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

[IslandLover]

4 hours ago, BangkokNicky said:

The  Defendant / NCA shall pay ·the Claimants £15,000 life is cheap these days thats 7,500 each .. 

 

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017_08_29_PRIV-High-Court-Order-NCA-unlawful-action.pdf

I imagine that the £15,000 awarded is just to pay their legal fees.  The document specifies that the Court has ordered that "the Claimants' application for judicial review is withdrawn."

 

Page 3, Section 2 of this document is the most interesting as it sets out the nature of the "phone data and intelligence" that the NCA illegally supplied to the RTP, to which The Guardian article alluded.

 

 

[maxpower]

13 hours ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

I don't get it. 

 

Isn't there a chance that these 2 are guilty after all?

 

 

Lots of guilty people walking free because the prosecution failed. No room for error is the only way, sorry about that.

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Thank you. It's long been my belief that no semen samples ever existed (and I believe the Norfolk coroner came to the conclusion that Hannah hadn't been raped). There was some speculation that the b2 had been in the first round-up of Burmese migrants for swab testing, before they were arrested, and that they may have been selected as scapegoats from that and the knowledge that they had been on the beach that fateful night, which is why I asked the question.

Wrong Khun Han!!

The UK coroner said she was sexually assaulted and andy tried to pass that off as she was not raped. That's just rediculous. 

The b2 were arrested because extensive video footage show the 3 of them in the area of the crime, when no one else was in that area. 

Upon interviewing the burmese and their friends, the police were informed about David's phone. 

The rest is history. 

[IslandLover]

3 hours ago, NCFC said:

To be clear, the British police handed over evidence to the police not the prosecution. It is up to the Thai police to hand over all relevant facts to the defence.
It must have come up in court as evidence so why didnt Andy Hall and friends challenge the source?

Any evidence the RTP received from the NCA which did not point to the B2 was NOT used in court.  The only evidence that was used concerned David Miller's phone and that was challenged as the defence knew that the NCA had supplied this information illegally.  N.B. This is not to be confused with the last day of the trial when the Miller family produced evidence that the IMEI number of the phone in the RTP's possession matched David Miller's phone, for which Wai Phyo was convicted of stealing.

[greenchair]

23 minutes ago, partington said:

You don't have any idea what you are talking about. This too is simply made up nonsense.

 

It's in the court documents. 

Go read it. 

[partington]

Just now, greenchair said:

It's in the court documents. 

Go read it. 

No, you just copy it here since it's you making the claim.

 

I think you have too little background knowledge to make what you fabricate seem even remotely credible.  

 

Lucky for you most people are the same.

[greenchair]

3 minutes ago, IslandLover said:

Any evidence the RTP received from the NCA which did not point to the B2 was NOT used in court.  The only evidence that was used concerned David Miller's phone and that was challenged as the defence knew that the NCA had supplied this information illegally.  N.B. This is not to be confused with the last day of the trial when the Miller family produced evidence that the IMEI number of the phone in the RTP's possession matched David Miller's phone, for which Wai Phyo was convicted of stealing.

What was the evidence used that concerned David's phone that was not the IMEI ??

[Rc2702]

Just now, greenchair said:

What was the evidence used that concerned David's phone that was not the IMEI ??

Are you paid per post?

[IslandLover]

8 minutes ago, greenchair said:

What was the evidence used that concerned David's phone that was not the IMEI ??

It was something that occurred during the middle of the trial.  It may have concerned the IMEI number but I can't remember exactly now.  However, it wasn't until the last day of the trial that the Miller family received a couriered document in the courtroom which they handed to the prosecution.  This did concern the IMEI number.

[rockingrobin]

24 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Wrong Khun Han!!

The UK coroner said she was sexually assaulted and andy tried to pass that off as she was not raped. That's just rediculous. 

The b2 were arrested because extensive video footage show the 3 of them in the area of the crime, when no one else was in that area. 

Upon interviewing the burmese and their friends, the police were informed about David's phone. 

The rest is history. 

Surely it is reasonable to assume somebody else was present , otherwise the blond hair would not be on the victim

[greenchair]

11 minutes ago, IslandLover said:

It was something that occurred during the middle of the trial.  It may have concerned the IMEI number but I can't remember exactly now.  However, it wasn't until the last day of the trial that the Miller family received a couriered document in the courtroom which they handed to the prosecution.  This did concern the IMEI number.

There's not a lot said about the phone, the defense did not defend it and Wei Phyo accepted the charge. 

In regards to the UK report, to me it seems they were getting information from the friends through interviews and passing that information on.

The report doesn't say what information it gave about the phone, but since it was a few days after the murders, I am assuming it could be either the friends said the phone was missing or the GPS location of the phone. 

But if that was the case, why would they need the IMEI? H

[Eirene]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Thank you. It's long been my belief that no semen samples ever existed (and I believe the Norfolk coroner came to the conclusion that Hannah hadn't been raped). There was some speculation that the b2 had been in the first round-up of Burmese migrants for swab testing, before they were arrested, and that they may have been selected as scapegoats from that and the knowledge that they had been on the beach that fateful night, which is why I asked the question.

Right you are Khun Han. My belief from the get go as well. No samples...no rape.

 

Part of the statement from defense lawyer Nadthasiri Bergman  LL.M. Esq – 24th May 2016 regarding the 198 page appeal filed with the Region 8 Court of Appeals on Koh Samui, Thailand.

 

“The incision discovered inside the victim’s vagina was determined by British autopsy to have been caused during the Thai autopsy, not a result of sexual assault.”

 

 

[Rc2702]

Just now, greenchair said:

There's not a lot said about the phone, the defense did not defend it and Wei Phyo accepted the charge. 

In regards to the UK report, to me it seems they were getting information from the friends through interviews and passing that information on.

The report doesn't say what information it gave about the phone, but since it was a few days after the murders, I am assuming it could be either the friends said the phone was missing or the GPS location of the phone. 

But if that was the case, why would they need the IMEI? H

The IMEI proves the phone found in the b2 possession belonged to David. The reference with uk agencies who sought the info from phone provider. 

 

Greenchair if it is so cut and dry and a closed case as you seem to see it. Why not present the evidence in one swoop and clear this up. You have been on this crusade for a very long time and never gave up or gave any of the defence evidence a moments thought. There is more than doubt in this case and only a paid poster would refuse to believe that, or appear to refuse.

[Media1]

3 minutes ago, Rc2702 said:

The IMEI proves the phone found in the b2 possession belonged to David. The reference with uk agencies who sought the info from phone provider. 

 

Greenchair if it is so cut and dry and a closed case as you seem to see it. Why not present the evidence in one swoop and clear this up. You have been on this crusade for a very long time and never gave up or gave any of the defence evidence a moments thought. There is more than doubt in this case and only a paid poster would refuse to believe that, or appear to refuse.

The Burmese are innocent

[greenchair]

11 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Surely it is reasonable to assume somebody else was present , otherwise the blond hair would not be on the victim

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 .

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Wrong Khun Han!!

The UK coroner said she was sexually assaulted and andy tried to pass that off as she was not raped. That's just rediculous. 

The b2 were arrested because extensive video footage show the 3 of them in the area of the crime, when no one else was in that area. 

Upon interviewing the burmese and their friends, the police were informed about David's phone. 

The rest is history. 

 

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.

[Khun Han]

20 minutes 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 .

 

My god!!! Hannah was found clutching the hair in her hand. Snatching that hair was almost certainly one of the last living things she did.

 

The Koh Tao mafia hired the most inept and depraved bunch of spammers I've ever come across.

[greenchair]

5 hours ago, BangkokNicky said:

The  Defendant / NCA shall pay ·the Claimants £15,000 life is cheap these days thats 7,500 each .. 

 

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017_08_29_PRIV-High-Court-Order-NCA-unlawful-action.pdf

I wonder how much of that 15000 will be given to the burmese for their "defense ".

 

[greenchair]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

My god!!! Hannah was found clutching the hair in her hand. Snatching that hair was almost certainly one of the last living things she did.

 

The Koh Tao mafia hired the most inept and depraved bunch of spammers I've ever come across.

Oh that's just hilarious and funny. 

Who ever heard of someone being convicted over a hair. 

Usually you would need something like say. ... dna or have belongings of the victim or cctv showing person near the scene or admission of going back to the scene for strange reasons. 

Hmmmm who could that be Khun Han? 

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Assume you are correct about advising the thais to take a dna sample from a suspect.

This request is made some 2 weeks after the B2 arrest and dna being profiled. 

Uhuh , I am a bit stumped here. 

Perhaps it is to take a sample from the guy that had the argument. 

[Khun Han]

9 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Oh that's just hilarious and funny. 

Who ever heard of someone being convicted over a hair. 

Usually you would need something like say. ... dna or have belongings of the victim or cctv showing person near the scene or admission of going back to the scene for strange reasons. 

Hmmmm who could that be Khun Han? 

 

A hair with a root has dna.

 

The son of an influential person was identified by the head of the police investigation as being involved in the murders.

 

The brother of that influential person was one of the first persons on the crime scene, acting strangely in moving the bodies and other evidence around, including folding the victims' clothing up neatly and placing it on a rock, and (completely inexplicably if he didn't witness the murder) noticing that the murder weapon was not where it was supposed to be, asking a labourer to put it back!!!!! This same person returned to the crime scene repeatedly during that day, stepping over a police line without authority.

