inutil

Dear people who think that free dental treatment is free. It isnt. Someone is paying for this, along with all the other populist policies since the Junta took hold. Its myopic and actually hilarious.

haha, your hubris will get you killed

cough, human trafficking, cough.

Thailand has an incredibly porous border and . Im glad youre so confident since you get to live there. Hope the confidence shields you against ebola like a forcefield, because its just a matter of time and i really dont see Thailand having the sophistication or facilities to deal with it when it does. Dont worry though! they invented a cure!

I highly doubt it given that he lives in Chiang Rai. Wouldnt you need someone living in Phuket to know whats going on in Phuket?

step 1: Open up new account.

Step 2: post up on social media (twitter/facebook) new account details (CIS LA - was gonna make it, but didnt fancy tying in my gmail )

Step 3: carry on posting

Seriously. Open up 10 accounts. Facebook plus infinite email addresses makes it very easy.

Just make the CSI dude admin, bring some conversations over and spread the word

yeah. highly unlikely. Still, very simple fix: open a new facebook account. Post up there.

With what is currently being circulated on social media reference the double Koh Tao homicides together with the derogatory and abusive comments aimed at both the military administration, RTP and prison authorities, I would not be at all surprised if one or more were closed down. Some of the postings directed towards the heads of police and prisons are quite frankly over the top. It is one thing suspecting corruption it is quite another to prove it and still another to broadcast it. Farang should realise that their continued residence in Thailand is literally in the hands of those who are being criticised. Not a good move I would have thought.

Get on yourself

To be honest, i didnt think that needed to be said. So let me clarify the point:

Without the express invitation of the Thai authorities, Britain cannot and will not get involved in this situation. And it is right and proper that they should not.

Not sure why you find that particularly hysterical. Its fairly standard protocol.

Andrew Drummond Facebook page has new post relating to the alleged key witness. Maybe it is time for Britain to employ a new Ambassador.

To be absolutely honest, Britain CANNOT and WILL NOT get involved in a matter of Thai state affairs. This is right and proper. I want the truth to come out as well. But Britain is not the avenue. The most the foreign office will do (in public) is express concern at the handling of the case. And they did exactly this in their comments yesterday in the Daily Telegraph.

(While im on the subject of things that are right and proper. It is also right and proper that the Thai Government (or any government) should not be able to arbitrarily demand a DNA swab in some kind of trawling expedition. I would refuse them as well. And i am thankful i can do that. People should not be calling for this to be reneged upon. It undermines key civil protections.

Also, the British government does not need to intervene in this anyway, because the British government has one of the most ruthless, amoral real-politik machines in the world: the British tabloid press).

The reason this case has any momentum at all is because the THAI people are pressing it. Not because expats on a message board are. But because Thai people are questioning the official story. And that is exactly how it should be for an issue that is clearly a sovereign Thai issue. It is a Thai story about Thai internal affairs, domestic migrant relations and of course, 'corruption'. And this is why the Foreign Office CANNOT and SHOULD NOT get involved. This is not a colony. These are not our subjects. Any heavy-handed intervention in this instance would do more to harm this fragile situation than help it. It would distract attention away from where it currently needs to be.

I wish that this JTJ person would try for once to post one of his erratic doubter hater posts without the letters DNA in it,

Yes because considering facts doesn't go well with conspiracy theories.

Lawyer Aung Myo Thant said the pair, Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun, both 21, from the Arakanese town of Kyaukphyu, told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists

Speaking to DVB on Monday, Kyaw Thaung, a representative of the Myanmar Association in Thailand, who attended the interview with the defendants, said, “We went to the prison [on Koh Samui] and were allowed to meet with the two freely. They confessed to committing the crime under the influence of alcohol.

https://www.dvb.no/n...a-myanmar/44781

Actually, if anything what you are doing is taking away information

In the first case (the one you chose to quote), Kyaw Thaung relays a very brief statement about a section of what he heard from the two suspects. He adds absolutely not one bit of his own interpretation to this story. To wit:

We went to the prison [on Koh Samui] and were allowed to meet with the two freely. They confessed to committing the crime under the influence of alcohol. When asked for further details, they said they bashed the victims two or three times each with the blunt end of a hoe, but not with the sharp end. They said they did it because they were drunk but did not intend to kill the couple.

