Thread: Two Tourists Brutally Murdered on Koh Tao, One Raped: Police Spark Thailand Manhunt

Thought nothing went missing? so i take it the wallet etc have gone now.

Originally Posted by koman

So am I reading this right? The BIB say they found the phone near the Burmese guys living quarters, but Hanna's girl friend had the phone in her bag; gave it to the BIB and there it is sitting on the cops desk? Wonder how they will explain that one...

Amazing the amount of evidence that's just left laying around here and there, and how things disappear and then materialize again at the appropriate times. Maybe they are using magic.

The story that will never end. Now we are on to fake phone evidence and torture with boiling water. May truth emerge.

I must say considering many members keep saying Thais are stupid and not question anything, there coming up with some good info on the net

Thais are kicking the farangs asses.

Originally Posted by Yasojack

Thais are kicking the farangs asses.

It was 2-0 at the start of the investigation

its now 3-2 thais.

Does seem that very few people believe this load of rubbish being pushed forward by the cops. Except the lazy western media that is.

Originally Posted by thailazer

The story that will never end. Now we are on to fake phone evidence and torture with boiling water. May truth emerge.

No, it will never end, just like the Chiang Mai hotel deaths in which the Thais actually said with a straight face that it was all a coincidence, including the couple that died in the same bed on the same night.

It finally took an Australian undercover TV crew to provide the most likely and only plausible answer (bedbug poison).

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Does seem that very few people believe this load of rubbish being pushed forward by the cops. Except the lazy western media that is.

A few have hinted that only the Thai police believe that they are perps.

The whole phone thing can be easily explained.

[smile]The police officer made a typo mistake in the report and got confused. It was in fact given to the police and not found outside the accused's dwelling.[/smile ]

Originally Posted by BobR

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Originally Posted by Yasojack

we are all willing to post and read the shit on forums, but how many of us are willing to stick are necks out?

Are you willing to be quoted on your interpretation of the events surrounding this crime?

Quoted under your real name?

Yes or no.

It's one thing to stick your neck out and make a stand for the truth in a country in which truth is an absolute defense to civil defamation and where criminal defamation does not exist, it's quite another thing to do it here. But then if the legal system here was not as corrupt as it is there would be nothing to complain about.

Pointing out the inconsistencies in a 'confession' is not defamatory.

Accusing someone else by name of doing the crime is as defamatory in another country as it is in Thailand.

No. Teakdoor members are just too craven to come out from behind their pseudonyms, or too lazy to communicate it to the media in a usable way - and just endlessly circulate their theories between themselves in an unread backwater of the internet.

As i've mentioned, i've cited Teakdoor members numerous times. Their formed opinions or experiences can be very usable in the media. I did a piece for the BBC based entirely on an interview with a Thaivisa member in 2005.

Ghost any links to it would be interested to read.

Can you imagine a defence lawyer in the Uk asking these 2 questions in court

1 When the defendants were DNA tested 2 weeks ago along with other workers in the bar, they tested negative but now are positive --how is this possible

2 When compelling workers and others to submit DNA how is it that the boss of the bar and his family could refuse to supply their DNA

All the rest is just confusion put out by the police whilst they decided how to go about framing others

I suggest any UK jury would throw out the prosecution fairly quickly

The Prime Minister has spoken and re- affirmed the integrity of the Royal Thai Police citing the support he has received from the British ambassador who has pronounced his satisfaction at the conduct of the investigation.

I'm not absolutely positive but are we not still under martial law?

Any further criticism of Thai institutions will reflect upon Thailand's reputation and undermine its interests and national security.

Work it out for yourselves what that means in terms of freedom of expression etc.

Originally Posted by Yasojack

Ghost any links to it would be interested to read.

I can't see it online anymore, i'll try to find it in my records.

I do urge members to try and summarise their thoughts and send them to publications. There are some good writers here (even if they do use the word 'chickenheads' with excessive abandon), and journalists like it when they are spoon fed a story (without having to read a 1000 post thread).

Actually, it occurs to me that on something like this, they wouldn't ask to quote the originator, so folk are protected there.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

There are some good writers here (even if they do use the word 'chickenheads' with excessive abandon)

Thanks ghost-- love ya too.

Note - not really used chickenheads much in the last week. It doesn't seem accurate for them after seeing this unfold.

I still think that 'chicken head' love that expression (who coined that one?)..

son of a chief was suss and should of had a DNA test done to exonerate him (or incriminate him). It's just one man's opinion - I wouldn't hang the guy
just on a hunch of course.

*stoning would be my preferred method (or we could torture him - until he confessed)

kidding!!

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Accusing someone else by name of doing the crime is as defamatory in another country as it is in Thailand.

Great comment, Moog...

Originally Posted by Lancelot

3 The central government is totally in charge, they can crush the mafia gangs any time they choose to do so

What are the operative words here?...

Originally Posted by donald36

Can you imagine a defence lawyer in the Uk asking these 2 questions in court

1 When the defendants were DNA tested 2 weeks ago along with other workers in the bar, they tested negative but now are positive --how is this possible

2 When compelling workers and others to submit DNA how is it that the boss of the bar and his family could refuse to supply their DNA

All the rest is just confusion put out by the police whilst they decided how to go about framing others

I suggest any UK jury would throw out the prosecution fairly quickly

That's the thing though, there isn't going to be a jury. They confessed, will plead guilty on the first day in court, sentenced to death the same day.

Question:


When the police gave the conference and summed up the evidence, did they present the telephone (or a photograph of the telephone) while declaring it as having been found near the accused's abode?

If so, is there a photograph or video of the police doing this?

Originally Posted by BaitongBoy

What are the operative words here?...

Originally Posted by BaitongBoy

choose to

They choose not to. Profit too much from it.

All the reports since day one have stated that two weapons were used. If Miller had been hit with the hoe causing the kinds of wounds he sustained, his DNA would surely have been all over the hoe. Only the girls DNA was found on the hoe.

Looks like the BIB may have coached their suspects improperly...he will have to be properly instructed for the next dog and pony show.

The post mortem confirmed Miller had been struck with a blunt instrument other than the hoe, probably a wooden cudgel of some sort.

Of course there will be inconsistencies, anomalies and conflicting facts: there always is when the truth is not relevant and those orchestrating this have absolute power.

Why though the British ambassador should be a willing partner in all this is incomprehensible.

To be complicit in an attempt to pervert the course of justice that exculpated the guilty and condemns the innocent is not within his brief as representative of the British government. It beggars belief and is quite shocking. Surely it cannot just be incompetence? Perhaps he is ill and no one is prepared to rein him in?
There has to be a reason. Buggered if I can fathom it. The families of the victims and their friends must surely be aware of events and are clamouring for explanations.