It's not the first time he's made this Freudian slip .

It's really just a reference to the 60's US AM radio slogan:

... And the Hits Just Keep on Coming as in:

Back in the glory days of Top 40 radio, high-energy DJs would shout their call letters over the intro of some hot record and say, “where the hits just keep on comin’!”

https://jabartlett.wordpress.com/about/

... written from the wilds of rural Isaan -- never been to Koh Tao. I was once at Koh Samui in 1988.

Edited June 8, 2016 by JLCrab

[TheLobster]

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 <snip>

Most members know what you are going to say before you've even written it .............

[stephenterry]

I am coming round to the possibility that the RTP (for all their faults) were aware/were informed that migrant workers were also part of the attack gang – they just chose the wrong two to be scapegoats (albeit they might not have known who they were). And that would explain Ian Miller’s statement – migrant workers could have been among those who attacked David (while this forum's consensus is that one or more Thai thugs attacked and killed Hannah).

From the B2's perspective, they would definitely have more to fear from Burmese perps reprisals (in their home country) against their families if they mentioned names, than informing on any Thai -- that would be ignored. Perhaps that's why their alibi is as weak as the court stated - they were protecting their families.

Which leads to the obvious question - why couldn't it have been the B2? I have little doubt that the Mounties got the wrong men and their attempts to pin it on the B2 is clearly not backed up with any verifiable evidence. Cops being cops,and lazy, preferred going down that route rather than trying to pin it on other migrant workers - not least because Thai thugs were also probably involved.

Well, it's over to you guys...

Edited June 9, 2016 by stephenterry

[JLCrab]

So for all those scenarios you've been spinning for the last going on almost 2 years we should just say: Never mind.

[xylophone]

I have never been one for suggesting that "ABC" or "XYZ" could be a guilty party because there is no evidence to suggest this and in putting this theory forward, folk who do this are just as guilty as the "pro-guilty" side, because either way there is absolutely no evidence to support either scenario.

However the trial of the two Burmese men for the murders on the island of Koh Tao falls woefully short of that which should be expected with respect to procedures and protocols for collecting evidence for the case, not to mention the disrespect of the overall legal process.

There were aspects of the case which contravened not only procedures laid down in international law but also those laid down by the ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) a body formed to ensure processes and procedures were standardised and adhered to (and Thailand is a member of that body) and indeed by Thailand itself.

It has been stated numerous times by observers, many of them from the legal fraternity, that because many important procedures were not followed, then the case against the two Burmese should never have been allowed to proceed.

The degree of process, care and the following of procedures when a crime scene is being investigated is considered of paramount importance and anything which contravenes these processes and could lead to contamination of a crime scene is considered extremely serious, and can result in the prosecution case being rendered "unsafe".

Consider then the crime scene on Koh Tao, with locals being allowed to walk all over it, untrained police supposedly trying to collect forensic evidence and items which went missing (e.g. clothes). Those aspects alone, in a civilised country, would have rendered the prosecution case very weak indeed, if not impotent.

Then of course there is the subject of the garden hoe, photographed at the time and labelled as the murder weapon, only to show up in court as a totally different garden hoe. How could the process involved in photographing and collecting the original hoe, then itemising and storing it, be so lax as to allow a completely different hoe to be displayed in court? Chain of custody followed – no chance.

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.

Chain of custody, in legal contexts, refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence and is a process which is documented and signed off at each stage. If the correct chain of custody process is followed, then nothing will go missing, which means the original garden hoe should have been presented, along with the clothes which the female victim was photographed wearing, not to mention other items which were initially included by the police in their investigation.

Staying with the chain of custody process, fingerprints from the accused on the mobile phone that belonged to one of the victims were never produced. There was absolutely no forensic evidence presented by the prosecution connecting the mobile phone to the accused, yet they were supposed to have had this phone in their possession.

Perhaps one of the most damning pieces of police incompetence with regard to procedures was that 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. And remember Thailand is a member of the ISO body, yet failed implement the standards to which it is committed by being a member of this body.

One of the basic tenets of law is that the defendants are properly advised of the charges against them and their rights under law (Thai law included) however the defendants were never properly advised of the murder charges nor their rights under Thai law. Indeed 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.

The police handling of the case could be described as "farcical" at best, not to mention the lack of due process, failure to document chain of custody and adhere to ISO standards etc etc, and furthermore when all is examined, there is absolutely no evidence, no DNA, no fingerprints, no witnesses that link the two Burmese men to these murders.

That this case would be thrown out of court in any other country is beyond doubt, yet here they still seem to be some people who believe the verdict is sound, this despite the overwhelming evidence against this belief.

The unfortunate thing is that Thailand is a Third World country with a corrupt police force (quote: The Office of the Ombudsman Thailand) where life is cheap and money talks and despite the fact that they would like to think of themselves as "up there with the best" they fall far short in so many aspects as to be sometimes laughable, and this is one of those times (and that is not belittling the fact that two savage murders have taken place).

