Koh Tao murders: David Miller family confident Thai court "made correct decision" by upholding guilty verdict

[greenchair]

5 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

so the accused threw the victim's phone out of their back window in order to be found instead of say throwing it in the sea

No, he kept the phone as that would be a very expensive item on his salary. 

He was not able to open it, so he gave it to his friend. The not bright friend smashed and hid it. 

Really the phone is his downfall. 

Everyone said the cops planted it. 

Until his friend turns up and tells the one story and Wei Phyo tells the same story with a wee twist. 

In court. 

[Khun Han]

5 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

I recall your change of mind

but for me there is a chance that the phone was planted

 

It doesn't really matter whether it was planted or not. There was a roaring trade among Burmese workers on the island in lost/stolen phones, as evidenced by all the phones that were recovered in police searches. The key thing was David's phone's imei, but the police could assign that to any iphone 4s they wanted to.

[greenchair]

7 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

I recall your change of mind

but for me there is a chance that the phone was planted

It is from Wei Phyo very own mouth. The judge said, he must believe Wei Phyo because his friend backed up the story. 

[greenchair]

Just now, Khun Han said:

 

It doesn't really matter whether it was planted or not. There was a roaring trade among Burmese workers on the island in lost/stolen phones, as evidenced by all the phones that were recovered in police searches. The key thing was David's phone's imei, but the police could assign that to any iphone 4s they wanted to.

The defense did nothing to dispute the ownership of the phone. 

He pled guilty. To me it was more important than the dna. 

[AGareth2]

was the phone checked for prints?

[DM07]

14 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

I recall your change of mind

but for me there is a chance that the phone was planted

Noooooooooooo...really?!

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The defense did nothing to dispute the ownership of the phone. 

He pled guilty. To me it was more important than the dna. 

 

The defence would have had to call the police liars to have challenged this particular bit of made up evidence. That is an absolute 'no no' in Thai courts. Which was one of the big problems for the defence: they were walking on broken glass throughout the trial. Whereas the police could do and say as they chose: one was caught out perjuring himself over his meetings with a Bangkok pathologist; nothing happened to him over it, he wasn't even admonished. The police even harrangued the defence team outside the court for not helping them!!!

[dick dasterdly]

10 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Cannot provide a link but it's hot news in the BP. 

The dna was extracted from hannah and tested before the b2 were caught. Samples of that original dna were retested by the court. The court offered and the Miller family requested the defense to test independantly from the original samples. 

The defense declined as the newly retested sample would be sent directly to to the court, thereby they would have no control over that information. 

OK, understand re. the link, but what do you mean by "Samples of that original dna were retested by the court."?  The court aren't able to test DNA.

 

This whole case largely revolves around the DNA evidence found inside the victim - and as testimony isn't allowed to be recorded, we're reliant on the media/defense/prosecution pronouncements about what was said during the court case .

 

According to said media, one police witness said that the evidence was 'used up'/another later said this was not the case/the DNA offered to the defense for re-testing was replicated DNA etc. etc.....

 

And quite apart from this we have the following which (I think) is accepted by everyone?:-

 

1) The DNA evidence was a one page statement with various hand-written amendments

 

2) Non-existent 'chain of custody' records

[smedly]

6 minutes ago, smedly said:

they found a phone......just a phone

 

they also found a phone at the crime scene

 

That is two phones, out of these two phones they claim one of them belonged to David the other one has vanished into thin air and is unaccounted for, now the police claim the phone found at the B2 residence was Davids but have as yet explained who owner the other one,

 

Now lets assume for a moment that this was indeed a stitch up job, if you were the police and allowed to do whatever the hell you like and you had two phones - which one would you claim was found at B2 residence, but then you ask - how do they explain the other phone..................well they didn't

 

and also note that a lot of the stuff that has caused massive questions like the one I described above was in fact revealed by the original investigating team who were suddenly removed, they made a lot of their findings public very early on in transparent progress reports to the media

just to add, I have no doubt that one of the phones the police had was eventually identified as Davids phone, no question from on that.

