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

[Khun Han]

I do wish posters would refrain from quoting that bloody woman. She is the only member of this forum I have on my ignore list, but I find it difficult to resist reading replies to her from first class, honest posters. I couldn't help noticing her references to "Witheridge" and "Miller". I assume she refers to Hannah and David. I suppose it's so much easier to spam a forum discussion about a gruesome double murder with misinformation and diversions if you depersonalize the victims. Ugh!!! . Is she blaming Hannah and David for their deaths yet?

[Khun Han]

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

I don't normally reply to your obfuscations nowadays, but I just wanted to thank you for highlighting how quickly corruption works in Thailand when it comes from on high: from 'Proof of definite involvement' to 'Thank you for your co-operation, you can go home now' in the space of twenty four hours. Quite remarkable!!!

[Khun Han]

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?

He just wants to help the business owners on Koh Tao, even though he's never been there (have any of the 'B2 are guilty' brigade been to Koh Tao? They always seem to make a point of distancing themselves from any association with the place ).

[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:

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?

He just wants to help the business owners on Koh Tao, even though he's never been there (have any of the 'B2 are guilty' brigade been to Koh Tao? They always seem to make a point of distancing themselves from any association with the place ).

Thank you -- First you say it is a Freudian slip that in saying 'coming' to KT I must really be there then you say why do people always point out that they've never been there. I am waiting for a PM telling me that my all expenses paid vacation to Koh Tao is awaiting me any time I want. During the 'Son of Sam' terror a lot of young women were afraid to go out at night. Not so here even with the real killers of the loose and you-may-be-next.

But as long as you want to put me in the B2 are guilty brigade, fine. I'll just say that since the B2 have been locked up no one has been murdered on KT although I'll guess you'll then point out there have been 'suspicious' deaths but those aren't positively murder.

Edited June 10, 2016 by JLCrab

[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 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.

Not so. It's possible the b2 are protecting other migrants who could have been part of the gang who attacked David. It's also possible the Rtp were made aware of migrant involvement, but the wrong men were arrested and convicted.

It's one scenario that makes sense why their alibies are weak (fear of reprisals) and why the Rtp and Ian Miller believe the b2 were guilty despite no verifiable evidence to prove guilt.

This scenario doesn't exclude the possibility of Thai thugs attacking both victims, but that has been ignored by the Rtp. They have two culprits.

[Khun Han]

It's a plausible scenario stephen, but it's pure speculation. The B2 alibis are what they are: They claim a series of actions on the evening in question. And there is no corroborating evidence, or contradicting evidence that things happened any differently. We have an assortment of police speculations and then an annoucement from the investigation leader that they had evidences that two influential local Thais were definitely involved. There then followed a boatload of shenanigans (and the national police chef taking over the case) in which the two Thais were quicky 'cleared' in dodgy circumstances. The B2 were arrested and quickly confessed under pressure, and a 100% DNA match was quickly ascertained. Both the confessions and the DNA match are now utterly discredited, and all the other so-called evidence is dodgy to say the least. Amongst all this, there is nothing in the public arena that police had good evidence that Burmese were involved. To continue your speculation, if Mon pointed the police in that direction, it's a case of counting your fingers after shaking hands with that guy, and the police will know that. They would only take it seriously if the were being pressured to do so, or it was made worth their while, or both.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Khun Han

[JLCrab]

Maybe this will help others understand the above scenarios:

Edited June 11, 2016 by JLCrab

[cdnvic]

Removed some off topic posts. Remember that if you don't like the discussion, participation is not mandatory.

[Bkk Brian]

One of the many killer blows that destroys the credibility of the prosecution case is the blonde hairs. Blond hairs found in Hannah’s hand were confirmed in court to not belong to either of the victims or the accused. Since the hair was not evidence linking the accused to the crime, it was not included as part of the appeal. While it is direct evidence linking someone else to the crime, the question of who the hair belonged to remains a mystery and an important point, but not one the defense could use in the appeal..

Further suspicions on the blonde hair are roused by the police investigator lying in court about his meetings with the Thai coroner regards the hair.

I've read in previous posts explanations that the hair/s could have been from any number of people who had contact with the body, rescue workers and the like.

I'll state that if that was the case then it should have been investigated because there is also a strong likelihood that they came from someone Hannah was fending off.

[JLCrab]

So with all the analyses that must have been performed to determine that the blond hair did not belong to either the deceased or the defendants, was there never an analysis to determine whether the blond hair was a natural blond hair or a dyed blond hair or was that not determined to be significant or at least worthy of mention above.