Having said that there were some Thai advocates to support the innocence of the two Burmese and one of these was the Head of the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) when she challenged the Thai police on several aspects of the case……….

The Thai police evidence was that it was impossible to get DNA from the hoe, and now they have been told there is DNA…..

DNA found on a garden hoe, alleged to have been used to bludgeon Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge to death on the island of Koh Tao in Thailand, does not match that of the two men on trial for her rape and murder.

Thai police are now being urged to expand the rape and murder enquiry mid-trial as no DNA from the two accused men was found on the alleged murder weapon used to kill Ms Witheridge and fellow British tourist David Miller.

The head of Thailand’s Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) said the DNA of two males was found on the handle of a garden hoe but it doesn’t match that of the two Burmese defendants or the victims.

The shock announcement surprised even the defence lawyers, led by Nakhon Chomphuchat, who had been told by the Thai police there was no DNA found on the garden hoe.

But CIFS chief, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, said there was sufficient DNA to test.

Now both Dr Pornthip and Mr Chomphuchat have called on the police to find out whose DNA is on the murder weapon.

Dr Pornthip echoed the defence team, saying: “What we must do next is find out whose DNA that is.”

She also lamented serious lapses in the gathering of forensic evidence, which she believed might prejudice the case.

There was no forensic doctor at the scene of the killings.

She said pools of blood found on the sand on Sairee beach in Koh Tao last September had not been gathered for DNA testing, nor had any of Ms Witheridge’s clothing which was still on her body at the time of her death.

Insufficient photographs had been taken of the scene to be useful to a forensic examination, and the chain of custody of the DNA evidence was incomplete, she said.

“The documents have been edited. The dates are not right,” Dr Pornthip, who has decades of experience in forensic science, told the three sitting judges.

Thai police had no proper and adequate chain of custody documents for the court; no photos of any of the DNA analysis processes, no case notes, no written description of testing processes………...

Quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” which is why I and many others like me, will continue to challenge this miscarriage of justice and keep it visible.

[dundee48]

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

Poor attempt at deflection.3 times now you made the claim but you don`t really care what the number is.It is just another example of the vast amount of misinformation being spouted by people with vested interests,`if I say it enough times it must be true`.

I asked for the link supporting your claim,if you can`t provide it just say so,nobody will think any less of you than they do already.

[JLCrab]

... and for many reasons similar to what was enumerated at length a few posts above, OJ Simpson was acquitted of murdering his wife Nicole and her friend Ronald Goldman.

Edited June 9, 2016 by JLCrab

[JLCrab]

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

Poor attempt at deflection.3 times now you made the claim but you don`t really care what the number is.It is just another example of the vast amount of misinformation being spouted by people with vested interests,`if I say it enough times it must be true`.

I asked for the link supporting your claim,if you can`t provide it just say so,nobody will think any less of you than they do already.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3548170/Horrific-rapes-brutal-murders-corrupt-police-holiday-isle-paradise-Koh-Tao-worst-nightmare-backpacking-youngster-s-parent.html

And I will say it again: I quoted the Daily Mail 19 April 2016 -- if it's wrong then tell them. "Koh Tao has become a huge draw for young backpackers thanks to its stunning beaches and cheap accommodation - so much so that as many as 750,000 Britons visit each year."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3548170/Horrific-rapes-brutal-murders-corrupt-police-holiday-isle-paradise-Koh-Tao-worst-nightmare-backpacking-youngster-s-parent.html

The number of Brits traveling to Koh Tao to me is immaterial as they continue to come even after all the horror stories in the UK newspaper and on TV. This is what I consider to be material -- from the Koh Tao Pub Crawl 3 JUN 2016:

Edited June 9, 2016 by JLCrab

[Khun Han]

I am coming round to the possibility that the RTP (for all their faults) were aware/were informed that migrant workers were also part of the attack gang – they just chose the wrong two to be scapegoats (albeit they might not have known who they were). And that would explain Ian Miller’s statement – migrant workers could have been among those who attacked David (while this forum's consensus is that one or more Thai thugs attacked and killed Hannah).

From the B2's perspective, they would definitely have more to fear from Burmese perps reprisals (in their home country) against their families if they mentioned names, than informing on any Thai -- that would be ignored. Perhaps that's why their alibi is as weak as the court stated - they were protecting their families.

Which leads to the obvious question - why couldn't it have been the B2? I have little doubt that the Mounties got the wrong men and their attempts to pin it on the B2 is clearly not backed up with any verifiable evidence. Cops being cops,and lazy, preferred going down that route rather than trying to pin it on other migrant workers - not least because Thai thugs were also probably involved.

Well, it's over to you guys...

I'm sorry stephen, but your post doesn't make any sense. If the police were aware or were informed that migrant workers were involved in the attack, that information could only have come from a witness to the attack or a reliable informant who had been told by a migrant attacker of their involvement. And thus the police would know the migrant attackers' identities.Any other scenario puts us back in the realms of speculation. So if the police had reliable witness information as to who these migrant attackers were, why didn't they present this irrefutable evidence at any point? It'd be a slam dunk. And, if this 'slam dunk' was not available to them, why would it explain Ian Miller's statement?