 

The doubt I have is which one is which, it seems that the phone the police failed to investigate or identify was the one from the crime scene, well that is what they are claiming, does anyone here think that the police and their very professional evidence handling would prevent them from claiming anything they felt like at the time

[smedly]

11 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The defense did nothing to dispute the ownership of the phone. 

He pled guilty. To me it was more important than the dna. 

explain to me exactly how they would do that, because I can't, the only thing they may have been able to do was press them on the second phone - the one that never made it into evidence and for all intents and purposes was excluded

[dick dasterdly]

31 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

They found a phone behind the Burmese lodgings. They also found an iphone 4s at the crime scene, which was photographed at the police station on top of a document with a photo of David on it. This phone has since gone missing. David's phone was an iphone 4s. The police first claimed that the phone they found behind the Burmese lodgings was Hannah's, until a video surfaced of Hannah's phone being handed in to police by her friends. So the police changed it to David's phone being found.

IIRC, one of the victims had two 'phones?

 

I didn't know that the 'phone found at the crime scene had gone missing - are you sure about this?

[DM07]

19 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The defense did nothing to dispute the ownership of the phone. 

He pled guilty. To me it was more important than the dna. 

A phone, that could have come to him in a million different ways, is your base for sentencing someone to death!?

Amazing!

[AGareth2]

beyond reasonable doubt is necessary for me

I believe my doubts to be reasonable

[myfriendu]

27 minutes ago, greenchair said:

No, he kept the phone as that would be a very expensive item on his salary. 

He was not able to open it, so he gave it to his friend. The not bright friend smashed and hid it. 

Really the phone is his downfall. 

Everyone said the cops planted it. 

Until his friend turns up and tells the one story and Wei Phyo tells the same story with a wee twist. 

In court. 

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

a wee twist in the story 

[dick dasterdly]

14 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The defence would have had to call the police liars to have challenged this particular bit of made up evidence. That is an absolute 'no no' in Thai courts. Which was one of the big problems for the defence: they were walking on broken glass throughout the trial. Whereas the police could do and say as they chose: one was caught out perjuring himself over his meetings with a Bangkok pathologist; nothing happened to him over it, he wasn't even admonished. The police even harrangued the defence team outside the court for not helping them!!!

"Whereas the police could do and say as they chose: one was caught out perjuring himself over his meetings with a Bangkok pathologist; nothing happened to him over it, he wasn't even admonished. The police even harrangued the defence team outside the court for not helping them!!!"

 

A point I'd forgotten .

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

IIRC, one of the victims had two 'phones?

 

I didn't know that the 'phone found at the crime scene had gone missing - are you sure about this?

 

That was David. His cheap android phone with the Thai sim was found and declared. An iphone 4s was also found. The photo of it at the police station, sitting on top of a document with a photo of David on it has been posted numerous times in the threads on this subject. This phone was not declared as evidence at the trial.

[greenchair]

12 minutes ago, smedly said:

explain to me exactly how they would do that, because I can't, the only thing they may have been able to do was press them on the second phone - the one that never made it into evidence and for all intents and purposes was excluded

It wasn't the phone per se that is the issue. 

The issue is Wei Phyo gave the phone to his friend and said he found it in a bar. 

The defense said Wei Phyo was fast asleep at the time of the crime. 

After video was shown of him back at the beach, he said he found it after parting with Muang Muang. 

He lied. He never could explain that phone.

[ddavidovsky]

Give me two minutes alone with these two and I could tell whether they are innocent.

If innocent, they will defend themselves all the more vigorously after all this time. If guilty, they will defend themselves wearily. Psychology.

[AGareth2]

1 minute ago, ddavidovsky said:

Give me two minutes alone with these two and I could tell whether they are innocent.

If innocent, they will defend themselves all the more vigorously after all this time. If guilty, they will defend themselves wearily. Psychology.

the police had a little bit longer than 2 minutes

[smedly]

1 minute ago, AGareth2 said:

beyond reasonable doubt is necessary for me

I believe my doubts to be reasonable

all of this comes down to two things

 

1. Is it possible that the Thai police "could" easily manipulate the evidence - make stuff up - hide things, make it all look exactly as they like etc, in my opinion yes simply because of their highly professional standards and that they have never been suspected of doing it before

 

2. So assuming they could  - "Would" they have any incentive to manipulate the evidence or make stuff up or exclude stuff - well that is the question that each individual posting here needs to ask themselves, what possible reason would they have to do such a thing  

[AGareth2]

it's the partial match of the DNA

that is inconclusive

[greenchair]

12 minutes ago, DM07 said:

A phone, that could have come to him in a million different ways, is your base for sentencing someone to death!?

