Injustice echoes from all sides two years after Koh Tao murders

[greenchair]

7 hours ago, DiscoDan said:

The so called shoddy work got a conviction meanwhile the farang defense team are blaming each over for the guilty verdict, claiming that Jane Taupin should have been called and why the defense did not do anything to try and debunk the dna results.

 

As of today 

 

You have  Andy Hall awaiting a courts verdict for defamation (telling lies)

 

The Barrister Robert Holmes accused of being convicted of a million dollar fraud back in Australia, and allegations made by Perth property lawyer Ian Yarwood  that he stole 5K Aussie dollars meant for the defense.

 

Perth property lawyer Ian Yarwood has been accused of plagiarizing the defense teams letter and sending it to the labs without permission .

 

So maybe you should tell me why I should trust Andy Hall Robert Holmes and Ian Yarwood over the Millers ?

 

What is the article that says rob Holmes stole 5000 dollars? ??

[DiscoDan]

11 minutes ago, greenchair said:

What is the article that says rob Holmes stole 5000 dollars? ??

It's in the Samui times or you can look at @ianyarwood_law on twitter 

[robertthebruce]

can't believe it's two years , time flys.

 

for sure there families  are still grieving....

 

sad that these two innocent  Boys are still in Prison....

 

injustice....

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, DiscoDan said:

It's in the Samui times or you can look at @ianyarwood_law on twitter 

Just wow. Though I do believe at least one of them is guilty ,I have always wondered about the money generated in the campaign. I knew that it ran into the millions of baht, but I think very little was actually spent on the trial necessities. 

Guilty or not, they deserved a fair defence that they did not receive. Now if andy had not stepped in they would have pled guilty and received a half sentence. With the kings reductions they would have been out in 10 or 15 years. Basically the defense has added a good 20 years to their sentence. Though the crime was hideous, still the b2 were used as a campaign poster to generate funds  for unscrupulous people. 

[smedly]

9 hours ago, smedly said:

all this nonsense going on here when one important fact remains - no DNA = no conviction

 

As said before many times, without the original samples of DNA the prosecution case falls apart and has no legal basis, this is a fact, the judge might have decided to accept the police and prosecution presentation on DNA (up to him) but without the actual verified evidence it is not worth the paper it's written on - or scribble on as it turns out

 

May I also point out that the UK pathologist that examined Hanna's body made an unusual and profound statement about her findings - she found no evidence of rape, that statement would also mean no traces of sperm.

 

The evil scum that committed these haenous crimes staged the crime scene to make it look like sexual assault - I never believed that from the start, to me this was the work of a savage that at some point he and others were insulted by the victim, perhaps they rudely rebuked advances and someone lost face and this person or persons decided to seek retribution - people who think they are powerful don't like being refused, I believe Hannah was followed home from a bar and David just happened to come across the situation either also on his way home or heard it from his room, either way he arrived at the scene and got involved unfortunately, I am not so sure about the headman son being involved but there are other evils in that place.

 

Another "fact" that continues to trouble me is how Mon the resort owner was able to notice the hoe was missing from under the tree (a considerable distance from the crime scene) and went looking for it to have it put back were it was supposed to be, this is all before the investigation had actually started and the hoe was found and determined as the possible weapon used in the murders and yet Mon knew it was missing - why at such an early stage would he even have considered it connected to the crime.

 

I also stated a few month back that I would not like to be in the shoes of the Rotti seller who served as an interpreter during the so called "interviews" with the accused, I said he was one of the people that could likely blow this case wide open, shortly after that he disappeared and is believed to be dead - go figure

 

and as for the phones - police said that this IMEI number match this phone - which phone ? the one found at the crime scene or the one found at the residence, either way both phones should have been in evidence and their details investigated and fully disclosed - one is still unaccounted for to this day - where is it

 

Where are Hannah's clothes ? critical evidence that apparently along with so called DNA evidence have disappeared all very convenient if you are making stuff up     

no evidence of rape includes no evidence of sperm, unless a rapist takes the time to use a condom ..............

