IslandLover Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 2 hours ago, greenchair said: Well yes, but that doesn't exclude the b2 so it is irrelevant to their case, unless they revealed that person /persons. Then the courts would decide who was guilty of which crime. Muang Muang ciggerette butt was right next to the victim, they didn't have any evidence to connect to the victim. The hair does not mean someone was there. And it wouldn't convict the person anyway. It's just 1 hair . More misinformation from Greenchair. The cigarette butt was not found right next to the victim (I presume you mean Hannah?). The cigarette butt was found next to the log where the Burmese had been sitting (drinking, playing guitar and presumably smoking), which was more than 50 metres from where the bodies were found. The hair does not mean someone was there. And it wouldn't convict the person anyway. It's just 1 hair . G*d give me strength! You are talking absolute nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IslandLover Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Krenjai said: Drunk? David Miller and the Ware brothers had been on Koh Phangan for the Full Moon Party. It is very likely they were drunk and what's more, Chris Ware managed to burn himself on a flaming skipping rope, or so he claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IslandLover Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Khun Han said: And off you go again! We have had this discussion several times before, where it has been explained to you each time that there are very specific legal definitions and differences between rape and sexual assault in UK law. And to explain it to you for the umpteenth time: If the Norfolk coroner thought Hannah had been raped, she would have used the word 'rape' in her report. The coroner stated that Hannah had been sexually assaulted, which has a different legal definition to rape. I expect you will try this on again the next time it comes up. It's also worth noting at this juncture that the U.K. autopsy stated the vaginal tear suffered by Hannah had been caused by the Thai autopsy, not by rape. Sorry to be so graphic but this needed to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 1 minute ago, IslandLover said: More misinformation from Greenchair. The cigarette butt was not found right next to the victim (I presume you mean Hannah?). The cigarette butt was found next to the log where the Burmese had been sitting (drinking, playing guitar and presumably smoking), which was more than 50 metres from where the bodies were found. The hair does not mean someone was there. And it wouldn't convict the person anyway. It's just 1 hair . G*d give me strength! You are talking absolute nonsense. A mere 60 meters, which is not that far. Call it absolute nonsense if you like. They have failed in two courts. Even with several lawyers from 3 countries working on their case. All using the same deflecting from the facts. Whilst 2 stepping the relevant facts. It's all in the records. I understand the judge, he addressed every relevant point. I support the verdict and expect the supreme court to do the same. The UK verdict does not change anything in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) There were 4 points in the Queen's Bench document. It says 'dispute' for the c. Phangan deference but 'argument' for the for the b. reference. My guess is the Bench chooses their words carefully. Edited August 30, 2017 by JLCrab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, IslandLover said: It's also worth noting at this juncture that the U.K. autopsy stated the vaginal tear suffered by Hannah had been caused by the Thai autopsy, not by rape. Sorry to be so graphic but this needed to be said. Where did it say that. Show me the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 1 minute ago, JLCrab said: There were 3 points in the Queen's Bench document. It says dispute for the c. Phangan deference but argument for the for the b. reference. My guess is the Bench chooses their words carefully. I don't understand this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IslandLover Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, greenchair said: Where did it say that. Show me the evidence. Greenchair, isn't it way past your bedtime? It must be past 3 a.m. where you are. Don't you have to up early for school in the morning? Or, are you on the night shift at ThaiVisa? Edited August 30, 2017 by IslandLover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) I am on the night shift today because it rained yesterday afternoon so I slept a lot thorough it. But I am up most days here in Thailand at 3 or 4 AM anyway to sync with doings back in USA. Sorry for typo: There were 4 points in the Queen's Bench document. It says 'dispute' for the c. Phangan but 'argument' for the for the b. reference. My guess is the Bench chooses their words carefully Edited August 30, 2017 by JLCrab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, IslandLover said: Greenchair, isn't it way past your bedtime? It must be past 3 a.m. where you are. Don't you have to up early for school in the morning? Or, are you on the night shift at ThaiVisa? I'm keeping everyone honest. Khun Han woke me up with his fantasies. And now you really woke me up. They did not say that. The results of the UK autopsy did not say that according to court transcript , it confirmed she was bleeding before her death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, JLCrab said: I am on the night shift today because it rained yesterday afternoon so I slept a lot thorough it. But I am up most days here in Thailand at 3 or 4 AM anyway to sync with doings back in USA. Sorry for typo: There were 4 points in the Queen's Bench document. It says 'dispute' for the c. Phangan but 'argument' for the for the b. reference. My guess is the Bench chooses their words carefully What does it mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 ???night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 It means that the 'dispute' on Koh Phangan might have some material connection to the subsequent events on Koh Tao or the UK NCA likely wouldn't have mentioned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balo Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 14 hours ago, Media1 said: The Thais that raped and murdered them are still free We don't know if they are Thais , it could be any nationality really on this tourist island . Be careful to just blame it on Thais alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancelot01 Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 The Daily Telegraph says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IslandLover Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 14 minutes ago, greenchair said: I'm keeping everyone honest. Khun Han woke me up with his fantasies. And now you really woke me up. They did not say that. The results of the UK autopsy did not say that according to court transcript , it confirmed she was bleeding before her death. You really have no idea, do you? Those of us who have been privy to parts of what the U.K. autopsy revealed, know exactly what it said. BTW, people who have been mortally wounded usually do bleed before death. Anyway, the court refused to consider the results of the U.K. autopsy because it had not been presented in a Thai court by the U.K. Coroner. Andy Hall was not regarded as a credible witness in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IslandLover Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 12 minutes ago, Lancelot01 said: The Daily Telegraph says it