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

[Khun Han]

57 minutes ago, greenchair said:

That is the detail. There was a disagreement in a bar earlier. 

Nothing to see here. 

Go back to your dream kh.?

 

You just stick to your haplessly ill-informed white noise greenchair, and leave the intelligent discussion to those who are capable of having it. Corrections of your nonsense would make a huge thread all of It's own .

[AGareth2]

55 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Please don't insult my extensive intelligence. 

 

are you for real?

[JLCrab]

I posted the order verbatim and it does not contain in item b. the words 'bar' or conflict.

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

See page 3

Edited August 31, 2017 by JLCrab

[sambum]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Why would they investigate? 

What would they say at court? 

This man was angry at victim 2 and argued with victim 1. 

He lost face and murdered them at the beach. 

It's like the 1 hair. 

We found a hair belonging to that man so we know he is the murderer.

Please don't insult my extensive intelligence. 

 

If an altercation took place between the victims and  "this man" shortly before they were murdered, then surely it should have been investigated? And they could say at Court "We investigated reports of an altercation between the victim(s) and a man. but found nothing to answer" Would be just about par for the case. They could also say the same about the video evidence that they "weren't allowed to see" (In a murder investigation!!!)

 

And by the way, "Please don't insult my extensive intelligence." !!!

 

You are getting more and more pompous with every post you make!

 

No doubt "I"  is soon to become the Royal "we"? 

Edited August 31, 2017 by sambum

[Khun Han]

20 minutes 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!

 

A hair that Hannah snatched as she was being murdered is "just a hair". An argument David and Hannah had with someone in the last place they were seen alive is "just an argument". A phone found on the beach and some made up dna profiles prove murder. Welcome to greenchair's "extensive intelligence" world Dick.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Khun Han

[4MyEgo]

On 30/08/2017 at 6:17 PM, Father Fintan Stack said:

They have planted semen in order to get a false conviction before, during the investigation of murder of Kirsty Jones they planted evidence and despite the semen belonging to a Thai, tried to pin it on a farang. 

That's crazy s...

[greenchair]

22 minutes 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!

Well only if you have something to go along with the evidence of a conflict. 

Like in the case of the b2 that had several areas of potential to relate to the crime. 

Maybe you will see things differently when you sober up. 

[greenchair]

8 minutes ago, sambum said:

If an altercation took place between the victims and  "this man" shortly before they were murdered, then surely it should have been investigated? And they could say at Court "We investigated reports of an altercation between the victim(s) and a man. but found nothing to answer" Would be just about par for the case. They could also say the same about the video evidence that they "weren't allowed to see" (In a murder investigation!!!)

 

And by the way, "Please don't insult my extensive intelligence." !!!

 

You are getting more and more pompous with every post you make!

 

No doubt "I"  is soon to become the Royal "we"? 

That would be a royal no no. 

[greenchair]

I just love Khun Han and his hilariousness. 

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

The data is there already, they had information there was a conflict of some sort at a bar. The person might be a possible suspect to interview. 

It was well before the burmese were arrested. 

 

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Hang on a minute - there is now proof that one or both of the victims were involved in a conflict at the bar shortly before they were murdered?

 

6 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well only if you have something to go along with the evidence of a conflict. 

Like in the case of the b2 that had several areas of potential to relate to the crime. 

Maybe you will see things differently when you sober up. 

So there is evidence of a conflict in the bar shortly before they were murdered?

 

News to me, and I assume it comes from this UK court case?

[greenchair]

23 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

So there is evidence of a conflict in the bar shortly before they were murdered?

 

News to me, and I assume it comes from this UK court case?

So if there is evidence that there was a conflict at sometime before the murders. And you went and interviewed the person and the person had a reasonable alibi at the time of murder. 

And the murder accused that were obviously involved, would not implicate that person, for whatever reason. 

What would you do with that? 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, greenchair said:

So if there is evidence that there was a conflict at sometime before the murders. And you went and interviewed the person and the person had a reasonable alibi at the time of murder. 