[smedly]

5 hours ago, IslandLover said:

 

Since you have posted a link on this very forum to the Samui Times

and who is the Samui Times exactly, who are they funded by and why should anyone pay attention to what they have to say, like I have repeated many times AND I WILL KEEP REPEATING IT********************SHOW ME THE ORIGINAL DNA SAMPLES AND I MIGHT START TO BELIEVE*********************** if they cannot be produced then this case (by any standard that I am aware of on the planet) is dead and complete nonsense, over and over again and again ....you cannot just claim to have physical evidence unless you can show it and it can be verified on request especially DNA, a very simple concept to understand yet a few here don't get it, it is such a simple thing to produce considering that the claimed samples would be enormous and so many sources and samples taken .............. if they cannot be provided then this case is nonsense ................................ absolute nonsense, only a fool would think otherwise and it's not even complex to understand, if the prosecution have DNA original samples then produce them otherwise this whole thing is quite frankly as stupid as stupid gets..........

[smedly]

7 hours ago, bannork said:

 

BTW no evidence of rape doesn't mean no evidence of sperm.

it does to me and I am in the game - I know exactly what the UK pathologist was saying - and the fact she said it also speaks very loud to me, it was unpresidented that she spoke at all

 

but it matters not a jot, if a you want to base a case on physical evidence (DNA) then you better make sure you have it to produce when requested, that is fundamental and is recognised throughout the world but seemingly not in Thailand were you can just produce a scribble on paper and it is accepted - that it is so flawed it is unbelievable that a court anywhere in the world would just accept that - yes we found a match .........what ????????? it honestly doesn't work that way, any right minded person would understand this - yes this gun matched the bullet that killed that person - what gun ? oh we don't have it....really ? it is so stupid it is obsurd

[balo]

On 9/15/2016 at 1:17 PM, SoFarAndNear said:

Really? These two boys are kids

 

They are not kids but Burmese men in their 20's.  But lets pretenf they are kids so we can feel even more sorry for them , guilty or not. 

[balo]

On 9/15/2016 at 1:17 PM, SoFarAndNear said:

Really? These two boys are kids

 

They are not kids but Burmese men in their 20's.  But lets pretend they are kids so we can feel even more sorry for them , guilty or not. 

[balo]

On 9/15/2016 at 1:17 PM, SoFarAndNear said:

Really? These two boys are kids

 

They are not kids but Burmese men in their 20's.  But lets pretend they are kids so we can feel even more sorry for them , guilty or not. 

[balo]

On 9/15/2016 at 1:17 PM, SoFarAndNear said:

Really? These two boys are kids

 

They are not kids but Burmese men in their 20's.  But lets pretend they are kids so we can feel even more sorry for them , guilty or not. 

[balo]

Sorry something wrong with the Thaivisa app, please delete 3 of my posts , thanks 

'

[balo]

Sorry something wrong with the Thaivisa app, please delete 3 of my posts , thanks 

'

[greenchair]

4 hours ago, smedly said:

it does to me and I am in the game - I know exactly what the UK pathologist was saying - and the fact she said it also speaks very loud to me, it was unpresidented that she spoke at all

 

but it matters not a jot, if a you want to base a case on physical evidence (DNA) then you better make sure you have it to produce when requested, that is fundamental and is recognised throughout the world but seemingly not in Thailand were you can just produce a scribble on paper and it is accepted - that it is so flawed it is unbelievable that a court anywhere in the world would just accept that - yes we found a match .........what ????????? it honestly doesn't work that way, any right minded person would understand this - yes this gun matched the bullet that killed that person - what gun ? oh we don't have it....really ? it is so stupid it is obsurd

Oh rubbish, courts around the world do not accept dna as the A grade evidence. It is only a supporting evidence of many other circumstantial evidences, the icing on the cake so to speak. As was explained by dna expert jane taupin.some courts do not accept dna as a mitigating evidence at all, because of how easy it is to get bungled with another person's dna. The surrounding evidences were. 

