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

[Khun Han]

Courts only convict on compelling evidence, never on speculation. Speculating about why someone would go for a midnight swim, without any corroborating evidence, is not the remotest, tiniest bit compelling for any resonable court of law. But I'm getting dragged into someone's deliberate obfuscation again. Silly me!

[TheLobster]

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.

There's plenty of evidence, just not evidence of the right sort. You forgot the blond hair, probably one of the most compelling pieces of evidence but it was not of the right sort. BTW either of the B2 have blond hair?

[JLCrab]

Courts only convict on compelling evidence, never on speculation. Speculating about why someone would go for a midnight swim, without any corroborating evidence, is not the remotest, tiniest bit compelling for any resonable court of law. But I'm getting dragged into someone's deliberate obfuscation again. Silly me!

That was the Court's decision. If the defense doesn't don't like it they can appeal however the almost 200 page defense appeal seems not to have questioned the opinion of the court as to the destruction of evidence. Maybe next time before the defense submits any documents, they will check with you first as you know what reasonable Courts actually do and do not.

[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.

There's plenty of evidence, just not evidence of the right sort. You forgot the blond hair, probably one of the most compelling pieces of evidence but it was not of the right sort. BTW either of the B2 have blond hair?

We could go on and on and on about the evidence which doesn't point to the B2, and all the suspicious goings on and behaviours by people not on trial (that a judge using the logic used in interpreting the midnight swim could have a field day with). But it's clear to honest observers that the corruption in this case stops all that from happening. The defence team have always been treading on broken glass in their endeavours: They have had to choose their words, line of defence and appeal more than carefully in order to keep the B2 and their case alive in the face of such hostile corruption.

[JLCrab]

What do you mean we could go on and on? -- you already have gone on and on. The Court offered their opinion. You are saying that the Court does not have the right to offer an opinion because in your opinion the opinion of the Court is not reasonable. So when you are in charge things will be different because you know how reasonable Courts function.

The next event is when -- or if -- the Prosecution decides to respond to the Defense appeal. You are not an event.

[Khun Han]

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?

'Losing' Hannah's clothes is just inexcusable. This is the one corrupt action that really stands out among all the other corrupt actions by the investigating police. In an uncorrupted court, this would be an outrage, and would on it's own result in the collapse of the case. But not here: All together now judges, stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la".

[JLCrab]

La La LA LA LA LA means I love you

The things I am sayin' are true
And the way I explain them to you
Listen to me

-- on and on and on you keep explaining them and saying the same things over and over which may be subject for an appeal. That's how it works in officialdom. You are not just questioning the written opinion of the Judges which is fine -- you are questioning whether they have the right to make that decision which they do.

[Khun Han]

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".[/size]

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.

"all and sundry had been traipsing around the place"

And one man had been traipsing around the place since the crack of dawn:

He was named as a suspect few days later by the chief investigating officer after "evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved".

His defenders have tried to suggest that he'd been appointed as some kind of sherriff's deputy, and that entitled him to contaminate and even re-arrange the crime scene before the police appointed doctor arrived .

[JLCrab]

OK I'll bite -- so what was the evidence collected that proved the involvement of the two suspects named in the 23SEP PBS article? That after 9 days the Police maybe talked with people and everybody knew who did it? Why didn't the hard hitting reporter from PBS say: Oh yeah? And just what evidence is that that proves they were involved?

The 23 SEP article also quotes Panya as saying: "He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders."

BOTH suspects on CCTV. And he showed the CCTV video to the PBS reporter just to make sure that he was making an accurate statement and the PBS reporter said Well that video sure locks up the perps tight as a drum.

[stephenterry]

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?

'Losing' Hannah's clothes is just inexcusable. This is the one corrupt action that really stands out among all the other corrupt actions by the investigating police. In an uncorrupted court, this would be an outrage, and would on it's own result in the collapse of the case. But not here: All together now judges, stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la".