It's my understanding that one of Mon's right-hand men (the other Maung Maung) is Burmese, so it's easy to paint a scenario of tentacles reaching into Myanmar from that direction.

And what's with the small case typing? You always use standard case. Something's not quite right about your above post.

[joebrown]

FAO J L Crabb

"The number of Brits traveling to Koh Tao to me is immaterial as they continue to come even after all the horror stories in the UK newspaper and on TV. This is what I consider to be material "-- from the Koh Tao Pub Crawl 3 JUN 2016:

Yes, the number of Brits coming/going to Koh Tao is immaterial. Why do you 'harp' on about it with your pub crawl 'photos? I'm sure TAT are proud of you. Why not focus on the seriously flawed case against the B2?

[joebrown]

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 just love the word "rebuttal" you continually use. Who are you? Someone employed as a defence lawyer for those not yet accused in this capital murder case?

[JLCrab]

FAO J L Crabb

"The number of Brits traveling to Koh Tao to me is immaterial as they continue to come even after all the horror stories in the UK newspaper and on TV. This is what I consider to be material "-- from the Koh Tao Pub Crawl 3 JUN 2016:

<snip photo>

Yes, the number of Brits coming/going to Koh Tao is immaterial. Why do you 'harp' on about it with your pub crawl 'photos? I'm sure TAT are proud of you. Why not focus on the seriously flawed case against the B2?

Just to note that for all the warnings on here not to visit Death Island because you may be next for the real killers still at large who will certainly strike again if they haven't already, most people other than those on here who have a notion to come to KT couldn't give a sh***t and keep coming anyway.

As for focusing on the seriously flawed case, there was a post above that mentioned the 'chain of custody' 9 or 10 times so I don't see how it needs any more focusing than that.

Edited June 9, 2016 by JLCrab

[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.

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.

If there is no DNA or prints from the convicted on the handle of a murder weapon, it is hardly beyond belief that a cloth was used. That is fairly standard behavior for criminals to hold weapons in such a manner, or wipe them down after the crime.

That is not correct about the DNA- " All used up... not available..." that misinformation is a mainstay of a social group's defense - and I would point out such claim is not in the appeal document.

Point 7 is what was presented to the judges a condensed version of a highly technical report was acceptable to them under Thai law.

While you are entitled to belittle my posts, please remember I write for the reader who has not made up his mind - not you.

I have absolutely no desire to have this thread closed, instead I very much wish to convince that fence sitting reader of my viewpoint. To close the thread on this forum allows the misinformation to proliferate unabated on the heavily censored FB groups and pages,

[Bkk Brian]

Can any good come out of this trial?

The judge made a point of emphasizing that he was satisfied the DNA evidence was up to international standards.

The Thai Justice department needs to draw up a rigid set of international standard guidelines for the acceptance of DNA evidence in any criminal or civil court trial. The status quo is completely unacceptable. I have no doubt in my mind that languishing in Thai prisons are innocent victims of dubious and planted DNA evidence with no verifiable case file of documents that confirms the origins and procedures.

This will also not be the last case to have the same concerns, if nothing is done now to address this hole in the Thai Justice system then more can only be expected, and why not? If you are a police investigator where corruption is rife or prosecutor then the easiest way to get a conviction is through DNA evidence and if the are no guidelines on how to get it or present it in court then hey ho off they go.

These guidelines, policies and procedures for the presentation of DNA evidence are in place in the US and one would assume for most developed countries. Its fine being affiliated to the relevant DNA accreditation bodies but if you don’t have to present the court with those unnecessary requirements and instead just say that you are affiliated, with the judge then making the assumption that all is transparent, above board and rigorously tested to international standards then we can see why decisions such as the guilty verdict in the Koh Tao case are made. The judge was told the DNA labs were accredited and up to international standards, thats all he needed to know, everything else for him then was plain sailing for the verdict.

This needs to change now and if Thailand can’t see that then nobody is safe in any case that involves DNA.

[Moonsterk]

I

SNIPPET

Consider then the crime scene on Koh Tao, with locals being allowed to walk all over it, untrained police supposedly trying to collect forensic evidence and items which went missing (e.g. clothes). Those aspects alone, in a civilised country, would have rendered the prosecution case very weak indeed, if not impotent.

Then of course there is the subject of the garden hoe, photographed at the time and labelled as the murder weapon, only to show up in court as a totally different garden hoe. How could the process involved in photographing and collecting the original hoe, then itemising and storing it, be so lax as to allow a completely different hoe to be displayed in court? Chain of custody followed – no chance.

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.

Dr Pornthip echoed the defence team, saying: “What we must do next is find out whose DNA that is.”

She also lamented serious lapses in the gathering of forensic evidence, which she believed might prejudice the case.