They confessed 3 times, 1 time in front of a camera that showed no cohersion, in fact Wei Phyo led the interview and 1 time in front of a judge, when having the opportunity to recant. Wei Phyo had the victims phone. They purchased wine of the same brand of a wine bottle found at the beach. Their shoes were left behind a few meters from the crime. They were in the place hannah would have to pass to get to the hotel at around the estimated time of the murder. Wei Phyo went back to the crime area at 4.oclock in the morning after supposedly being so drunk he couldn't remember anything, but managing to get up and go for a walk after just 2 hours sleep. They concealed the phone knowing that it came from the crime. Of which Wei Phyo was convicted of theft , which the defense accepted and Wei Phyo pled guilty to. 

[greenchair]

9 hours ago, DiscoDan said:

It's in the Samui times or you can look at @ianyarwood_law on twitter 

This is a must read. 

[DM07]

Disco Dan, greenchair...and in comes AleG...

All the usual suspects, petting themselves on the back for knowing ...nothing and avoiding the simple truth: this case would have been thrown out in any civilized country, for shoddy police work, torture allegations, mishandling of evidence etc etc etc.

 

[AleG]

8 hours ago, smedly said:

and who is the Samui Times exactly, who are they funded by and why should anyone pay attention to what they have to say, like I have repeated many times AND I WILL KEEP REPEATING IT********************SHOW ME THE ORIGINAL DNA SAMPLES AND I MIGHT START TO BELIEVE*********************** if they cannot be produced then this case (by any standard that I am aware of on the planet) is dead and complete nonsense, over and over again and again ....you cannot just claim to have physical evidence unless you can show it and it can be verified on request especially DNA, a very simple concept to understand yet a few here don't get it, it is such a simple thing to produce considering that the claimed samples would be enormous and so many sources and samples taken .............. if they cannot be provided then this case is nonsense ................................ absolute nonsense, only a fool would think otherwise and it's not even complex to understand, if the prosecution have DNA original samples then produce them otherwise this whole thing is quite frankly as stupid as stupid gets..........

You can keep repeating that there is no evidence until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make it true, and every single time you have been asked to substantiate that claim you just stick your fingers in your ears and start with the "********************SHOW ME THE ORIGINAL DNA SAMPLES AND I MIGHT START TO BELIEVE***********************"
 

The idea that the evidence is gone is a myth, the fact is it was the defense that declined to reexamine the DNA evidence after the court approved it.
 

But if you are so sure about it why don't you ask yourself (or any of the people that claim to care so very much about finding the truth) why is the "fact" that "everybody knows" the evidence was "lost" not part of the defense appeal points? What, did they forget or not notice such a niggling little detail as that?

Once more, in case it gets overlooked: why if it's true that the defense was refused access to the evidence is that fact not part of their appeal points?

 

 

The answer, obviously, is that "fact" is not true; if it were true that the defense were refused to reexamine the evidence they'd put that down in their appeal as, probably, the main reason why the case should be thrown out.

I'm not a lawyer but I do know this, no lawyer worth it's salt would ever ask a question in court that he doesn't already know the answer to and that answer serves to push their case; when they decided that they didn't want to have the evidence reexamined is because they knew the answers would damage their case beyond any hope.

After they retested the DNA from the two defendants they saw that they matched the one the police lab (and three others) had found over two weeks before their arrest. I think they hope the DNA profiles of the B2 would be different from those presented by the prosecution because they had argued that it was impossible to had produced them in a short amount of time after their arrest; they were wrong, and that line of defense went up in smoke right then and there.

[AleG]

3 hours ago, greenchair said:

This is a must read. 

 

The fruit of a poisoned tree, that sort of people were drawn into the issue as a way to create and maintain controversy.

Reminds me of a Spanish saying:  Raise crows and they will peck your eyes out.

[smedly]

1 hour ago, AleG said:

You can keep repeating that there is no evidence until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make it true, and every single time you have been asked to substantiate that claim you just stick your fingers in your ears and start with the "********************SHOW ME THE ORIGINAL DNA SAMPLES AND I MIGHT START TO BELIEVE***********************"
 

The idea that the evidence is gone is a myth, the fact is it was the defense that declined to reexamine the DNA evidence after the court approved it.
 