At no point anywhere does he give his interpretation that he is satisfied or dissatisfied with this story. He is RELAYING information. Thats it. The rest of the details and accusations are made MUCH MUCH earlier in the article. Im genuinely amazed you missed them because usually people read the stuff earlier in the passage before getting to the bits in the middle. Maybe youre not like everyone else? I wouldnt want to judge...

And in those parts you find:

1. The same overall themes as relayed by Kyaw Thaung: They met the defendants, they confessed, they told how they did it and why, they claimed they were drunk at the time.

2. A claim by Aung Myo Thant that these stories were 'somewhat inconsistent'

3. A claim that they had been tortured into making their confessions

4. A claim that the forensic reports and evidence provided by the state were inconsistent

5. A claim that the case was 'a set up and not based on hard facts'

Lets now add a couple of new things;

a: we now know that the defendants claim they bashed the skulls of BOTH David and Hannah with the BLUNT end of the hoe. They are now on record as having stated this. They are very clear they did not use the sharp end.

b: They claim they were very drunk.

(both of these will provide a lot more material for people working out this case independently of the RTP).

Im surprised that you would miss all that given it was in the first 10 or so lines of the articles. Pretty hard to miss if im honest. I wonder why youd leave it out? I mean it clearly undermines any attempt to suggest that the embassy and human rights group are satisfied with the case And it certainly undermines any ridiculous claim that the embassy and human rights groups have confirmation of their guilt given that the lawyer sent by the embassy to represent them, says the exact opposite, whilst the human rights person makes no personal statement at all about their satisfaction and simply relates the story told by the defendants without judgement.

I wouldnt want to pass judgement on your own selective reading myself of course, so ill just leave you to explain how this lack of an interpretation gives you the remit to suggest that the embassy and human rights groups are satisfied with events and that this adds to the confirmation of their guilt.

Have you seen the level of violence used? This is not rape, that is just a by-product. This is either psychopathic or somebody out to make a MASSIVE point.

Good point, perhaps they should be tested for psychopathy. In such a case no need for motive.

One big question remaining is with regards to the murder weapon used to murder the male victim. How is it possible that the same weapon was used on both victims when the wounds inficted are so different?

Rape as motive doesn't stand up for me.

If they were looking to rape then a single female is their target....and even if they were interrupted why not run away?

So let's assume they stay to fight....they then murder and then continue with the rape followed by another murder?

It doesn't stand up....a rapist does not want any interference....and I would think the first thought if interrupted would be to run....especially at that time of the morning in the dark.

So....let's go back again.....motive?

Why does there have to be a motive ?

A foreign man was killed by a Thai because he showed him the finger in Chiang Mai after stopping on red light . Foreigners been beaten to death before in this country and the motives has not always been clear.

Whether it's a Thai or a Burmese migrant worker who killed them , there does not have to be aclear motive. They were drunk and saw naked bodies having sex on the beach , maybe they exchanged a few words that angered the suspects , if you have that short fuse , it doesn't require much of a motive to kill .

When you say the word 'because' you are about to answer the question WHY? And the 'why' is what we call "a motive".

Why did the man beat the foreigner to death in Chiang Mai after stopping at a red light? Because the foreigner gave him the finger [resulting in a furious outburst].

Is this a normal reaction? Perhaps he meant to only punch the guy, and perhaps the victim fell back and banged his head, dying from complications due to internal injuries. Now we have a motive and this motive allows us to diminish or mitigate the crime. It can work to show why someone committed the action they did. But it can also help that person explain their intent or rationalise their behaviour within a context.

This man lashed out over a finger? Ludicrous! that cant be right!

Perhaps he really did beat him to death over something so utterly trivial. We can find out his mental history. We can go to his workplace and interview his colleagues to see if he has anger issues that would corroborate his motive. Why would the police want to corroborate the mans motive? Good question! Let me explain: If it turns out that he does have anger issues, then the police have more reason to show why they have the correct person when building a case against the accused. But it also helps the accused show that they have a mitigating illness that most normal people don't have. A motive then, is very important when we have to decide if someone committed a crime or not.

The motive allows us to ask more questions and look for more information about our alleged culprit. It allows the police to investigate new information and hopefully turn up something that will contextualise the event. It will help their case against the person. And it will help that person in their defense. Motives are very important.