There was no forensic doctor at the scene of the killings.

Consider then the crime scene on Koh Tao, with locals being allowed to walk all over it, untrained police supposedly trying to collect forensic evidence and items which went missing (e.g. clothes). Those aspects alone, in a civilised country, would have rendered the prosecution case very weak indeed, if not impotent.

Rebuttal;

Please note the bodies on plastic tarps when Montriwat was photographed stepping over the tape- the scene had already been processed.

Additionally the police presence on the island was limited at that time. In such instances is it not uncommon for village headman, or anyone they appoint to assist police, Montiwat was acting in such a capacity, as he explained in the Channel News Asia video.

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 the discord about chain of custody, etc etc really has no bearing- under Thai law, the judges can accept the word of the prosecutor- again it is up to defense to disprove these statement- if defense did not, or could not, a judge is bound to to find the prosecutor's case viable.

I asked before "all said .." Who said this?

“The documents have been edited. The dates are not right,” Dr Pornthip, who has decades of experience in forensic science, told the three sitting judges.

Rebuttal;

I would be suspicious of any attributed quotes- transcripts are not kept of proceedings and one observer to the trial has shown herself to be highly prejudicial in reporting her memory of it- memories which are then processed by the repeated regurgitative method (RRM) into facts

I would point out this link to an interested reader that further debunks the DNA meme that has been posted extensively on FB pages and how edited reports are actually a norm

https://web.facebook.com/BlindJusticeKohTao/photos./a.194966990855020.1073741830.193656064319446/194947934190259/?type=3&theater

For the rest of your post, I would refer the reader to these points I made here.

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 10, 2016 by Moonsterk

[stephenterry]

I am coming round to the possibility that the RTP (for all their faults) were aware/were informed that migrant workers were also part of the attack gang – they just chose the wrong two to be scapegoats (albeit they might not have known who they were). And that would explain Ian Miller’s statement – migrant workers could have been among those who attacked David (while this forum's consensus is that one or more Thai thugs attacked and killed Hannah).

From the B2's perspective, they would definitely have more to fear from Burmese perps reprisals (in their home country) against their families if they mentioned names, than informing on any Thai -- that would be ignored. Perhaps that's why their alibi is as weak as the court stated - they were protecting their families.

Which leads to the obvious question - why couldn't it have been the B2? I have little doubt that the Mounties got the wrong men and their attempts to pin it on the B2 is clearly not backed up with any verifiable evidence. Cops being cops,and lazy, preferred going down that route rather than trying to pin it on other migrant workers - not least because Thai thugs were also probably involved.

Well, it's over to you guys...

I'm sorry stephen, but your post doesn't make any sense. If the police were aware or were informed that migrant workers were involved in the attack, that information could only have come from a witness to the attack or a reliable informant who had been told by a migrant attacker of their involvement. And thus the police would know the migrant attackers' identities.Any other scenario puts us back in the realms of speculation. So if the police had reliable witness information as to who these migrant attackers were, why didn't they present this irrefutable evidence at any point? It'd be a slam dunk. And, if this 'slam dunk' was not available to them, why would it explain Ian Miller's statement?

It's my understanding that one of Mon's right-hand men (the other Maung Maung) is Burmese, so it's easy to paint a scenario of tentacles reaching into Myanmar from that direction.

And what's with the small case typing? You always use standard case. Something's not quite right about your above post.

My speculative scenario would include the intervention of Mon. Maybe (during his meeting with Panya with his Headman brother) he brokered a deal to lay off their family (including him) and in return point Panya in the migrant workers direction. No specifics but, 'interrogate the ones on the beach playing music', would suffice. I wouldn't think it would matter to Mon which migrant workers were arrested, they were expendable. From Panya's POV, Mon would have been regarded as a more 'reliable' informant than others who tried to derail the initial investigation.

Or it might just have been pressure put upon Panya (from above) to arrest someone, but not any influential Thais.

[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 <snip>

Most members know what you are going to say before you've even written it .............

The PBS Sept 23 article has been posted repeatedy as " proof" there is a cover up, and so to counter it It is acceptable to post the link to the PBS Sept 24th article that corrects it.

JL Crab had a dead link so I added in the live one which states plainly Panya was still very much in charge of the case when Montriwat was exonerated.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-twist-murder-two-brits-koh-tao/

This is about a discourse on a highly volatile subject, and my objective is to convince a fence sitting reader of my viewpoint. Any such reader is not going to really consider ad hominem posts- and will instead be more inclined to trust logic and dissection, with links, of countless hearsay claims presented as facts.

[stephenterry]

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 <snip>

Most members know what you are going to say before you've even written it .............

The PBS Sept 23 article has been posted repeatedy as " proof" there is a cover up, and so to counter it It is acceptable to post the link to the PBS Sept 24th article that corrects it.

JL Crab had a dead link so I added in the live one which states plainly Panya was still very much in charge of the case when Montriwat was exonerated.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-twist-murder-two-brits-koh-tao/

This is about a discourse on a highly volatile subject, and my objective is to convince a fence sitting reader of my viewpoint. Any such reader is not going to really consider ad hominem posts- and will instead be more inclined to trust logic and dissection, with links, of countless hearsay claims presented as facts.

Well, you might achieve your objective if your arguments and rebuttals made any sense and/or were logical, but nothing in your posts would indicate that. The reliance on the RTP's many conflicting statements throughout is admirable but misplaced, IMO, owing to their utter failure to bring any verifiable evidence to court that was substantiated and validated. That the court chose to accept 'their word' is how it always is when Thai (non) justice is involved.

That's what this appeal is all about. Which will not succeed as the same regional 8 team will hear it and pass a similar judgement as their colleagues. Eventually the case will go to the Supreme court in BKK, where an independent team of judges will hear the appeal. That could take many years, so I would suggest that your interminable postings to convince a handful of fence sitters to your viewpoint on this forum would be better served elsewhere.

BTW, this thread is about the B2's unfair trial and subsequent conviction. Please keep on topic.

[JLCrab]

As long as we're in speculative scenario mode, my speculative scenario for the day would be that there was one or more persons who were tourists at the AC Bar the night in question and saw the B2 playing guitar on the beach and maybe later saw them engaged in other subsequent events but waited until they were safely back in UK to tell the RTP investigators what they saw by telephone making it plain that no way in H--ell would they be returning to Thailand to appear as witnesses and say in Court what had just they told the RTP.

... but like others herein, that could change tomorrow.

[spidermike007]

The are both innocent as the day is long. If I were a gambling man I would bet my house on that. Most of us know who did it. And this as trial killing freak is being protected at the highest level. So much for peace and order.

[JLCrab]

I lived in New York City in 1976 when the 'Son of Sam' murders were taking place. Unless you lived through something like this, you don't know what real terror is when persons were being murdered at random. The eventual killer had no direct connection to any of the victims or locations where the murders took place.The investigation involved hundreds of NYC police and detectives and was eventually solved thorough a tip by someone in who lived near the final crime location.

In the Koh Tao crimes, people are saying that the crimes were committed by the family who owned the bar and the hotel where the victims last stayed and the bodies were left practically on their front porch. Maybe so and if persons want to say they know for certain who did it that is up to them.

I lived in New York City in 1976 when the 'Son of Sam' murders were taking place. Unless you lived through something like this, you don't know what real terror is when persons were being murdered at random. The eventual killer had no direct connection to any of the victims or locations where the murders took place.The investigation involved hundreds of NYC police and detectives and was eventually solved thorough a tip by someone in who lived near the final crime location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz

In the Koh Tao crimes, people are saying that the crimes were committed by the family who owned the bar and the hotel where the victims last stayed and the bodies were left practically on their front porch. Maybe so and if persons want to say they know for certain who did it that is up to them.

Edited June 10, 2016 by JLCrab

[Moonsterk]

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.

Chiang Rai times is just a snip and paste publication, just like Samui Times and simply quotes the 23rd PBS article and Google simply links to those cut and paste articles.

I'll add the owner and editor of Samui Times Ms. Buchanan is in no way an impartial journalist and is emotionally involved with the convicted calling them on her public posts via a personal FB page "my boys".

She has further made a public statement quoted on Andrew Drummond she has returned to UK in order to fight for their release pro-bonio [sic- (freudian?)] (unencumbered by libel laws, no doubt.)

Boiler room scams have not gotten anything deleted, both links are still active.

Sept 23 PBS

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run/

Sept 24 PBS (correcting some assertions in the 23rd)

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-twist-murder-two-brits-koh-tao/

[Khun Han]

I am coming round to the possibility that the RTP (for all their faults) were aware/were informed that migrant workers were also part of the attack gang they just chose the wrong two to be scapegoats (albeit they might not have known who they were). And that would explain Ian Millers statement migrant workers could have been among those who attacked David (while this forum's consensus is that one or more Thai thugs attacked and killed Hannah).

From the B2's perspective, they would definitely have more to fear from Burmese perps reprisals (in their home country) against their families if they mentioned names, than informing on any Thai -- that would be ignored. Perhaps that's why their alibi is as weak as the court stated - they were protecting their families.

Which leads to the obvious question - why couldn't it have been the B2? I have little doubt that the Mounties got the wrong men and their attempts to pin it on the B2 is clearly not backed up with any verifiable evidence. Cops being cops,and lazy, preferred going down that route rather than trying to pin it on other migrant workers - not least because Thai thugs were also probably involved.

Well, it's over to you guys...

I'm sorry stephen, but your post doesn't make any sense. If the police were aware or were informed that migrant workers were involved in the attack, that information could only have come from a witness to the attack or a reliable informant who had been told by a migrant attacker of their involvement. And thus the police would know the migrant attackers' identities.Any other scenario puts us back in the realms of speculation. So if the police had reliable witness information as to who these migrant attackers were, why didn't they present this irrefutable evidence at any point? It'd be a slam dunk. And, if this 'slam dunk' was not available to them, why would it explain Ian Miller's statement?