.

you are lying again, the prosecution offered up already processed extracted DNA samples - NOT original samples, there is no way to tell where these processed samples came from, they could just as easily be samples from B2 saliva.

 

You already know this so why do you keep telling lies about it.

 

Don't bother with an answer

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, AleG said:

You can keep repeating that there is no evidence until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make it true, and every single time you have been asked to substantiate that claim you just stick your fingers in your ears and start with the "********************SHOW ME THE ORIGINAL DNA SAMPLES AND I MIGHT START TO BELIEVE***********************"
 

The idea that the evidence is gone is a myth, the fact is it was the defense that declined to reexamine the DNA evidence after the court approved it.
 

But if you are so sure about it why don't you ask yourself (or any of the people that claim to care so very much about finding the truth) why is the "fact" that "everybody knows" the evidence was "lost" not part of the defense appeal points? What, did they forget or not notice such a niggling little detail as that?

Once more, in case it gets overlooked: why if it's true that the defense was refused access to the evidence is that fact not part of their appeal points?

 

 

The answer, obviously, is that "fact" is not true; if it were true that the defense were refused to reexamine the evidence they'd put that down in their appeal as, probably, the main reason why the case should be thrown out.

I'm not a lawyer but I do know this, no lawyer worth it's salt would ever ask a question in court that he doesn't already know the answer to and that answer serves to push their case; when they decided that they didn't want to have the evidence reexamined is because they knew the answers would damage their case beyond any hope.

After they retested the DNA from the two defendants they saw that they matched the one the police lab (and three others) had found over two weeks before their arrest. I think they hope the DNA profiles of the B2 would be different from those presented by the prosecution because they had argued that it was impossible to had produced them in a short amount of time after their arrest; they were wrong, and that line of defense went up in smoke right then and there.

 

So right, let's face it. The game is up. And another point the defense decided not to contest is the stolen phone conviction.some might say, they wanted to spend time on the dna. But proving that phone was not David's or proving that Wei Phyo did not steal it from the scene, is quite significant in my opinion. Their best appeal should have been, yes we are guilty, we apologise for wasting the courts time , we are so young and did not understand. Would it be possible to change the death penalty to life. Shaving a good 20 years off this sentence, but no the defense continue with the farce of dna being the only mitigating factor. 

[smedly]

11 minutes ago, greenchair said:

 

So right, let's face it. The game is up. And another point the defense decided not to contest is the stolen phone conviction.some might say, they wanted to spend time on the dna. But proving that phone was not David's or proving that Wei Phyo did not steal it from the scene, is quite significant in my opinion. Their best appeal should have been, yes we are guilty, we apologise for wasting the courts time , we are so young and did not understand. Would it be possible to change the death penalty to life. Shaving a good 20 years off this sentence, but no the defense continue with the farce of dna being the only mitigating factor. 

it is all here below................................read it

 

without the original samples of DNA the prosecution case falls apart and has no legal basis, this is a fact, the judge might have decided to accept the police and prosecution presentation on DNA (up to him) but without the actual verified evidence it is not worth the paper it's written on - or scribble on as it turns out

 

May I also point out that the UK pathologist that examined Hanna's body made an unusual and profound statement about her findings - she found no evidence of rape, that statement would also mean no traces of sperm.

 

The evil scum that committed these haenous crimes staged the crime scene to make it look like sexual assault - I never believed that from the start, to me this was the work of a savage that at some point he and others were insulted by the victim, perhaps they rudely rebuked advances and someone lost face and this person or persons decided to seek retribution - people who think they are powerful don't like being refused, I believe Hannah was followed home from a bar and David just happened to come across the situation either also on his way home or heard it from his room, either way he arrived at the scene and got involved unfortunately, I am not so sure about the headman son being involved but there are other evils in that place.