all. Link, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomJoad Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 I remember someone in the UK confirming that the mobile phone one of the "boys" had belonged to David. I've always considered that the strongest evidence for their guilt. Is this the information the UK cops are accused of handing over to Thailand? Or did I miss something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 4 hours ago, JLCrab said: It means that the 'dispute' on Koh Phangan might have some material connection to the subsequent events on Koh Tao or the UK NCA likely wouldn't have mentioned it. That's not how I read it. To me it sounds like the UK police interviewed the friends that had left the country very early in the investigation and passed the information on . Meaning the person might be considered a suspect, as at that time the b2 were not even suspects. However , later the b2 were arrested because of cctv and the phone and the dispute was considered irrelevant. If I remember correctly, the friends were allowed to go home with the understanding they might be called in for more information. The complaint is the UK collected the information and verbally gave the information, with the belief that the Thai would make a formal request if they used that information in the court. Other than the phone, the information was irrelevant as the b2 were later found to be the suspects. Its just another mafia, head man fantasy, the UK case is irrelevant to the case of the b2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 4 hours ago, IslandLover said: You really have no idea, do you? Those of us who have been privy to parts of what the U.K. autopsy revealed, know exactly what it said. BTW, people who have been mortally wounded usually do bleed before death. Anyway, the court refused to consider the results of the U.K. autopsy because it had not been presented in a Thai court by the U.K. Coroner. Andy Hall was not regarded as a credible witness in this instance. Let me bank my head against the wall for all those that do not read carefully. The judge accepted the UK report, he used it to confirm the Thai autopsy report that she was bleeding which showed she was raped before death. He did not accept andies evaluation and interpretation of the report because he was not a credible in any instance to do with this crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 1 hour ago, TomJoad said: I remember someone in the UK confirming that the mobile phone one of the "boys" had belonged to David. I've always considered that the strongest evidence for their guilt. Is this the information the UK cops are accused of handing over to Thailand? Or did I miss something. The phone convinced me. No matter how it's argued, there's just no explaining why they would have the victims phone and lie about it. A few people have tried to explain that away. And failed. The argument from the defense is 1. It just proves they were there and perhaps witnessed the crime, then accidently stole the phone . 2.in regards to dna on 2nd deceased, just proves they raped her but didn't kill her. 3.there was obviously someone else there that might have held the hoe and the b2 are too afraid to speak of it, therefore they should be free. Make of that defense what you will. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) I read it that the UK NCA determined on some basis that the late Mr. D. Miller had a dispute with persons on Koh Phangnan and they considered such fact to be or might be material to the investigation of his murder on Koh Tao. It does not say with just whom he might have been in dispute. Edited August 31, 2017 by JLCrab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 17 minutes ago, JLCrab said: I read it that the UK NCA determined on some basis that the late Mr. D. Miller had a dispute with persons on Koh Phangnan and they considered such fact to be or might be material to the investigation of his murder on Koh Tao. It does not say with just whom he might have been in dispute. Yes, but the dates of that were at the time when they were still searching for suspects, so the nca thought it "might " be relevant. After that the burmese for found and many other suspects were eliminated. Such as Chris Ware, mon, the person that had the dispute. All of the above investigation was before the 3 burmese were found with the phone and stuff. That then changes the entire investigation. The other suspects became irrelevant . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) The information was transmitted 10 October 2014 and as of that date they considered that information to be material. The 2 Burmese were arrested 3 October 2014. Edited August 31, 2017 by JLCrab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingrobin Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 1 hour ago, JLCrab said: I read it that the UK NCA determined on some basis that the late Mr. D. Miller had a dispute with persons on Koh Phangnan and they considered such fact to be or might be material to the investigation of his murder on Koh Tao. It does not say with just whom he might have been in dispute. What we dont know with the exception of the phone, is who requested the information, all we know is information was passed by the NCA It is known that the RTP asked the UK for Davids phone details and these were passed by the NCA 19 september What is not clear is did the NCA inform the RTP about the dispute, argument, or did the RTP ask the NCA to enquire from the UK end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, rockingrobin said: What we dont know with the exception of the phone, is who requested the information, all we know is information was passed by the NCA It is known that the RTP asked the UK for Davids phone details and these were passed by the NCA 19 september What is not clear is did the NCA inform the RTP about the dispute, argument, or did the RTP ask the NCA to enquire from the UK end I suspect the later. Still is irrelevant when looking at whole picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingrobin Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 17 minutes ago, greenchair said: I suspect the later. Still is irrelevant when looking at whole picture. While a strong possibility, it is rather surprising , considering, some of the info dates are beyond the frirst pre-trial hearing and the RTP written case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 The NCA provided the intelligence of " ...Mr Miller being involved in a dispute with certain persons on the island of Koh Phangan (10 October 2014)" The B2 were arrested 3 October 2014. You folks can infer and extrapolate as you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingrobin Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, JLCrab said: The NCA provided the intelligence of " ...Mr Miller being involved in a dispute with certain persons on the island of Koh Phangan (10 October 2014)" The B2 were arrested 3 October 2014. You folks can infer and extrapolate as you wish. Did the NCA volunteer the intelligence , or was it requested Given the date who deemed it possibly material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newcomer71 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 22 hours ago, DiscoDan said: Guilty guilty guilty bit people are still too stupid to realise, instead trying to include the NCA in their grand conspiracy. Lol That's your opinion and yet doesn't make who doesn't think in your same way a stupid. Plus, it's so interesting how 95% or more of your post are all about this topic. Frankly, interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts