UK police broke law in case of British backpackers murdered on Koh Tao

[rockingrobin]

15 minutes ago, greenchair said:

It was not enough to form a complete profile. 

And correct if I am wrong, according to pornthip it was a partial match to the 2nd defendant. It was not Able to be used as evidence in the court. 

The hoe had been washed and used by the gardener after the crime and before it was sent for testing. Even so, they did manage to find both victims dna  on it. 

Mr ' O ' testified that he did not follow the instructions to wash the hoe. Which raises another question , why did an experienced officer not seize the hoe as evidence instead of trying to clean the murder weapon

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

1. Judging by the dates, and information, it is likely the police interviewed the friends when they got home. At the time it was decided all the English witnesses could leave the country with the view they could be called back later or interviewed at home. It was a logical decision at the time. No need for any secret orders. 

 

At that time there were no suspects in the case. The Thai police were collecting evidence and searching for suspects, under immense pressure, to speed up the investigation. 

In my opinion, this caused the police to accuse people that were not involved, rush collection of evidence and generally make mistakes of protocol and procedures. 

 

The intelligence was given before the arrest and extensive evidence of the Burmese. at the time when police were looking for possible suspects. After the arrest of Burmese because of cctv footage, testimony, dna match and possessions of the victims, the incident in the bar was irrelevant. Because police were not able to find other evidence at the scene of anyone except the 2 men. 

 

The mistake was, even though there was no suspect, the uk police should have gotten approval to give it. And possibly there should have been assurances, in the event of an arrest the death penalty would not be sought. 

The information Other than the phone was irrelevant to the case and not used in court .

The IMEI of the phone was given approval at the end of the case to be used to convict the burmese. 

There are 2 occasions when intelligence was given after the B2 arrest.

The B2 was arrested on 3 Oct,

Intelligence was shared on 10 Oct, and  17 Oct, the intelligence sharing appears to have stopped at the same time as D.Cameron met the Thai PM and agreed to send the MPS as observers

[Dogmatix]

21 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Really?  This is your best effort?

 

I'm completely pissed but can see that if there's evidence of a conflict shortly before the victims were murdered - its VERY important evidence!

 

It is standard police procedure all over the world to investigate whether murder victims had enemies or were in dispute with anyone who might have wanted them dead or to assault them to teach them a lesson or get revenge.  In this case, Thai police doggedly refused to investigate such disputes that David obviously found disturbing enough to leave evidence of in his phone - whether in the form of SMS's, recorded conversations or what we don't know.  Whatever was or was not found on David's phone it was apparently confirmed by British police's interviews of British witnesses to the disputes, who had returned home, evidence of which must have been passed to Thai police.

 

I fail to understand why Thai police's refusal to investigate this evidence should not be considered deeply suspicious.   

Edited September 1, 2017 by Dogmatix

[Dogmatix]

On 8/30/2017 at 8:30 PM, greenchair said:

I agree with some of what you say. But I remember that British court case. The judge said there was nothing in the report that would exonerated the b2 so he saw no reason to possibly damage international relations, when there would be no benefit to the b2. 

From what I see, he was correct. 

Having an argument in a bar, does not exclude them from the crime. 

It may be the person that had the argument was involved in the murder. It still doesn't make the b2 innocent. They stole the  victims phone, they raped her. They were there. they deserve to be in prison. 

 

It is quite difficult to comment on Mr Justice Green's judgement without seeing the full Met report.  No doubt there was nothing in it that could have exonerated the 2B per se and we don't even know for sure what details, if any, the Met decided to include in the report of the harassment of Heather or the dispute in the AC Bar. British police have already proved themselves capable of breaking British law in this case, so an incomplete report is not at all beyond the bounds of possibility, perhaps in order to cover up other violations of British law.  