 

[greenchair]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

A hair with a root has dna.

 

The son of an influential person was identified by the head of the police investigation as being involved in the murders.

 

The brother of that influential person was one of the first persons on the crime scene, acting strangely in moving the bodies and other evidence around, including folding the victims' clothing up neatly and placing it on a rock, and (completely inexplicably if he didn't witness the murder) noticing that the murder weapon was not where it was supposed to be, asking a labourer to put it back!!!!! This same person returned to the crime scene repeatedly during that day, stepping over a police line without authority.

 

I agree with above. Try taking that to court. Doesn't prove anything. Even if it did. Still doesn't exclude the b2. There are several people might have been there. 

The user of the condom. 

Sean with his cuts. 

Muang Muang. 

The owner of the hair. 

Mon 

Nothing to do with the case against the burmese. 

[Khun Han]

13 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Uhuh , I am a bit stumped here. 

Perhaps it is to take a sample from the guy that had the argument. 

 

One of the main thrusts of the serial killer defenders has always been that the bar argument is a myth, devoid of witnesses. We now find out from the UK court case that it isn't. The cover up is starting to crumble folks. Expect some internet workers to become jobless soon. Back to working in Som's Bar for 250 Baht a day for them .

[greenchair]

????????????????

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

I agree with above. Try taking that to court. Doesn't prove anything. Even if it did. Still doesn't exclude the b2. There are several people might have been there. 

The user of the condom. 

Sean with his cuts. 

Muang Muang. 

The owner of the hair. 

Mon 

Nothing to do with the case against the burmese. 

 

Is the brother of an influential person about to be sacrificed? Hard to believe.....but.....maybe hard-up lookalikes are being searched for as we speak. A bit like Darren Oxley knocking around in Hua Hin with his 'wife's sister' .

[Khun Han]

And if you believe that any influential person was involved in the murders, that rules out the b2 being even as much as witnesses. If they hadn't been taken into protective custody almost immediately they would be dead.

[JLCrab]

34 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

One of the main thrusts of the serial killer defenders has always been that the bar argument is a myth, devoid of witnesses. We now find out from the UK court case that it isn't. The cover up is starting to crumble folks. Expect some internet workers to become jobless soon. Back to working in Som's Bar for 250 Baht a day for them .

I read that. I have always said that no one has publicly come forward to say that the saw anyone accosting the late Ms. Witheridge. Whether you now want to equate an argument with more aggressive sexual accosting behavior behavior is up to you. And it doesn't say with whom they had the argument or that anyone who was there has been able to put any specific person on the scene.

It also says that the late Mr. Miller had a  dispute (not argument) with certain persons from from Koh Phangan

Edited August 30, 2017 by JLCrab

[TheLobster]

17 hours ago, greenchair said:

I do wonder what the other evidence it is that was handed to the prosecution. 

Could it be the confirmed dna match of those 2 guilty sods. 

The fact that the nca took the risk of handing over such evidence, just tells me by their investigations, they believe the b2 guilty also. 

There may well have been others there, right along with the b2. 

The UK judge refused to hand over crucial evidence to the defence team. The UK police team handed over circumstantial evidence to the prosecution team illegally.

 

16 hours ago, edwinchester said:

If the Thai prosecution were happy to accept phone evidence that placed the Burmese near to the scene, something they had admitted to anyway when they said they were drinking on the beach, then surely the same prosecution would have presented confirmation of dna results if handed over by the UK Police.

It could also be speculated, for that is what you are doing about unproduced evidence, that the reason evidence was not presented is that it did not back up the Thai case.

It doesn't work that way. The court would only accept evidence that would support the prosecution's case.

 

14 hours ago, jonclark said:

Am I reading this wrong..but the only reason the UK broke the law is because they were given a death sentence. It is not the actual sharing of evidence that was the issue, but the sentence that arose from it, which is against UK law as there is no death sentence in the UK. 

That's correct but the problem is that the UK could have shared far more and helped the defence of the B2 who are clearly innocent.

 

12 hours ago, Media1 said:

The Thais that raped and murdered them are still free and the joke is on the regime as a place not to visit. Yoyr police force needs immediate pulling down. Its a cowboy show. You dont know crooks for heroes. Look I may take my chances with the crook lol.

 

12 hours ago, greenchair said:

It amazes me the tantrum and outcry for the UK to reveal their findings of an independent investigation that was conducted because of a Petition to the prime minister, is followed by a tantrum and outcry because the UK revealed the findings of their investigations that clearly showed the b2 guilty. 

No it didn't

 

11 hours ago, greenchair said:

To me it is a travesty of justice, that the defence pressured and forced the UK police to be involved in this case, only to prosecute them when the evidence did not show the preferred outcome. Instead, they focus on the police have information of another suspect, to smoke and mirror the evidence showing the b2 guilt. 