[Bkk Brian]

An analysis on whether it was actually blonde or not seems not to have been undertaken in any scientific manner, with the coroner stating that he "thought it was blonde, it looked blonde to him".

[JLCrab]

An analysis on whether it was actually blonde or not seems not to have been undertaken in any scientific manner, with the coroner stating that he "thought it was blonde, it looked blonde to him".

So the dyed blond hair can't be ruled out which means that it was maybe someone with black hair dyed blond or maybe someone from Sweden.

Edited June 12, 2016 by JLCrab

[Bkk Brian]

An analysis on whether it was actually blonde or not seems not to have been undertaken in any scientific manner, with the coroner stating that he "thought it was blonde, it looked blonde to him".

So the dyed blond hair can't be ruled out which means that it was maybe someone with black hair dyed blond or maybe someone from Sweden.

Yep or perhaps even the mystery foreign woman caught on cctv found running from the scene. (never released cctv) if reports are to be believed. Without the necessary investigation all from that point onward is speculation

[JLCrab]

So as long as we're in speculation mode, the SEP 23, 2014 PBS article says of Kuhn Panya: "He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras ..."

The only CCTV I know of that has been released is the so-called 'running man' video which only shows one person whoever that person is or whether that person had anything to do with the crimes or not. So maybe there is some other 'never released CCTV' as above that shows BOTH suspects if the reports of Kuhn Panya are to believed.

[Khun Han]

One of the many killer blows that destroys the credibility of the prosecution case is the blonde hairs. Blond hairs found in Hannahs hand were confirmed in court to not belong to either of the victims or the accused. Since the hair was not evidence linking the accused to the crime, it was not included as part of the appeal. While it is direct evidence linking someone else to the crime, the question of who the hair belonged to remains a mystery and an important point, but not one the defense could use in the appeal..

Further suspicions on the blonde hair are roused by the police investigator lying in court about his meetings with the Thai coroner regards the hair.

I've read in previous posts explanations that the hair/s could have been from any number of people who had contact with the body, rescue workers and the like.

I'll state that if that was the case then it should have been investigated because there is also a strong likelihood that they came from someone Hannah was fending off.

Indeed Brian. The police officer who was cross examined about the lost hair perjured himself about his meetings with the coroner to discuss it. And then, astonishingly, he refused to answer further questions about it. This alone should have compromised the prosecution case, and would have at the very least been flagged up by the judge in his summing up in a first world court (and quite possibly resulted in him halting the trial). Not here: it was just 'swept under the carpet'. Breathtaking!!!

[stephenterry]

One of the many killer blows that destroys the credibility of the prosecution case is the blonde hairs. Blond hairs found in Hannahs hand were confirmed in court to not belong to either of the victims or the accused. Since the hair was not evidence linking the accused to the crime, it was not included as part of the appeal. While it is direct evidence linking someone else to the crime, the question of who the hair belonged to remains a mystery and an important point, but not one the defense could use in the appeal..

Further suspicions on the blonde hair are roused by the police investigator lying in court about his meetings with the Thai coroner regards the hair.

I've read in previous posts explanations that the hair/s could have been from any number of people who had contact with the body, rescue workers and the like.

I'll state that if that was the case then it should have been investigated because there is also a strong likelihood that they came from someone Hannah was fending off.

Indeed Brian. The police officer who was cross examined about the lost hair perjured himself about his meetings with the coroner to discuss it. And then, astonishingly, he refused to answer further questions about it. This alone should have compromised the prosecution case, and would have at the very least been flagged up by the judge in his summing up in a first world court (and quite possibly resulted in him halting the trial). Not here: it was just 'swept under the carpet'. Breathtaking!!!

Poor chap. He probably quoted the Thai equivalent of the 5th amendment. BKK Brian - please provide a link to that highlighted as I'm sure the DNA outcome of the blond hair was not discussed in court.

[stephenterry]

It's a plausible scenario stephen, but it's pure speculation. The B2 alibis are what they are: They claim a series of actions on the evening in question. And there is no corroborating evidence, or contradicting evidence that things happened any differently. We have an assortment of police speculations and then an annoucement from the investigation leader that they had evidences that two influential local Thais were definitely involved. There then followed a boatload of shenanigans (and the national police chef taking over the case) in which the two Thais were quicky 'cleared' in dodgy circumstances. The B2 were arrested and quickly confessed under pressure, and a 100% DNA match was quickly ascertained. Both the confessions and the DNA match are now utterly discredited, and all the other so-called evidence is dodgy to say the least. Amongst all this, there is nothing in the public arena that police had good evidence that Burmese were involved. To continue your speculation, if Mon pointed the police in that direction, it's a case of counting your fingers after shaking hands with that guy, and the police will know that. They would only take it seriously if the were being pressured to do so, or it was made worth their while, or both.

The issue with the B2 alibis, is that the defence failed to present one. Who, especially an Asian, would go for a swim in the early hours of a morning, unless there was a valid reason for doing so? The court judgement picked this up as being an implausible alibi, and I tend to agree without any clarification by the defence. Regrettably, this carries weight when it shouldn't without other corroborating/conflicting evidence.

So to repeat that their 'alibis are what they are' doesn't cut the mustard - and I hope the appeal includes a stronger version/explanation of their alibis. From what I've absorbed to date, there is no mention that aspect is part of the appeal, and if it isn't, it's a weak link that Region 8 appeal judges will continue to harp on about when the appeal is rejected, IMO.

Probably what will never be revealed is why the Millers accepted the prosecution's case when there was no verifiable evidence that was substantiated and validated. It had to be something else about the B2 (possibly David's phone allegations), because I'm sure they would be intelligent enough to realise the RTP's DNA case was crap.

[Bkk Brian]

One of the many killer blows that destroys the credibility of the prosecution case is the blonde hairs. Blond hairs found in Hannahs hand were confirmed in court to not belong to either of the victims or the accused. Since the hair was not evidence linking the accused to the crime, it was not included as part of the appeal. While it is direct evidence linking someone else to the crime, the question of who the hair belonged to remains a mystery and an important point, but not one the defense could use in the appeal..

Further suspicions on the blonde hair are roused by the police investigator lying in court about his meetings with the Thai coroner regards the hair.

I've read in previous posts explanations that the hair/s could have been from any number of people who had contact with the body, rescue workers and the like.

I'll state that if that was the case then it should have been investigated because there is also a strong likelihood that they came from someone Hannah was fending off.

Indeed Brian. The police officer who was cross examined about the lost hair perjured himself about his meetings with the coroner to discuss it. And then, astonishingly, he refused to answer further questions about it. This alone should have compromised the prosecution case, and would have at the very least been flagged up by the judge in his summing up in a first world court (and quite possibly resulted in him halting the trial). Not here: it was just 'swept under the carpet'. Breathtaking!!!

Poor chap. He probably quoted the Thai equivalent of the 5th amendment. BKK Brian - please provide a link to that highlighted as I'm sure the DNA outcome of the blond hair was not discussed in court.

No actually it was a quote directly from the defense lawyer

Blond hairs found in Hannah’s hand were confirmed in court to not belong to either of the victims or the accused. Since the hair was not evidence linking the accused to the crime, it was not included as part of the appeal. While it is direct evidence linking someone else to the crime, the question of who the hair belonged to remains a mystery and an important point, but not one the defense could use in the appeal.

[Khun Han]

It's a plausible scenario stephen, but it's pure speculation. The B2 alibis are what they are: They claim a series of actions on the evening in question. And there is no corroborating evidence, or contradicting evidence that things happened any differently. We have an assortment of police speculations and then an annoucement from the investigation leader that they had evidences that two influential local Thais were definitely involved. There then followed a boatload of shenanigans (and the national police chef taking over the case) in which the two Thais were quicky 'cleared' in dodgy circumstances. The B2 were arrested and quickly confessed under pressure, and a 100% DNA match was quickly ascertained. Both the confessions and the DNA match are now utterly discredited, and all the other so-called evidence is dodgy to say the least. Amongst all this, there is nothing in the public arena that police had good evidence that Burmese were involved. To continue your speculation, if Mon pointed the police in that direction, it's a case of counting your fingers after shaking hands with that guy, and the police will know that. They would only take it seriously if the were being pressured to do so, or it was made worth their while, or both.

The issue with the B2 alibis, is that the defence failed to present one. Who, especially an Asian, would go for a swim in the early hours of a morning, unless there was a valid reason for doing so? The court judgement picked this up as being an implausible alibi, and I tend to agree without any clarification by the defence. Regrettably, this carries weight when it shouldn't without other corroborating/conflicting evidence.

So to repeat that their 'alibis are what they are' doesn't cut the mustard - and I hope the appeal includes a stronger version/explanation of their alibis. From what I've absorbed to date, there is no mention that aspect is part of the appeal, and if it isn't, it's a weak link that Region 8 appeal judges will continue to harp on about when the appeal is rejected, IMO.

Probably what will never be revealed is why the Millers accepted the prosecution's case when there was no verifiable evidence that was substantiated and validated. It had to be something else about the B2 (possibly David's phone allegations), because I'm sure they would be intelligent enough to realise the RTP's DNA case was crap.

If you take the discredited DNA and phone evidence out the the equation, the alibi is irrelevant: No court in the world could get away with convicting someone of murder because they went skinny dipping late at night.

I very much doubt David's family have seen any evidence that isn't in the public domain. If it existed, it would have been presented to court to give much-needed credibility to the p1ss-poor prosecution case. It's my opinion that David's family believed that the Thai police were operating to similar standards of integrity to a first world police force, and believed the police about the DNA and phone evidence, which would make the conviction compelling for them.

[Khun Han]

By the way, Brian, it's my understanding that the hair in question was found clutched in Hannah's hand. It'd take a big stretch of the imagination to come up with a scenario of it getting there after her death. Though certain members of the 'guilty' brigade seem to specialise in such stretches.

[JLCrab]

<snip>

If you take the discredited DNA and phone evidence out the the equation, the alibi is irrelevant: No court in the world could get away with convicting someone of murder because they went skinny dipping late at night.

<snip2>

The Court did not say just that they did not believe that the B2 just decided to go skinny dipping. The Court said in their summary that

"This gives rise to the belief that their behaviour must instead have been conducted in a way to destroy evidence on the bodies of both the Defendants."

Destruction of evidence is a crime in itself in most courts in the world and puts the alibi in a different legal light in most courts in the world.

[Bkk Brian]

The whereabouts of other significant evidence is also currently unknown. Hannah's clothes for instance that would likely have contained DNA and perhaps more hairs, the unbroken wine bottle seen on the beach just a couple of meters away from David's corpse. Where is this evidence? Why was it not produced in court?

[JLCrab]

The whereabouts of other significant evidence is also currently unknown. Hannah's clothes for instance that would likely have contained DNA and perhaps more hairs, the unbroken wine bottle seen on the beach just a couple of meters away from David's corpse. Where is this evidence? Why was it not produced in court?

Beats me -- I just quoted the report from discredited officialdom that the behavior of the accused was a direct attempt to destroy evidence.

[Khun Han]

And, of course, any court in the world would need corroborating evidence that there was any evidence to destroy by going for a swim. In this case there is none, and all the evidence is discredited, so there should be no case to answer. But honest observers have noted that corruption ensures that the macabre farce continues.

[Khun Han]

Hope this isn't considered too offtopic:

http://www.irrawaddy.com/burma/parallels-drawn-between-ranong-murder-koh-tao-case.html

[JLCrab]

And, of course, any court in the world would need corroborating evidence that there was any evidence to destroy by going for a swim. In this case there is none, and all the evidence is discredited, so there should be no case to answer. But honest observers have noted that corruption ensures that the macabre farce continues.

Fine -- but this is Thai\land. That was the opinion of the judges and in the summary of the defense appeal as prepared by Kuhn Bergman, there is no mention of the judges conclusion that the behavior of the B2 was consistent with an attempt to destroy evidence.

Edited June 12, 2016 by JLCrab

[Khun Han]

And, as I have said previously, take away the discredited evidence and there is nothing. The alibi as a stand-alone item becomes a non-issue because there is nothing to contradict it, and no court could reasonably convict on such a thing. Unless there was corruption involved, of course.

[JLCrab]

Are you a lawyer? Why do you keep making these "No Court anywhere ..." statements. A court may believe that there was no corroborating evidence because the defendants destroyed all the corroborating evidence. In the US there have been murder convictions where the victim's body was destroyed or dumped at sea. There are "consciousness of guilt" provisions whereby a prosecutor can make a claim that such actions would only be undertaken by someone who is guilty of the charged crimes. In not every case is a murder weapon recovered or processable DNA or fingerprints or any other tangible evidence.

So I don't know that your 'No Court would" type statements reasonably hold up under all circumstances regardless of what's going on in this one.

Edited June 12, 2016 by JLCrab

[Khun Han]

No evidence = pure speculation = no case = no court will convict (unless corruption is involved). And that's without taking into account all the police shenanigans such as perjury, 'losing' key evidence, switching key evidence, 'couldn't afford' a 20 baht CD disc to show photos of the crime scene (which contradicted their own witness statements - more perjury), etc,etc, etc.......which would result in any un-corrupt court throwing the case out and recommending the prosecution of assorted police officers.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Khun Han

[JLCrab]

So why don't you just click your heels together and say "Chain of Custody" 3 times and maybe you'll be back in Kansas where everything should go as you think. Courts have convicted with no body recovered so I don't see what you are going on about.