It's my understanding that one of Mon's right-hand men (the other Maung Maung) is Burmese, so it's easy to paint a scenario of tentacles reaching into Myanmar from that direction.

And what's with the small case typing? You always use standard case. Something's not quite right about your above post.

My speculative scenario would include the intervention of Mon. Maybe (during his meeting with Panya with his Headman brother) he brokered a deal to lay off their family (including him) and in return point Panya in the migrant workers direction. No specifics but, 'interrogate the ones on the beach playing music', would suffice. I wouldn't think it would matter to Mon which migrant workers were arrested, they were expendable. From Panya's POV, Mon would have been regarded as a more 'reliable' informant than others who tried to derail the initial investigation.

Or it might just have been pressure put upon Panya (from above) to arrest someone, but not any influential Thais.

In view of the fact that Panya had evidences definitely linking members of their family to the murders, it would have to be a deal that was brokered using pressure from above Panya, or plain old bribery, or a combination of both - the sudden promotion (my own view, when you look at Somyot's involvement). So the situation in this scenario is still no different to the one put forward by the vast majority following this case.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Khun Han

[Moonsterk]

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.

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.

Those articles are still up as I have just posted. No conspiracy to hide them.

if the 23rd article statements are being used in arguments to refute the conviction, surely the 24th article which contradicts the 23rd is relevant on this thread.

[Moonsterk]

In view of the fact that Panya had evidences definitely linking members of their family to the murders, it would have to be a deal that was brokered using pressure from above Panya, or plain old bribery, or a combination of both - the sudden promotion (my own view, when you look at Somyot's involvement). So the situation in this scenario is still no different to the one put forward by the vast majority following this case.

This is another way misinformation and innuendo are the backbone of the defense of the convicted.

" Vast majority.." means respondents to a poll on Thai visa - a forum for Thai based expats.

Any first year stat student could tell you this is in no way representative of a population.

Indeed a post some pages back recommended ...

" In order to not confuse newbies just post in response to any questions 92% of 'a poll' think the B-2 are innocent..."

I could draw some comparisons to say.. religious beliefs. I think the ratio of believers to non is about the same- doesn't prove it though.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Moonsterk

[Moonsterk]

My speculative scenario would include the intervention of Mon. Maybe (during his meeting with Panya with his Headman brother) he brokered a deal to lay off their family (including him) and in return point Panya in the migrant workers direction. No specifics but, 'interrogate the ones on the beach playing music', would suffice. I wouldn't think it would matter to Mon which migrant workers were arrested, they were expendable. From Panya's POV, Mon would have been regarded as a more 'reliable' informant than others who tried to derail the initial investigation.

Or it might just have been pressure put upon Panya (from above) to arrest someone, but not any influential Thais.

Snippet;

BTW, this thread is about the B2's unfair trial and subsequent conviction. Please keep on topic.

Again to the interested reader, observe this blatant double standard of discourse.

Above is offered pure speculation very much off topic, and then admonishing my posting as " off topic " of a link that has been mentioned again and again as " removed " by some conspiracy out to unjustly frame the convicted.

[xylophone]

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....

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.

If there is no DNA or prints from the convicted on the handle of a murder weapon, it is hardly beyond belief that a cloth was used. That is fairly standard behavior for criminals to hold weapons in such a manner, or wipe them down after the crime.

That is not correct about the DNA- " All used up... not available..." that misinformation is a mainstay of a social group's defense - and I would point out such claim is not in the appeal document.

Point 7 is what was presented to the judges a condensed version of a highly technical report was acceptable to them under Thai law.

While you are entitled to belittle my posts, please remember I write for the reader who has not made up his mind - not you.

I have absolutely no desire to have this thread closed, instead I very much wish to convince that fence sitting reader of my viewpoint. To close the thread on this forum allows the misinformation to proliferate unabated on the heavily censored FB groups and pages,

I am not trying to belittle your posts, however I am totally exasperated at your grasp of some of the points mentioned and I will repeat one so that you can see what I'm trying to focus on: – "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".

Nobody has any problem with the judges receiving a condensed version of anything, but with that must come proof that the evidence and DNA was collected in a way as to meet the ISO standards and procedures, and that did not happen. Following a due process is necessary to ensure that evidence is collected in a way which is recognised to be fair, legal and that the procedure stands scrutiny. Nothing of the sort was provided and nothing of the sort has ever been proven to exist.

And in a later post you suggest that the police asked Mon to help them out with the investigation and I and just about everybody else on here, even the "pro-guilty" folks, will tell you that is an absolute no-no. No amount of "good intent" can hide the fact that he was untrained and therefore should not have been interacting in a crime scene.

Furthermore and to back my statement up, Thailand’s forensics chief, Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, has said that by not using trained specialists, “police contradicted the principles of forensic science.”