And the murder accused that were obviously involved, would not implicate that person, for whatever reason. 

What would you do with that? 

So there is now proof that there was a conflict at the bar with 'person(s) unknown - other than it was neither of the B2.

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

So there is now proof that there was a conflict at the bar with 'person(s) unknown - other than it was neither of the B2.

Great detective work. ???

[IslandLover]

9 hours ago, greenchair said:

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. 

 

You really have no idea.  

[sambum]

45 minutes ago, greenchair said:

So if there is evidence that there was a conflict at sometime before the murders. And you went and interviewed the person and the person had a reasonable alibi at the time of murder. 

And the murder accused that were obviously involved, would not implicate that person, for whatever reason. 

What would you do with that? 

 " 3 hours ago, greenchair said:

The data is there already, they had information there was a conflict of some sort at a bar. The person might be a possible suspect to interview. 

It was well before the burmese were arrested."

 

The way I read it is that there was a conflict, and it was not investigated, yet in your first post above you are implying that if there was a conflict, it was investigated, and the person involved had a "reasonable" alibi at the time of the murder.

 

However, in your second post above, you are saying that there was a conflict, and that there might well be a possible subject to interview.

 

So which is it - there was a conflict, or not? There was a suspect, or not, the suspect was interviewed, or not?

 

 

 

[sambum]

9 hours ago, greenchair said:

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. 

 

I would LOVE to see you BANK your head against the wall! 

 

And "he was not a credible in any instance to do with this crime." Huh? What is "a credible"? Doesn't exactly fit in with your "extensive intelligence"!

Edited August 31, 2017 by sambum

[TheLobster]

9 hours ago, greenchair said:

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. 

 

Complete fabrication.

 

Here is the MWRN translated script of the verdict:

The two defendants examined a witness, Mr Andrew Jonathan Hall or Andy Hall to testify on the autopsy report of the Second Deceased in Document Lor. 31, claiming that the autopsy report at the United Kingdom did not indicate an abrasive tear on the perineum from the vulva to the anus of the Second Deceased. 
Mr Andrew also hired an expert from the United Kingdom to conduct a gait analysis of a suspect in Document Lor.47 indicated that the second defendant was not the same man as the suspect. 
It is found that this witness did not learn the factual issues or was not directly involved with the case, nor is he an expert on autopsy and the analysis of the two reports. Additionally, the witness is merely the coordinator and recipient of the said reports. 
Almost all of the facts in the testimony are his personal opinions. His testimony constitutes hearsay evidence because he only refutes what has been written in the reports or claims that an expert has informed him of such information.
Unless a relevant expert can testify before the court to confirm the information in such reports, the plaintiff cannot cross-examine the witness in order to properly examine the fact. 
The testimony alone is without any weight and not worthy of being taken in to account. 
The evidence that the two defendants presented in Court did not have any weight to refute the report of the plaintiff’s test results.

 

So the judges decided the testimony and evidence 'did not have any weight' I would completely disagree.

[IslandLover]

30 minutes ago, sambum said:

I would LOVE to see you BANK your head against the wall! 

 

And "he was not a credible in any instance to do with this crime." Huh? What is "a credible"? Doesn't exactly fit in with your "extensive intelligence"!

Perhaps Greenchair does this frequently and that's why she posts the way she does.  Any intelligence that once existed was knocked out of that head a long time ago.  

Edited August 31, 2017 by IslandLover
Typo

[007cableguy]

I would LOVE to see you BANK your head against the wall! 
 
And "he was not a credible in any instance to do with this crime." Huh? What is "a credible"? Doesn't exactly fit in with your "extensive intelligence"!

Definitely extensive! In what who knows!. If I said what I thought I could be in trouble!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, sambum said:

 " 3 hours ago, greenchair said:

The data is there already, they had information there was a conflict of some sort at a bar. The person might be a possible suspect to interview. 

It was well before the burmese were arrested."

 

The way I read it is that there was a conflict, and it was not investigated, yet in your first post above you are implying that if there was a conflict, it was investigated, and the person involved had a "reasonable" alibi at the time of the murder.