 

But, assuming full details of the harassment and dispute were indeed in the report, I agree that this evidence, in and of itself, could not have exonerated the 2B, particularly since it was known that the Thai police had declined to pursue that evidence for their own reasons, even though an exhaustive investigation of the dispute and the parties involved should have proved their point, if those parties were indeed innocent.  The point was that this evidence could have been used by the defence to either place pressure for an investigation into alternative suspects, wherever that may have led, or to, at least, place doubts on the thoroughness of the Thai investigation during the trial of first instance or the appeal.  

 

As it was, due to the partisan approach of British police, the defence had nothing but rumours of the dispute  in the AC Bar to go on, something that was easy for the prosecution to dismiss, if, indeed, the defence even bothered to raise it at the trial, knowing they had no way to substantiate it. The British witnesses were beyond their reach and the Thai witnesses were obviously unwilling to testify.  On the other hand, the British police gave the Thai police the option to either investigate the evidence or not, depending on what suited their case better.  

 

Personally I fail to see how international relations can be best served in the interests of the British taxpayer by intervening in a case where British citizens have been murdered abroad through British police failing to share evidence they might have in such a way that ensured that any possible suspects were investigated thoroughly.  As a UK taxpayer I couldn't care less if we can get an order for a tank or for a radar system from Thailand, if the price is going to be that murders of British people in Thailand are not going to be thoroughly investigated.                 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Dogmatix

[greenchair]

4 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The court reasoning about the dna on the hoe

It is known that MR ' O ' used the hoe before and after the crime, it is also known that there is uknown dna on the handle of the hoe, but the court expects everybody to believe that Mr ' O ' dna was not tested

 

Is it not more reasonable that everyone who came into contact with the hoe , the murder weapon would have their dna tested , if only to eliminate them, 

Well, I agree. But it would not say in court records people that were tested and it excluded. I imagine they did know the dna which belonged to Mr o. And they talked about there being some dna that matched Wei Phyo and partial dna of an unknown male 

[rockingrobin]

5 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The court reasoning about the dna on the hoe

It is known that MR ' O ' used the hoe before and after the crime, it is also known that there is uknown dna on the handle of the hoe, but the court expects everybody to believe that Mr ' O ' dna was not tested

 

Is it not more reasonable that everyone who came into contact with the hoe , the murder weapon would have their dna tested , if only to eliminate them, 

 

19 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well, I agree. But it would not say in court records people that were tested and it excluded. I imagine they did know the dna which belonged to Mr o. And they talked about there being some dna that matched Wei Phyo and partial dna of an unknown male 

The court judgement specifically mentions Mr 'O' dna was not tested

[IslandLover]

11 hours ago, greenchair said:

You have been extremely quiet in your opinion of the case lately. 

Could it be the light has turned on island?????

I'm quiet, Greenchair, because I can no longer be bothered arguing with people like you.  My opinion on this case has not changed, nor will it.

[sambum]

5 minutes ago, IslandLover said:

I'm quiet, Greenchair, because I can no longer be bothered arguing with people like you.  My opinion on this case has not changed, nor will it.

And pot - kettle - black?

 

You still haven't answered who "we" are, Greenchair? 

Edited September 1, 2017 by sambum

[IslandLover]

Just now, sambum said:

And pot - kettle - black?

 

You still haven't answered who "we" are Greenchair? 

She won't.

[sambum]

3 minutes ago, IslandLover said:

She won't.

Just in case the memory needs jogged:-

 

"Now we're all hoping the supreme court will uphold the verdict." 

[IslandLover]

10 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Mr ' O ' testified that he did not follow the instructions to wash the hoe. Which raises another question , why did an experienced officer not seize the hoe as evidence instead of trying to clean the murder weapon

Good point.  In any civilised country, a suspected murder weapon would have been bagged immediately as evidence.  Instead, we are led to believe that the gardener was instructed to wash the hoe, and ..... that it was put back into service as a garden implement!  Presumably this was before Khun Pornthip's lab got hold of it for testing.

 

All the cops seemed to do with the hoe was a cursory examination for fingerprints, and they were photographed doing it.  They even claimed they could find no DNA on it, but laboratory testing proved otherwise.