Also the defendants’ lawyers criticised police handling of the case during cross examination, accusing officers of failing to secure the crime scene and that the scene was contaminated immediately after the discovery of the bodies; myriad officials, journalists and even bewildered tourists were seen traipsing through the area while evidence was still being gathered.......and Mr Miller’s body was moved before medics or a forensic team arrived……….

And as for the "used up" scenario.........."On July 10, the bench again ordered the DNA to be retested, only for the police to reveal that certain key samples — specifically those retrieved from the victims’ bodies — had been used up".

Your posts are not being belittled, it's just that they don't seem to fully appreciate the situation to which they refer.

In a fair and unbiased court of law the case would have been thrown out, but then no one has ever suggested that in Thailand the police or the courts of law are fair and unbiased (that they are corrupt is known) and this comes even more into focus when Junta chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha enraged many by hinting that the blame, at some level, lay with the attractive victims. “Will [tourists] survive in Thailand if they dress in bikinis?” he asked on Sept. 17. He added that they would if “they are not beautiful.”

And of course he congratulated the police on doing a great job, and as you well know "face" in Thailand is everything so the chance of the two Burmese getting a fair trial after that was just about zero and that has proven to be the case.

[Moonsterk]

If there is no DNA or prints from the convicted on the handle of a murder weapon, it is hardly beyond belief that a cloth was used. That is fairly standard behavior for criminals to hold weapons in such a manner, or wipe them down after the crime.

That is not correct about the DNA- " All used up... not available..." that misinformation is a mainstay of a social group's defense - and I would point out such claim is not in the appeal document.

Point 7 is what was presented to the judges a condensed version of a highly technical report was acceptable to them under Thai law.

While you are entitled to belittle my posts, please remember I write for the reader who has not made up his mind - not you.

I have absolutely no desire to have this thread closed, instead I very much wish to convince that fence sitting reader of my viewpoint. To close the thread on this forum allows the misinformation to proliferate unabated on the heavily censored FB groups and pages,

I am not trying to belittle your posts, however I am totally exasperated at your grasp of some of the points mentioned and I will repeat one so that you can see what I'm trying to focus on: – "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".

Nobody has any problem with the judges receiving a condensed version of anything, but with that must come proof that the evidence and DNA was collected in a way as to meet the ISO standards and procedures, and that did not happen. Following a due process is necessary to ensure that evidence is collected in a way which is recognised to be fair, legal and that the procedure stands scrutiny. Nothing of the sort was provided and nothing of the sort has ever been proven to exist.

And in a later post you suggest that the police asked Mon to help them out with the investigation and I and just about everybody else on here, even the "pro-guilty" folks, will tell you that is an absolute no-no. No amount of "good intent" can hide the fact that he was untrained and therefore should not have been interacting in a crime scene.

Furthermore and to back my statement up, Thailand’s forensics chief, Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, has said that by not using trained specialists, “police contradicted the principles of forensic science.”

Also the defendants’ lawyers criticised police handling of the case during cross examination, accusing officers of failing to secure the crime scene and that the scene was contaminated immediately after the discovery of the bodies; myriad officials, journalists and even bewildered tourists were seen traipsing through the area while evidence was still being gathered.......and Mr Miller’s body was moved before medics or a forensic team arrived……….

And as for the "used up" scenario.........."On July 10, the bench again ordered the DNA to be retested, only for the police to reveal that certain key samples — specifically those retrieved from the victims’ bodies — had been used up".

Your posts are not being belittled, it's just that they don't seem to fully appreciate the situation to which they refer.

In a fair and unbiased court of law the case would have been thrown out, but then no one has ever suggested that in Thailand the police or the courts of law are fair and unbiased (that they are corrupt is known) and this comes even more into focus when Junta chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha enraged many by hinting that the blame, at some level, lay with the attractive victims. “Will [tourists] survive in Thailand if they dress in bikinis?” he asked on Sept. 17. He added that they would if “they are not beautiful.”

And of course he congratulated the police on doing a great job, and as you well know "face" in Thailand is everything so the chance of the two Burmese getting a fair trial after that was just about zero and that has proven to be the case.

I appreciate your civil reply and understand you are making reasoned points. I disagree with them because I think you are basing them on erred info that has been processed into " facts"

-For instance Dr Porntip has taken a lot of flack on this very forum for backing the GT 200 bomb sniffers that was- at that time, widely believed to show her as incompetent. ( maybe 92% thought so..? )

-She also is an avid, outspoken and famous activist against Thai police and her opinions on such must take that into consideration

-She writes and sells books ( publicity seekers abound on this case... )

-While she is a forensic doctor, her specialty is not DNA, there is a difference.

Lastly, as this is all I have time for today, as you mention the current leader, let me mention it he who reinstated her position, the last elected govt fired her.