 

However, in your second post above, you are saying that there was a conflict, and that there might well be a possible subject to interview.

 

So which is it - there was a conflict, or not? There was a suspect, or not, the suspect was interviewed, or not?

 

 

 

Who cares. Nothing to do with this case. It was well before the arrest of the guilty parties. 

[sambum]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Who cares. Nothing to do with this case. It was well before the arrest of the guilty parties. 

Who cares? For a start, obviously YOU or you wouldn't be making so many posts about it!!!

Secondly, many people on here (obviously excluding you and a couple of others) care that possibly the wrong people have been convicted of the crime, and that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

 

And that it was well before the arrest of the "guilty" parties is totally relevant.  

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by sambum

[Next stop NK]

At least the U.K. Police is now forced to admit that they made a mistake (the biggest mistake was that they were used by RTP to rubber stamp their mistakes). Now time for RTP to admit that they made a mistake also, much bigger with fatal consequences. Sorry, I just woke up, must have been dreaming

[EyeOfRa]

While we all know how very persuasive the senior officers of the RTP can be, one also wonders if the UK police may have been directed by some higher authority to defer to the RTP's demands. It's certainly a stunningly unorthodox and risky cooperation.

 

Further, it seems quite possible that the UK police (whether of their own accord or under direction) accepted both the inculpation of the Burmese and the impunity of others.

 

The intelligence about the conflicts in bars must derive from interviews of David and Hannah's friends. It now seems entirely possible that these friends may also have been "advised" that as the culprits had been found, it would be best to remain silent on the matter. Perhaps the Miller family were similarly influenced.

[greenchair]

4 hours ago, EyeOfRa said:

While we all know how very persuasive the senior officers of the RTP can be, one also wonders if the UK police may have been directed by some higher authority to defer to the RTP's demands. It's certainly a stunningly unorthodox and risky cooperation.

 

Further, it seems quite possible that the UK police (whether of their own accord or under direction) accepted both the inculpation of the Burmese and the impunity of others.

 

The intelligence about the conflicts in bars must derive from interviews of David and Hannah's friends. It now seems entirely possible that these friends may also have been "advised" that as the culprits had been found, it would be best to remain silent on the matter. Perhaps the Miller family were similarly influenced.

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. 

[greenchair]

11 hours ago, sambum said:

Who cares? For a start, obviously YOU or you wouldn't be making so many posts about it!!!

Secondly, many people on here (obviously excluding you and a couple of others) care that possibly the wrong people have been convicted of the crime, and that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

 

And that it was well before the arrest of the "guilty" parties is totally relevant.  

 

The information was gotten and given at a time when there were no suspects. 

After the b2 were arrested because of cctv footage, testimony, dna match and possessions of the victims phone. And there was no evidence of another person at the crime scene. The above information was not needed. Irrelevant to the case. 

[greenchair]

15 hours ago, IslandLover said:

You really have no idea.  

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

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

[EyeOfRa]

17 minutes ago, greenchair said:

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

 

More accurately, "the information other than the phone" (i.e. points a - d listed below)

 

"a. a person who had displayed anti-British female sentiment at a local beach bar (29 September 2014); 
b. person(s) with whom the 'murdered individuals had had an argument (30 September 2014); 
c. Mr Miller being involved in a dispute with certain persons on the island of .Koh Phangan (10 October 2014); and · 
d. the need for DNA samples to be taken from a potential suspect (17 October 2014). "
 

was irrelevant to the prosecution case -- and quite the contrary for the defence and outcome of the trial.

Edited September 1, 2017 by EyeOfRa

[AGareth2]

18 minutes ago, greenchair said:

police were not able to find other evidence at the scene of anyone except the 2 men

that is where your claim collapses

DNA of "an other" was on the hoe

the murder weapon

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, AGareth2 said:

that is where your claim collapses

DNA of "an other" was on the hoe

the murder weapon

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. 

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, AGareth2 said:

that is where your claim collapses

DNA of "an other" was on the hoe

the murder weapon

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,