 

Another "fact" that continues to trouble me is how Mon the resort owner was able to notice the hoe was missing from under the tree (a considerable distance from the crime scene) and went looking for it to have it put back were it was supposed to be, this is all before the investigation had actually started and the hoe was found and determined as the possible weapon used in the murders and yet Mon knew it was missing - why at such an early stage would he even have considered it connected to the crime.

 

I also stated a few month back that I would not like to be in the shoes of the Rotti seller who served as an interpreter during the so called "interviews" with the accused, I said he was one of the people that could likely blow this case wide open, shortly after that he disappeared and is believed to be dead - go figure

 

and as for the phones - police said that this IMEI number match this phone - which phone ? the one found at the crime scene or the one found at the residence, either way both phones should have been in evidence and their details investigated and fully disclosed - one is still unaccounted for to this day - where is it

 

Where are Hannah's clothes ? critical evidence that apparently along with so called DNA evidence have disappeared all very convenient if you are making stuff up     

[smedly]

time for this thread to be closed as the last 30 post are just repeating the same thing over and over

[AleG]

24 minutes ago, smedly said:

you are lying again, the prosecution offered up already processed extracted DNA samples - NOT original samples, there is no way to tell where these processed samples came from, they could just as easily be samples from B2 saliva.

 

You already know this so why do you keep telling lies about it.

 

Don't bother with an answer

 

Once again, every single time I have asked you to substantiate your claims you have provided absolutely nothing to back it up. What is your source that the defense was only offered what you claim, a primary source, not online speculation.

In any case I will once more point out the fact that what you think it's a sure way to bust the case against the B2 is not part of the appeal points raised by the defense, and once again I will point out that is so because your claims that there is no evidence, original or otherwise, are false.

[AleG]

5 minutes ago, smedly said:

it is all here below................................read it

 

without the original samples of DNA the prosecution case falls apart and has no legal basis, this is a fact, the judge might have decided to accept the police and prosecution presentation on DNA (up to him) but without the actual verified evidence it is not worth the paper it's written on - or scribble on as it turns out

 

May I also point out that the UK pathologist that examined Hanna's body made an unusual and profound statement about her findings - she found no evidence of rape, that statement would also mean no traces of sperm.

 

The evil scum that committed these haenous crimes staged the crime scene to make it look like sexual assault - I never believed that from the start, to me this was the work of a savage that at some point he and others were insulted by the victim, perhaps they rudely rebuked advances and someone lost face and this person or persons decided to seek retribution - people who think they are powerful don't like being refused, I believe Hannah was followed home from a bar and David just happened to come across the situation either also on his way home or heard it from his room, either way he arrived at the scene and got involved unfortunately, I am not so sure about the headman son being involved but there are other evils in that place.

 

Another "fact" that continues to trouble me is how Mon the resort owner was able to notice the hoe was missing from under the tree (a considerable distance from the crime scene) and went looking for it to have it put back were it was supposed to be, this is all before the investigation had actually started and the hoe was found and determined as the possible weapon used in the murders and yet Mon knew it was missing - why at such an early stage would he even have considered it connected to the crime.

 

I also stated a few month back that I would not like to be in the shoes of the Rotti seller who served as an interpreter during the so called "interviews" with the accused, I said he was one of the people that could likely blow this case wide open, shortly after that he disappeared and is believed to be dead - go figure

 

and as for the phones - police said that this IMEI number match this phone - which phone ? the one found at the crime scene or the one found at the residence, either way both phones should have been in evidence and their details investigated and fully disclosed - one is still unaccounted for to this day - where is it

 

Where are Hannah's clothes ? critical evidence that apparently along with so called DNA evidence have disappeared all very convenient if you are making stuff up     

 

"without the original samples of DNA the prosecution case falls apart and has no legal basis, this is a fact, "

 

 

So destructive of the prosecution case that the defense forgot to mention it on their appeal...

"May I also point out that the UK pathologist that examined Hanna's body made an unusual and profound statement about her findings - she found no evidence of rape."