Edited September 1, 2017 by IslandLover

[greenchair]

3 hours ago, IslandLover said:

I'm quiet, Greenchair, because I can no longer be bothered arguing with people like you.  My opinion on this case has not changed, nor will it.

So what are your thoughts on the phone island. 

Which lie is the truth in your mind. 

Wei Phyo....

I found it in a bar. 

I found the phone and sunglasses  on the beach  (far away from the murders ).

I met Muang on the way back from the beach after I found the phone. 

Muang Muang. 

I woke Wei Phyo up and we went back to the beach together. 

 

Innocent people don't lie. 

 

 

[greenchair]

14 hours ago, AGareth2 said:

that is where your claim collapses

DNA of "an other" was on the hoe

the murder weapon

It was only partial dna. Anyway. Dna alone will not convict. 

It needs other evidence. 

Such as possessions of the victims, or witness to say you were in the area. 

[IslandLover]

8 hours ago, greenchair said:

Well, I agree. But it would not say in court records people that were tested and it excluded. I imagine they did know the dna which belonged to Mr o. And they talked about there being some dna that matched Wei Phyo and partial dna of an unknown male 

And they talked about there being some dna that matched Wei Phyo and partial dna of an unknown male 

 

You say in another post that it was only a "partial match" to Wai Phyo.  Now you are claiming there was a full match!  So which is it?  It was claimed in court that there was a partial match to ONE of the defendants, but IIRC it was never specified which defendant.  However, since it was only a partial match, it could not be proved that it actually belonged to him.  Perhaps DNA expert Partington, or Rockingrobin could explain that point to you. 

[IslandLover]

29 minutes ago, greenchair said:

So what are your thoughts on the phone island. 

Which lie is the truth in your mind. 

Wei Phyo....

I found it in a bar. 

I found the phone and sunglasses  on the beach  (far away from the murders ).

I met Muang on the way back from the beach after I found the phone. 

Muang Muang. 

I woke Wei Phyo up and we went back to the beach together. 

 

Innocent people don't lie. 

 

 

I notice you have omitted to mention Zaw Lin in all of this, yet you still expect him to be executed, or at the very least rot in jail for the rest of his life for a crime he didn't commit.

[greenchair]

46 minutes ago, IslandLover said:

I notice you have omitted to mention Zaw Lin in all of this, yet you still expect him to be executed, or at the very least rot in jail for the rest of his life for a crime he didn't commit.

In my opinion, there was nothing on Zaw Lin. The constant reference to the both of them when speaking of dna and other aspects has annoyed me. Though I still think him guilty, had his case been separate with only the mixed dna as evidence he most likely would have won. But whose fault is that? The defense hoped to win for Wei Phyo (with so much evidence against )whilst riding on Zaw Lin back (with very little evidence ). It backfired badly and Zaw Lin got dragged down. 

The case should have been split. 

Muang and Wei Phyo stand out for me. 

Other than the dna, Zaw Lin went for a swim, went home and slept until morning. 

 

 

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, IslandLover said:

I notice you have omitted to mention Zaw Lin in all of this, yet you still expect him to be executed, or at the very least rot in jail for the rest of his life for a crime he didn't commit.

So you are saying Wei Phyo is guilty. 

[iReason]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

It was only partial dna. Anyway. Dna alone will not convict. 

It needs other evidence. 

Such as possessions of the victims, or witness to say you were in the area. 

 

Just making stuff up.

Again.

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, IslandLover said:

And they talked about there being some dna that matched Wei Phyo and partial dna of an unknown male 

 

You say in another post that it was only a "partial match" to Wai Phyo.  Now you are claiming there was a full match!  So which is it?  It was claimed in court that there was a partial match to ONE of the defendants, but IIRC it was never specified which defendant.  However, since it was only a partial match, it could not be proved that it actually belonged to him.  Perhaps DNA expert Partington, or Rockingrobin could explain that point to you. 

No there was a full match of Wei Phyo in the Virginia. 

But if I remember rightly porthip said there was a 25 percent match to Wei Phyo on the hoe. 

But I can't find it in the summary. 