What if it turns out that this man has no history of furious enragement? Maybe this motive isnt standing up to scrutiny! Not so! We might look at the events leading up to the beating! Perhaps he just had some devastating news? Perhaps he had been drinking? Perhaps it was a very hot, uncomfortable day that day? Perhaps he had been stressed from something and this tiny insult was the final humiliation? This one reaction at this one time provides us a clear starting point to investigate from, and helps the police understand why the person ACTUALLY did what they did even if they say they did what they did because the guy gave him the finger.

It allows the police to show why the person did what they did, whilst also providing the defendant with a contextual explanation to mitigate their behavior and their (over) reaction. Perhaps he had just found out his wife had been killed in an accident? Wouldnt you be sad? Maybe even angry! I sure would! How would you feel if someone said something hurtful to you at that moment? Wouldn't it make you more mad? Maybe in the same situation, we also might have done something that we later regretted? Perhaps that's what happened here too! Perhaps he got so mad that he did something he shouldnt have and now regrets it very much. Perhaps we can now understand that we might also act in the same way in the same situation. We can't say he is innocent, but we can say he has mitigating reasons for his behavior. Maybe we will be more understanding of his action now and not judge him so harshly?

Motives are very important for both the people investigating and the people under investigation. They provide context and turn a black and white abstract act into a human one. We are all human. We have emotions and they are all natural. Sometimes we have to control our strong emotions. But sometimes we aren't always in the best place to do this. Motives help us to explain why something happened and help us to understand events from the viewpoint of the people it happened to.

But okay, we've done some investigation. And we can't find anything. It seems an insane over-reaction. We accept the motive. He clearly over-reacted to something and acted in a manner that very few others would in the same situation. It was spontaneous, heat of the moment, and stupid. He will probably have to accept that this is murder without any mitigation. At best, manslaughter should he be able to convince others that he had no intention to kill the victim. Well, his motive does help show he didnt have any intention so at least his motive won't HURT his argument!

But whats this!!! Perhaps, on later investigation it turns out that the man who beat the foreigner to death actually knew the foreigner because the foreigner was sleeping with his wife. So now we have a clear picture of why the act was carried out and corroborating evidence that shows this person had cause to act in this way. And the fact he lied about his motive to pretend this was an impulsive act based on pride or anger rather than a calculated and planned attack will now count AGAINST him in a court. It will show that in providing this motive, he acted and continues to act in a calculated and premeditated manner by lying about his reasons and not disclosing his true motive. He thus shows no remorse for his action and would no doubt do it again. This 'motive' will help the police show he deserves a stronger punishment and it will therefore hurt any claim by the accused person to have acted spontaneously and in the heat of the moment. Because he is lying about why he killed that person, he will show he has no remorse for his action. And because he has no remorse and had planned his attack, It would lead to him serving a more severe term

So that's what a motive is and why it is important. I hope you've enjoyed this after-school special on MOTIVES.

well, theyve gone through the denial phase (how can you doubt us?), now its anger (how dare you doubt us?), so i assume next its bargaining.

Come on guys, just drop it. We realise some things in the RTP need reform, but lets not use this case as a red flag to demand change. After these criminals have been found guilty in a court of law we promise there will be an internal investigation and reforms of the way our local forces operate. We realise mistakes in the handling of this case have been made, but we have the right people in this instance. The international spotlight really has highlighted we need to change some practices and improve certain aspects of our training. We're here to serve and protect, just lets accept that this one is done so we can carry out those essential reforms in the right environment of love and trust.

Would that be the same phone that was caught on camera in the room with the evidence? So your turn, whose phone was that in the clip then that looks exactly like David's phone and i believe was stated as such by the friend standing in the background of that report and who left the island long before it turned up again smashed by a dude who clearly didnt comprehend that a) it was evidence against him, and it was worth money to him unsmashed if thats why he took it? Riddle me this batman.

I would imagine theyd say "oh, wow... how the hell... but... theyre like half the size of him?... what?... how on earth did they even do this? and seriously? They raped her and did that to her face because they saw them kissing and cuddling?... what the hell kind of motive is that? These dudes are clearly psychopaths. Glad theyre locked up"

Now how about your turn, what would the hang en high brigade say when it turns out that the DNA (at the second bite) was falsified (if at all tested), and that these guys clearly, despite all the prompting for the media didnt in fact have a clue what the hell they were supposed to be doing in that reconstruction despite the clear guiding hand of the RTP?