Evidence of sexual assault = no evidence of rape.... and you accuse me of lying.

The rest is just regurgitated stuff of the same value as those two points I just debunked, again.

[AleG]

20 minutes ago, greenchair said:

 

So right, let's face it. The game is up. And another point the defense decided not to contest is the stolen phone conviction.some might say, they wanted to spend time on the dna. But proving that phone was not David's or proving that Wei Phyo did not steal it from the scene, is quite significant in my opinion. Their best appeal should have been, yes we are guilty, we apologise for wasting the courts time , we are so young and did not understand. Would it be possible to change the death penalty to life. Shaving a good 20 years off this sentence, but no the defense continue with the farce of dna being the only mitigating factor. 

 

When you have people going around saying that the coroner determining that there was sexual assault means she is actually saying no rape took place you know there's nothing left to cling on but fantasies.

[Khun Han]

How many times did Balo refer to an earlier suspect in his early twenties who allegedly fled to Bangkok as "a kid" or "the kid"? 

[Khun Han]

14 minutes ago, AleG said:

 

When you have people going around saying that the coroner determining that there was sexual assault means she is actually saying no rape took place you know there's nothing left to cling on but fantasies.

 

When you have people deliberately misinterpreting what the Norfolk coroner stated, you know that they are not seeking the truth.

[Bkk Brian]

3 hours ago, AleG said:

You can keep repeating that there is no evidence until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make it true, and every single time you have been asked to substantiate that claim you just stick your fingers in your ears and start with the "********************SHOW ME THE ORIGINAL DNA SAMPLES AND I MIGHT START TO BELIEVE***********************"
 

The idea that the evidence is gone is a myth, the fact is it was the defense that declined to reexamine the DNA evidence after the court approved it.
 

But if you are so sure about it why don't you ask yourself (or any of the people that claim to care so very much about finding the truth) why is the "fact" that "everybody knows" the evidence was "lost" not part of the defense appeal points? What, did they forget or not notice such a niggling little detail as that?

Once more, in case it gets overlooked: why if it's true that the defense was refused access to the evidence is that fact not part of their appeal points?

 

 

The answer, obviously, is that "fact" is not true; if it were true that the defense were refused to reexamine the evidence they'd put that down in their appeal as, probably, the main reason why the case should be thrown out.

I'm not a lawyer but I do know this, no lawyer worth it's salt would ever ask a question in court that he doesn't already know the answer to and that answer serves to push their case; when they decided that they didn't want to have the evidence reexamined is because they knew the answers would damage their case beyond any hope.

After they retested the DNA from the two defendants they saw that they matched the one the police lab (and three others) had found over two weeks before their arrest. I think they hope the DNA profiles of the B2 would be different from those presented by the prosecution because they had argued that it was impossible to had produced them in a short amount of time after their arrest; they were wrong, and that line of defense went up in smoke right then and there.

 

Responding to the main point you make in bold. The appeal document all near on 200 pages of it, is not in the public domain, I've not seen it I presume you've not seen it so how can you possibly come to the conclusion?

 

The only snippet of what is contained in the appeal is a very brief summary published by one of the Thai defence lawyers who also states that there are important points she has not touched upon in her article.

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, smedly said:

you are lying again, the prosecution offered up already processed extracted DNA samples - NOT original samples, there is no way to tell where these processed samples came from, they could just as easily be samples from B2 saliva.

 

You already know this so why do you keep telling lies about it.

 

Don't bother with an answer

As mentioned in the brief summary of the 200 page appeal document:

 

Multiple procedures are required in order to meet ISO 17025 international standards in DNA testing. The chain of custody, method of testing, graph generated and case notes resulting in the analysis report produced are all required in order to allow an independent expert to verify the results. Only the results of the test without any required supportive documents was provided by the prosecution witness.

[Khun Han]

It's good that you have the patience to correct these posters, Brian, because casual readers get to read the truth. But the posters we keep correcting are not here to find the truth: they're here to push a dishonest, repugnant agenda. A total abuse of the forum, in fact.