Amazing!

Well according to Wei Phyo, it came to him in 2 different ways. 

First he found it in a bar. 

Then he found it on the beach near the murders. 

He pled guilty. They didn't even try to defend the origin of the phone. 

So we must believe wp and his team. 

Full dna 

Partial dna 

Near the scene 

At the time 

Possessions of the victim 

Lies by wp. 

Crap defense. 

What did you expect the appeal court to come up with. 

Give a thought to the victims. 

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, smedly said:

all of this comes down to two things

 

1. Is it possible that the Thai police "could" easily manipulate the evidence - make stuff up - hide things, make it all look exactly as they like etc, in my opinion yes simply because of their highly professional standards and that they have never been suspected of doing it before

 

2. So assuming they could  - "Would" they have any incentive to manipulate the evidence or make stuff up or exclude stuff - well that is the question that each individual posting here needs to ask themselves, what possible reason would they have to do such a thing  

 

Buying into a plc, a few weeks after taking over the investigation, with money that you didn't have in public financial declarations a few months previously might be a pretty good incentive.

[dick dasterdly]

5 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

That was David. His cheap android phone with the Thai sim was found and declared. An iphone 4s was also found. The photo of it at the police station, sitting on top of a document with a photo of David on it has been posted numerous times in the threads on this subject. This phone was not declared as evidence at the trial.

Sorry, I'm being a bit slow on this - so the 'phone photographed at the crime scene was the iphone 4s, and has since gone missing?

 

The 'phone later found later behind the Burmese lodgings (apparently stolen by the B2) was the cheap 'phone?

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Sorry, I'm being a bit slow on this - so the 'phone photographed at the crime scene was the iphone 4s, and has since gone missing?

 

The 'phone later found later behind the Burmese lodgings (apparently stolen by the B2) was the cheap 'phone?

 

No, two phones were found at the crime scene, one an iphone 4s which was photographed as described at the police station. The phone found behind the Burmese lodgings was also an iphone 4s.

[AGareth2]

2 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well according to Wei Phyo, it came to him in 2 different ways. 

First he found it in a bar. 

Then he found it on the beach near the murders. 

He pled guilty. They didn't even try to defend the origin of the phone. 

So we must believe wp and his team. 

Full dna 

Partial dna 

Near the scene 

At the time 

Possessions of the victim 

Lies by wp. 

Crap defense. 

What did you expect the appeal court to come up with. 

Give a thought to the victims. 

everything you say is worrying

except the partial DNA

it makes me wonder who would have an exact match

[AGareth2]

who did the B2 kill first?

[ddavidovsky]

13 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

the police had a little bit longer than 2 minutes

The law don't have psychology.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Khun Han said:

 

No, two phones were found at the crime scene, one an iphone 4s which was photographed as described at the police station. The phone found behind the Burmese lodgings was also an iphone 4s.

If true, devastating for the prosecution to put it mildly!

 

But most of these posts would be more suited to the other thread re. the Appeal Court upholding the original Court decision.

 

Yes, I'm as guilty as everyone else in realising this too late.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Cannot provide a link but it's hot news in the BP. 

The dna was extracted from hannah and tested before the b2 were caught. Samples of that original dna were retested by the court. The court offered and the Miller family requested the defense to test independantly from the original samples. 

The defense declined as the newly retested sample would be sent directly to to the court, thereby they would have no control over that information. 

 

History is being re-written in the above post. The police offered to re-test the non-existent sperm dna themselves and send the results direct to the court (understandable when you see the first set of 'results' they sent). This was sensibly declined by the defence. The police then offered 'replicated' dna for re-testing because the original sample had been used up in testing (utterly impossible, unless they had tested it several thousand times!). The defence, sensibly, declined this also.

 

The Miller familiy's position on re-testing is understandable: they believed (and still believe) that Thai police work to similar standards as British police.