This mwrn knows no shame, in their efforts to carry on this farce. 

The B2 are not guilty as you know. The prosecution was because the UK police illegally provided evidence to the prosecution/Thai Police. The UK Police and Government nor the judicial system did nothing to seek justice here. All of the information that was provided was in the interest of 'International Relations'

 

10 hours ago, partington said:

1. There is no evidence anywhere about what the defence were offered, and 95% of people writing and commenting on the case have so little knowledge of the basics of DNA and molecular biology that they would not be capable of reporting correctly on what had been offered.

I have a degree in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry from one of the best Universities in the UK. Hopefully you will respect my opinion on DNA results in the future .........

I do understand your post though, now even the Koh Tao muppets think they are DNA experts.

 

9 hours ago, greenchair said:

The wonderful news is, we all now know the UK did do an investigation. 

The UK did have evidence to the crime. 

The evidence showed the b2 guilty. 

Thanks for the confirmation UK police. 

I just want to thank those brave officers that risked their jobs and good reputation in the name of justice for hannah Witheridge, who was shameless murdered by those 2 rotters. 

No that is not what is reported, they provided evidence of a phone location, not who committed the murders! 

 

You seem a little bit deranged, please calm down.

 

8 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Considering the size of Koh Tao everyone on the island was in the same area as the victims!

I wasn't but you are correct.

 

6 hours ago, NCFC said:

To be clear, the British police handed over evidence to the police not the prosecution. It is up to the Thai police to hand over all relevant facts to the defence.
It must have come up in court as evidence so why didnt Andy Hall and friends challenge the source?

To be clear, the British police should not be handing over anything. If they did it should have been to both parties.

 

8 hours ago, DiscoDan said:

The only difference was the B2 were sitting only a few feet away from where the hoe was kept. and had the victims phone.

The Hoe, which was the murder weapon but didn't have any of the B2's DNA on it you mean?

 

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

Wrong Khun Han!!

The UK coroner said she was sexually assaulted and andy tried to pass that off as she was not raped. That's just rediculous. 

The b2 were arrested because extensive video footage show the 3 of them in the area of the crime, when no one else was in that area. 

Upon interviewing the burmese and their friends, the police were informed about David's phone. 

The rest is history. 

There wasn't extensive video footage, all the relevant bits were lost/destroyed/paid for. The footage that was left clearly showed someone that wasn't one of the B2 based on their trait. The only video from that night on the island should be available on the internet but you do wonder what happened to the rest of the CCTV coverage from the island on that night don't you!

 

45 minutes 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.

Correct there was NO REPORT of RAPE so there is no DNA

 

38 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

My god!!! Hannah was found clutching the hair in her hand. Snatching that hair was almost certainly one of the last living things she did.

The Koh Tao mafia hired the most inept and depraved bunch of spammers I've ever come across.

The hair was crucial evidence but was ignored by the Thai police and the court.

 

28 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Oh that's just hilarious and funny. 

Who ever heard of someone being convicted over a hair. 

Usually you would need something like say. ... dna or have belongings of the victim or cctv showing person near the scene or admission of going back to the scene for strange reasons. 

Hmmmm who could that be Khun Han? 

The hair was crucial evidence but was ignored by the Thai police and the court.

 

6 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

A hair with a root has dna.

The son of an influential person was identified by the head of the police investigation as being involved in the murders.

The brother of that influential person was one of the first persons on the crime scene, acting strangely in moving the bodies and other evidence around, including folding the victims' clothing up neatly and placing it on a rock, and (completely inexplicably if he didn't witness the murder) noticing that the murder weapon was not where it was supposed to be, asking a labourer to put it back!!!!! This same person returned to the crime scene repeatedly during that day, stepping over a police line without authority.

Exactly

[IslandLover]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

There's not a lot said about the phone, the defense did not defend it and Wei Phyo accepted the charge. 

In regards to the UK report, to me it seems they were getting information from the friends through interviews and passing that information on.

The report doesn't say what information it gave about the phone, but since it was a few days after the murders, I am assuming it could be either the friends said the phone was missing or the GPS location of the phone. 

But if that was the case, why would they need the IMEI? H

But if that was the case, why would they need the IMEI?

 

To prove the phone was David Miller's of course.  

[Krenjai]

55 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

I read that. I have always said that no one has publicly come forward to say that the saw anyone accosting the late Ms. Witheridge. Whether you now want to equate an argument with more aggressive sexual accosting behavior behavior is up to you. And it doesn't say with whom they had the argument or that anyone who was there has been able to put any specific person on the scene.

It also says that the late Mr. Miller had a  dispute (not argument) with certain persons from from Koh Phangan

Drunk?