Wei Phyo dna was everywhere. 

Virginia, bottom, booby, hoe. 

But only the dna in the Virginia was used for the ruling because it was full. 

[Khun Han]

3 minutes ago, greenchair said:

No there was a full match of Wei Phyo in the Virginia. 

But if I remember rightly porthip said there was a 25 percent match to Wei Phyo on the hoe. 

But I can't find it in the summary. 

Wei Phyo dna was everywhere. 

Virginia, bottom, booby, hoe. 

But only the dna in the Virginia was used for the ruling because it was full. 

 

What happened to all this dna? And please give us all another big laugh by explaining what a 25% dna match is (on the only piece of evidence which could be retested, of course)

Edited September 1, 2017 by Khun Han

[iReason]

13 minutes ago, greenchair said:

But if I remember rightly porthip said there was a 25 percent match to Wei Phyo on the hoe. 

But I can't find it in the summary. 

Wei Phyo dna was everywhere. 

"But I can't find it in the summary."

Yet, shamelessly, you state it as fact.

 

"Wei Phyo dna was everywhere."

 

Just making stuff up.

Again.

[greenchair]

14 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

What happened to all this dna? And please give us all another big laugh by explaining what a 25% dna match is (on the only piece of evidence which could be retested, of course)

Stop avoiding the phone Khun Han. Remember, David's phone 

[Khun Han]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Stop avoiding the phone Khun Han. Remember, David's phone 

 

Would that be the iPhone4s that was photographed looking quite intact on top of David's case file before the b2 were arrested, which the police later claimed was the smashed up phone, at the time, according to them belonging to Hannah, then changed to David's phone after a video was produced of Hannah's phone being handed over to the police by her friends?

 

"Mr Miller, can you confirm the IMEI of David's phone?"

 

"Yes. It's ***********. "

 

"Fantastic. That's the same IMEI of a phone we have in our posession."

 

______________________

 

Now, about that 25% dna match. Can you run us through the science of it?

[greenchair]

10 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Would that be the iPhone4s that was photographed looking quite intact on top of David's case file before the b2 were arrested, which the police later claimed was the smashed up phone, at the time, according to them belonging to Hannah, then changed to David's phone after a video was produced of Hannah's phone being handed over to the police by her friends?

 

"Mr Miller, can you confirm the IMEI of David's phone?"

 

"Yes. It's ***********. "

 

"Fantastic. That's the same IMEI of a phone we have in our posession."

 

______________________

 

Now, about that 25% dna match. Can you run us through the science of it?

Oh you are just awful. 

A master of trickery 

Didn't get past that very wise judge though. Hehe

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

Oh you are just awful. 

A master of trickery 

Didn't get past that very wise judge though. Hehe

 

Neither did any facts.

[greenchair]

12 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Neither did any facts.

That's right, the defense didn't have any facts to present. 

Just whining 

 

[iReason]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

But if I remember rightly porthip said there was a 25 percent match to Wei Phyo on the hoe. 

But I can't find it in the summary. 

Wei Phyo dna was everywhere.

 

22 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Oh you are just awful. 

A master of trickery 

'Oh you are just awful' 

Personified.

[Khun Han]

12 minutes ago, greenchair said:

That's right, the defense didn't have any facts to present. 

Just whining 

 

 

In the case of the phone, which wus wut swung it for you (or so you pretend), they had to advise their client to plead guilty because the alternative was to call the police liars (which they were) who had fabricated evidence (which they did), and this is a red line which cannot be crossed in a Thai court.

[iReason]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

That's right, the defense didn't have any facts to present. 

Just whining

 

Will you please substantiate this, your claim, that you state as fact? :

"Wei Phyo dna was everywhere."

 

Because it's news to me.

 

Or, is it just hysterical, hyperbolic blather?

 

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by iReason

[IslandLover]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

So you are saying Wei Phyo is guilty. 

No, not of the rape and murders but there is a possibility that he witnessed the crime and that's how he came by the phone.  I don't believe Zaw Lin was even there when it happened.