I understand that the RTP said they had 'enough' DNA evidence from the body samples that matched the B2. Therefore it was not necessary to examine and test the clothes, and that is why they were not presented to the court. Complete B/S, but nothing the defence could do about it as its absence did not implicate the B2.

As to the blond hair found (allegedly) clutched in Hannah's hand that didn't have either of the B2's DNA (according to the defence lawyer), and therefore not included in the appeal, non-swear words fail me for sheer defence incompetence and failure to think through the logic.

If the court could take into account dubious behaviour by the B2 swimming to destroy evidence, then even pond life judges would conclude (beyond reasonable doubt) that the reason that the hair was found in Hannah's hand was because it came from the person who was attacking her. This, added to the discredited DNA evidence should be enough to seal the B2's appeal in the defence's favour - as should occur when the case gets to the BBK supreme court.

Forget this Regional 8 appeal, they won't change the convictions, maybe only the sentences.

[JLCrab]

But if the clutched blond hair -- of what length or whether it is dyed or natural blond they TTBOMK never say -- does not belong to the B2 or either of the victims, it also then would not belong to everyone's favorite real killer either.

That it might belong to someone else has already been categorized as a weak argument.

But as long as we're in scenario-mode, the hair cannot be said with any certainty to have belonged to the attacker. The hair, especially if is a natural blond hair of a certain length, could belong to a fellow female traveler who found the dying Ms. Witheridge and tried to comfort her at which point the victim grabbed the comforter extracting hair and the comforter, by this time extremely frightened, fled the scene never to return or offer any information as to what transpired or what she saw as to who may have committed these crimes.

[stephenterry]

But if the clutched blond hair -- of what length or whether it is dyed or natural blond they TTBOMK never say -- does not belong to the B2 or either of the victims, it also then would not belong to everyone's favorite real killer either.

That it might belong to someone else has already been categorized as a weak argument.

But as long as we're in scenario-mode, the hair cannot be said with any certainty to have belonged to the attacker. The hair, especially if is a natural blond hair of a certain length, could belong to a fellow female traveler who found the dying Ms. Witheridge and tried to comfort her at which point the victim grabbed the comforter extracting hair and the comforter, by this time extremely frightened, fled the scene never to return or offer any information as to what transpired or what she saw as to who may have committed these crimes.

No, don't buy that, because it is factual that Hannah was attacked and killed. Thus, it is more probable that the hair came from the attacker than from anyone else. It could have been a female attacker, if you want to speculate. That's no more a weak argument than the B2 swimming to destroy evidence (which was used against them by the court).

While some of your posts make good points, this is not one of them, because the speculative logic is faulty, as is the speculative outcome. That's not personal, BTW, just my opinion. As is yours with mine, hopefully.

[JLCrab]

Probable: Yes. Certain: No.

That the swimming to destroy evidence was an opinion of the Court. The Court is allowed to offer an opinion and they said that, to them, the swimming does not make sense other than as an effort to destroy evidence. You have your opinions but you are not the Court.

And if you want to say with near certainty that the killer or one of the killers had blond hair, that sorta rules out a lot of persons who did not on that date have blond hair.

[Bkk Brian]

I fail to see how the blond hair rules anyone out of being involved in some way. What it does is rule somebody in, an as yet unknown assailant. Be that male or female, Asian or Caucasian nobody knows since the evidence is no longer available.

It does make a complete mockery of the investigation and trial that is the only certainty.

[JLCrab]

I fail to see how the blond hair rules anyone out of being involved in some way. What it does is rule somebody in, an as yet unknown assailant. Be that male or female, Asian or Caucasian nobody knows since the evidence is no longer available.

It does make a complete mockery of the investigation and trial that is the only certainty.

It rules out in the case of one sole attacker if the sole attacker did not have blond hair. If there was more than one attacker then someone can be one of the attackers other than the one with the blond hair. But everybody's favorite attacker of note did not have blond hair.

[canuckamuck]

But everyone's favorite attacker has friends and we all know how things are done here. No one on ones. Three on one minimum odds or no courage to act..

[JLCrab]

But everyone's favorite attacker has friends and we all know how things are done here. No one on ones. Three on one minimum odds or no courage to act..... and with at least three at least one of them would have blond hair naturally or o

But with at least three one of them would certainly be a blond natural or otherwise -- but of course we girls never tell

[Khun Han]

Why does blonde hair on Koh Tao have to equate to being a tourist?

This man works as a DJ at intouch bar:

And this woman is a Koh Tao local and a friend of Nomsod:

I also recall Facebook photos from the infamous bad taste post-murders Koh Tao party, with a blonde Thai woman pretending to bury a toy hoe in inother Thai woman's head whilst laughing.

[JLCrab]

Well if it is a natural and not dyed blond it would most likely be a tourist and it seems not to have been determined whether it is natural or dyed. But no problem -- send out the posse and round up all the phony blonds.

But if we could just see the video that Kuhn Panya says that the had 23 SEP 2014 all this specyoolatin' about who was the blond whose hair was found could be put to rest because he has proof the the actual perps are BOTH shown in the video that he told the PBS reporter about to which you have linked about half a dozen times as game, set, & match.

But hey -- you've got your phony blond photos here is a photo typical of all the blonds who come to Koh Tao this one from yesterday 12 JUN 2016 --as I said to the gent above there is still no way to tell for certain that the blond hair in quesion is directly linked to any of the perps or that the blond hair was natural or dyed.

[dick dasterdly]

I fail to see how the blond hair rules anyone out of being involved in some way. What it does is rule somebody in, an as yet unknown assailant. Be that male or female, Asian or Caucasian nobody knows since the evidence is no longer available.

It does make a complete mockery of the investigation and trial that is the only certainty.

It rules out in the case of one sole attacker if the sole attacker did not have blond hair. If there was more than one attacker then someone can be one of the attackers other than the one with the blond hair. But everybody's favorite attacker of note did not have blond hair.

Does anyone think that there was only one sole "attacker" responsible for these murders? I'm not understanding your point.

[JLCrab]

Makes no difference -- everyone seems to think that they know who was at least one of the attackers. And now people seem to think at least one of the attackers must have been a blond. But the more people invoked the more people who have to be kept quiet.

But you may remember from the SamuiTimes article linked on Post #1 of this topic:

There is no evidence to suggest the female victim was raped ...

So what were all these other attackers doing the whole time?

[dick dasterdly]

Makes no difference -- everyone seems to think that they know who was at least one of the attackers. And now people seem to think at least one of the attackers must have been a blond. But the more people invoked the more people who have to be kept quiet.

If Hannah had a blonde hair in her hand, it seems likely that an attacker had blonde hair - natural or dyed?

[JLCrab]

Makes no difference -- everyone seems to think that they know who was at least one of the attackers. And now people seem to think at least one of the attackers must have been a blond. But the more people invoked the more people who have to be kept quiet.

If Hannah had a blonde hair in her hand, it seems likely that an attacker had blonde hair - natural or dyed?

Likely doesn't cut it if one can make a plausible case that it was someone other than a attacker including one who may have come to try to aid the late Ms. Witheridge after the attackers had left. But if you want to say it was the attacker, then again, that attacker could not be the one that every says was at least one of the attackers and now you are making the case for multiple attackers none of whom anyone on here has speculated as to their identity while they have no problem speculating as to the one person's identity and who might have not even been there.

I said way before the trial began in June 2015 that it was possible that the perpetrators of these crimes were not the B2 and not persons related to the family that owned the properties 'across the street' but other persons who went back to their hotels and calmly checked out in the morning and left the island before the island went on lock-down but that suggestion was hooted down.

But now you can't even tell if the blond hair that is claimed to indeed be that of the murderer's was even a natural or dyed blond hair and I would venture that any Thai with blond hair would have dyed hair and not natural.

[TheLobster]

If Hannah had a blonde hair in her hand, it seems likely that an attacker had blonde hair - natural or dyed?