I cannot use Prayuth's admittedly shockingly stupid comments for or against my argument but I will say they were based on a completely erred report in Phuketwan ( now defunct) where a reporter apparently mistook Witheridge's impressive tan lines for a bikini top. That report also stated , erroneously Miller had semen in his rectum- the report was deleted without correction- and that is exactly the sort of journalism I have seen time and again quoted as fact in this case.

[xylophone]

I am not trying to belittle your posts, however I am totally exasperated at your grasp of some of the points mentioned and I will repeat one so that you can see what I'm trying to focus on: – "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".

Nobody has any problem with the judges receiving a condensed version of anything, but with that must come proof that the evidence and DNA was collected in a way as to meet the ISO standards and procedures, and that did not happen. Following a due process is necessary to ensure that evidence is collected in a way which is recognised to be fair, legal and that the procedure stands scrutiny. Nothing of the sort was provided and nothing of the sort has ever been proven to exist.

And in a later post you suggest that the police asked Mon to help them out with the investigation and I and just about everybody else on here, even the "pro-guilty" folks, will tell you that is an absolute no-no. No amount of "good intent" can hide the fact that he was untrained and therefore should not have been interacting in a crime scene.

Furthermore and to back my statement up, Thailand’s forensics chief, Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, has said that by not using trained specialists, “police contradicted the principles of forensic science.”

Also the defendants’ lawyers criticised police handling of the case during cross examination, accusing officers of failing to secure the crime scene and that the scene was contaminated immediately after the discovery of the bodies; myriad officials, journalists and even bewildered tourists were seen traipsing through the area while evidence was still being gathered.......and Mr Miller’s body was moved before medics or a forensic team arrived……….

And as for the "used up" scenario.........."On July 10, the bench again ordered the DNA to be retested, only for the police to reveal that certain key samples — specifically those retrieved from the victims’ bodies — had been used up".

Your posts are not being belittled, it's just that they don't seem to fully appreciate the situation to which they refer.

In a fair and unbiased court of law the case would have been thrown out, but then no one has ever suggested that in Thailand the police or the courts of law are fair and unbiased (that they are corrupt is known) and this comes even more into focus when Junta chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha enraged many by hinting that the blame, at some level, lay with the attractive victims. “Will [tourists] survive in Thailand if they dress in bikinis?” he asked on Sept. 17. He added that they would if “they are not beautiful.”

And of course he congratulated the police on doing a great job, and as you well know "face" in Thailand is everything so the chance of the two Burmese getting a fair trial after that was just about zero and that has proven to be the case.

I appreciate your civil reply and understand you are making reasoned points. I disagree with them because I think you are basing them on erred info that has been processed into " facts"

-For instance Dr Porntip has taken a lot of flack on this very forum for backing the GT 200 bomb sniffers that was- at that time, widely believed to show her as incompetent. ( maybe 92% thought so..? )

-She also is an avid, outspoken and famous activist against Thai police and her opinions on such must take that into consideration

-She writes and sells books ( publicity seekers abound on this case... )

-While she is a forensic doctor, her specialty is not DNA, there is a difference.

Lastly, as this is all I have time for today, as you mention the current leader, let me mention it he who reinstated her position, the last elected govt fired her.

I cannot use Prayuth's admittedly shockingly stupid comments for or against my argument but I will say they were based on a completely erred report in Phuketwan ( now defunct) where a reporter apparently mistook Witheridge's impressive tan lines for a bikini top. That report also stated , erroneously Miller had semen in his rectum- the report was deleted without correction- and that is exactly the sort of journalism I have seen time and again quoted as fact in this case.

I won't comment again on the shocking comments of the leader, because they say everything you need to know about the place.

The fact that Dr Pornthip is an outspoken critic of the Thai police is not really surprising, mainly because they have proven to be corrupt and inept in the past and have not followed procedures as they should have done, so say what you like, that does not detract from the truth about their process and procedures in this case.......that they were inept, did not follow standards as laid down by their own ISO body and so much more as already stated.

Furthermore this is backed up by Thai political analyst Saksith Saiyasombut, when he stated:- “That the victims were tourists automatically drew more attention,” says . “And the shambolic investigation also didn’t help.”. He also stated "It remains an open secret that organised crime is rampant on these islands".

I don't want to keep on going round and round, but there is overwhelming evidence of crime scene contamination and if you care to look on Google for a few hours, you will be able to sort out the facts from the fiction with regards to crime scene contamination and you will also come across the fact that David's body was actually moved (stated by the police before the investigation even began), notwithstanding the fact that the original police doctor arrived at 8 a.m. and had a look "with my eyes", only to go away and come back two hours later when all and sundry had been traipsing around the place.

And I will sign off with this because it is surely the single biggest aspect of this whole farce: – there is nothing, absolutely nothing to prove that the two Burmese murdered these unfortunate tourists. No concrete evidence, no fingerprints, no witness and no provable DNA other than a piece of paper which says that some was collected, which is not acceptable in any court in the world as far as I know.

Add in the corrupt reputation of the police and legal system and the saving face aspect and you have every reason to suspect that the case was bought and paid for way before the trial got underway.