Will it be something like

Well of course they didnt do it. Did you see the size of them? What kind of ridiculous fantasist scenario would have these two tiny dudes take on a dude twice their size because they got 'horny' whilst the girl lay there completely passive and not in any way attempting to escape or raise an alarm? Was she drugged or something? Who the hell drugged her? Obviously not these dudes since this was apparently an opportunist spur of the moment thing if you believe the laughable notion that rape is about sex and not at all about power. And what kind of power would they have against what appears to be a GIANT of a man (if we're talking stature)? Lucky that hoe was around to bash his head in (despite no dna being present from the male victim on the 'murder weapon') and rape the stranger girl theyd never met instead of maybe picking on a couple of random girls or just going home like most people and having a wank because theyre not psychopaths who respond to their sexual urges with an orgy of unrestrained violence. Was this the first time they got horny? Obviously not. How strange then that anyone could or would choose to believe such complete and total bullshit based on nothing more than some kind of Stanley Millgram knee jerk response that because someone in a uniform told them it was true, it must be true. Did they not apply that education they received as a child or were they just always that stupid?

I ask out of deep contrition because i cant for the life of me understand why i would swallow such a bag of ridiculous ? I must have been on drugs or trolling. I was probably just trolling though because who the hell cares if two innocent people end up dead based on the flimsiest of fabricated stories. Its just the internet. Im off to laugh at my genius in suckering you morans into some spurious debate about how youre all obsessed about phones, motives, weapons, fingerprints, dna tests, stories about people fleeing from the BiB who actually turned out to be standing in a queue smiling as they submitted their DNA for testing in the first few days of this investigation. How stupid you all must feel for even listening to me. Thus i win the internet!

Police caught in a lie throw a red herring that we are still postulating on.

It was a plant. They want to create this confusion. It's the strategy of choice throughout. We have wisened up to this already no ?

In many ways you are right, but in one crucial way you are wrong.

For me, there have been so many announcements and so much mixing of information that with the impetus of social media and forums like these it becomes hard to keep track of clear stories.

For instance, to my recollection there were two DIFFERENT cigarette butts found. One at the log where the Burmese were apparently putting them at the scene, and one at the scene of the murder. To my mind the two are distnct. But gradually theres been some kind of process of attrition and im now confused about this. It seems people are even starting to state as fact that the DNA of both the victim and suspect have been found on one butt. Its not so much that its correct, its that its becoming muddied thats the issue here.

Take as well the guitar information. Apparently the person in the group of Burmese who could play the guitar was the one released. But ive just seen a reconstruction photo of one of them, clearly incapable of playing the guitar holding the guitar? Oh, he's playing the part of the guitarist, i hear you say? But er now we have the problem of number 3 being involved right up until the important decision to head over to the part of the beach with the victims.

Im not saying my memory here is infallible on any of those points. In fact its the problem with my memory being fallible that is at issue here. Which is why obfuscation is clearly working in the favour of the prosecution case. Too many crazy leads, too many statements mixed through three weeks of saturated coverage to keep a handle on it all. So its not NOW that obfuscation is playing its part. Its been playing the part since day 1. IN that regard i respectfully argue you declaration to be wholly accurate. Obfuscation, whether deliberate or not, has played a strong part in this case being both kept alive and the Burmese men being detained.

In the point that youre wrong though, i think the admission that the phone is not Hannah's has cleared away a lot of the debris. Now the police are directly stating it to be David's phone. If they are wrong now, then it will be a huge issue for the police. So long as no one confirmed or denied the identity of the telephone's owner, or confirmed or denied that there was a misunderstanding, then people could state that the two objects in two separate photographs taken before and after the murder were in fact, despite every part of my brain telling me otherwise, two totally different objects. Now theyre on the hook for a clear statement. They've corrected their 'mistake' so now it must be David's phone. Because if it didnt belong to him, then whose phone was it? They seem intent to double down every time. So the more emphatic they are, the worse it will end up becoming when they are shown, by their own admission or by witness testimony, to be wrong. And this begs the obvious question of how David's phone now got behind those bushes?

As far as i can see, the only logical way they can go from that point is to claim that it turned out it was just ANY phone and it just so happened to look exactly like the phone of one of the victims, hence their confusion. Either way, its soon done as a piece of evidence given that their own reports in the earlier days will have undermined this position.