That seems logical to me but I'm not a Crab or a judge

[JLCrab]

If Hannah had a blonde hair in her hand, it seems likely that an attacker had blonde hair - natural or dyed?

That seems logical to me but I'm not a Crab or a judge

... or Kuhn Panya at least as of 23 SEP 2014:

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

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon. He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said. He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

Neither had blond hair.

[canuckamuck]

Makes no difference -- everyone seems to think that they know who was at least one of the attackers. And now people seem to think at least one of the attackers must have been a blond. But the more people invoked the more people who have to be kept quiet.

If Hannah had a blonde hair in her hand, it seems likely that an attacker had blonde hair - natural or dyed?

Likely doesn't cut it if one can make a plausible case that it was someone other than a attacker including one who may have come to try to aid the late Ms. Witheridge after the attackers had left. But if you want to say it was the attacker, then again, that attacker could not be the one that every says was at least one of the attackers and now you are making the case for multiple attackers none of whom anyone on here has speculated as to their identity while they have no problem speculating as to the one person's identity and who might have not even been there.

I said way before the trial began in June 2015 that it was possible that the perpetrators of these crimes were not the B2 and not persons related to the family that owned the properties 'across the street' but other persons who went back to their hotels and calmly checked out in the morning and left the island before the island went on lock-down but that suggestion was hooted down.

But now you can't even tell if the blond hair that is claimed to indeed be that of the murderer's was even a natural or dyed blond hair and I would venture that any Thai with blond hair would have dyed hair and not natural.

Considering the condition Ms. Witheridge was left in. I have serious doubts she was alive even moments after the attack. Also the position she was in, suggests she was posed. Would someone who came to her aid, leave her in such a manner? And why was there no attempt to get her help if she was discovered still alive?

Actually, I think you are just getting a kick out of winding up posters as a devil's advocate.

[JLCrab]

Fine. If the 'real killers' were ever prosecuted and someone was on the witness stand and asked: Do you know for certain that the blond hairs belonged to one of the killers? They would have to say 'No -- probable maybe but not certain.'

But at least to Panya the two that he suspected of or arrested for the killings as of his PBS Sep 23 2014 statement did not have blond hair. So the Hoi Poloi here is now suggesting that at least of of the assailants had blond hair but no problem: Round up all the Thais on KT who had (dyed) blond hair on the date in question and one of them for sure must be one of the killers.

[joebrown]

I fail to see how the blond hair rules anyone out of being involved in some way. What it does is rule somebody in, an as yet unknown assailant. Be that male or female, Asian or Caucasian nobody knows since the evidence is no longer available.

It does make a complete mockery of the investigation and trial that is the only certainty.

It rules out in the case of one sole attacker if the sole attacker did not have blond hair. If there was more than one attacker then someone can be one of the attackers other than the one with the blond hair. But everybody's favorite attacker of note did not have blond hair.

Does anyone think that there was only one sole "attacker" responsible for these murders? I'm not understanding your point.

The RTP certainly think there was more than ! attacker, don't they?

[joebrown]

If Hannah had a blonde hair in her hand, it seems likely that an attacker had blonde hair - natural or dyed?

That seems logical to me but I'm not a Crab or a judge

... or Kuhn Panya at least as of 23 SEP 2014:

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

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon. He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said. He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

Neither had blond hair.

Have you ever even considered the 'owner/wearer' of the blonde hair might have been the last person to see Hannah alive? Your comments on this subject have about as much relevance as the depths of ineptitude or deflection the police demonstrated by never investigating the blonde hair, and then eventually losing it along with other items, eg. Hannah's clothes.

[IslandLover]

stephenterry, on 12 Jun 2016 - 07:46, said:

Khun Han, on 12 Jun 2016 - 05:01, said:

Bkk Brian, on 12 Jun 2016 - 03:14, said:

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.

The DNA outcome of the blonde hair was not discussed in court because it was stated early on that police forensics were unable to extract any DNA from it. However, it was revealed in court that the blonde hair still had the root attached! In western countries, it is perfectly possible to extract DNA from a hair sample with the root attached.