So this leaves other things. and the noose, as one guy said, is tightening. Once the flight records are obtained, and once a photo is found of the (former) main suspect being on the island in that incredibly generous time window the CCTV supplied, then more questions will have to be answered about the investigation. If he really was on the island at that time, its simply a case of WHEN rather than if. He will have been photographed somewhere. All it will require is a few people interested enough to find the picture. And believe me, it seems a lot of people are interested in this case.

It seems fair. Should no picture appear, then clearly the guy has a legitimate alibi. Should the phone turn out to be David's and no one contradicts the police information that it was found behind the bushes, then it clearly was David's. So its in the interests of all concerned to call for people to speak up if they have information. Not just for the 'conspiracy theorists', but also the family of those who might be falsely accused and having their businesses tarnished as a result.

i would agree. I think the word might be unhappy. Which of course links to sad, but also pissed off and furious.

More money for the corrupt local mafia.

I dunno man. They could charge a bazillion US for all the difference it makes to me. What is so essential on Koh Tao that you cant get anywhere else? Diving? Arent there thousands of pokey islands a speed boat away? Is this the great barrier reef or something? It seems to be just some kind of moderately nice diving spot? Arent there plenty of them all over south east asia?

Im certainly never stepping foot on koh tao. Im also not stepping foot on Koh samui either since as far as im concerned, the money from koh samui tourism is propping up the place.

But heres the thing: Not one piece of news in a year has suggested that thailand is up for accommodating western tourism. I have a strong feeling that this isnt incompetence and general wholescale self-defeatist buffoonery. Im starting to feel it might be deliberate. Despite being a massive troll, gangthai or whetever the sock puppet is called, is hitting on the truth of this matter by accident: Thailand cannot afford to accommodate western tourism. It has inflated prices that belie its poor investment in its tourist industry. The two are not working together.

Prices are sky rocketing, but the infrastructure and amenities are not to a western standard. We expect more value for our money now and are instead given the same shitty service, protection and lifestyle as before. So we're not coming in the same numbers as before. Thailand cannot crack down on corruption on a means that would satisfy the ever demanding Westerner. (I would even dare say they wont since, (like the yakuza), its the cheapest way to keep crime organised and on a manageable scale in a corrupt society). We want all the luxury and standards of our culture and all the folksy prices and mischief of south east asia. But the tourist industry has been left to stagnate for decades and resentment has built. You can find it in the high street in places like Silom. You ask a thai person why they are charging such a ludicrous amount to farang and you get the simple answer: we expect to be haggled down.

It conveys the idea that rich westerners with money to throw around are cheap as shit and trying to exploit the Thai people. And tourists think that the market traders and the Thai people see only walking cash dispensers ready to be tricked and cajoled out of their hard won dollars. Its a culture of absolute mistrust thats been allowed to foster and grow unchecked. The inevitable consequence is xenephobia and resentment.

Thailand is waking up to the reality it cannot afford western tourism.

The clear reality is that they DONT want people like me. Sure, they want the very wealthy. But they dont want your average western tourist here for a few weeks in the sun. We're a pain in the ass. We need to be looked after. We post reports on tripadvisor, we make youtube videos about the dirt on our paradise beach. We use social media, and tell our friends why Thailand is ruined. We're savvy to the tricks, we know the prices, we know (some of) the scams. We stay informed. We look for value. We look to complain.

And so i think theyre shutting their doors. Or maybe less pessimistically, theyre looking to try something different. The old model is done. Asean, chinese and indian expendable income, mass tourism, easy visa, and massive group bookings and tours are in, and we are out (for the moment).

Then again, i dont live here. Maybe it is just much smaller. Maybe its just a massive joke on an insignificant non-descript island of which there are plenty all over south east asia (and with the extra notoriety of clearly being lathered in corruption). Charge whatever the hell you like, people. I'll never go anywhere near that cesspit so long as i breath. But perhaps im no longer welcome anyway?

A further question: Sean is neither an mma cage fighter or an octopus. How could he subdue TWO people (one of them very much bigger than him), without either of the other two raising an alarm or attempting to flee?

Oh yeah and er, that whole DNA thing...

Yeah, sectarianism was pretty well established in Glasgow before the referendum.