aimbc

Matching DNA is as damning evidence as you can get. Do you need a link to the police claiming the DNA matches that of the suspects?

Ha, ha. You really believe that this is factual? You must be naive. The RTP have constructed the 'evidence'.

No, I'm not naive, for example it would take a lot more than an anonymous person on the internet talking about things he probably didn't think through or has real knowledge of to convince me of the extraordinary claim that the DNA evidence was fabricated.

Don't bother with posting speculations, try to think it through. If you just can't think past "they swapped the results" you are not thinking enough.

So since you said that he didn't think enough, can you tell me what he was missing that would have made it enough? This way I can learn from mistakes of others through you. Thanks

Think your post over, sort out what you are trying to say and then try again.

555555555555555555555555555555555555555

Link please to anywhere that says the physical evidence is damning...............

Matching DNA is as damning evidence as you can get. Do you need a link to the police claiming the DNA matches that of the suspects?

Ha, ha. You really believe that this is factual? You must be naive. The RTP have constructed the 'evidence'.

You logic is flawed, "you don't know if it's not true" is a fallacy. I don't know that you are not, let's say, a bank robber, should I then assume that you are as the default position? Of course not, it's a ridiculous line of reasoning.

The people claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth and stitch up the Burmese have the onus of supporting their claim, it's extremely easy to make things up and then ask people "prove me wrong", but the only thing that proves is that they can't prove their case using actual evidence and facts.

First, you just made a huge mistake by misquoting me. I said no such thing. So please retract the statement. Read before you let your ego get the better of you.

It is clear that what i wrote was that no one can prove any statement by the police or the suspect is true. And that your argument always centers around the police statement for all your rebuttal. Which tells me that you believe beyond a doubt that the police statement is true.

But have you debunked what you claimed to be conspiracy? You haven't, because you can't. Then you needed to spreading rumour that it's a conspiracy. You understand your fallacy?

Bottom line, do you know the real killer. If you do, then there is no need to post further, accept to help validate your conclusion. If posting because you want to point out that they are wrong, then provide the proof to counter their claims.

I know it's fun to make people get frustrated at you. You are doing a great job at it.

I was not quoting you, I was rephrasing your argument "I think many people argue against the police statement. What makes you think the police statement is true? Have you seen the report, if you have not, then you can't say it's true" in defense of people pushing conspiracies, so yes, your argument boils down to a negative proof fallacy:

A negative proof (known classically as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity.

The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claims, if their argument is "you don't know if my claim is not true" then they have proven nothing.

Moving on... "And that your argument always centers around the police statement for all your rebuttal"

My argument always centers on waiting for the evidence to be presented in court to be examined, so really, do try to pay attention.

"But have you debunked what you claimed to be conspiracy? You haven't, because you can't."

Again, a negative proof fallacy, if I can't prove a scenario that offers no actual evidence to support it (and therefore no evidence to be contested) then the scenario is true.

"Bottom line, do you know the real killer. If you do, then there is no need to post further, accept to help validate your conclusion."

Right, you tell me that and not the people that claim know the real killer is not the men standing trial, citing bugger all evidence and facts to support their argument?

I don't think you need to rephrase anything. You just make things more confusing. Please do not just take pieces and take things out of context to fit your needs. All this is about people defending the RTP statement. How else should I have written it.

People are discussing thing on this forum that is of interest to them. Sorry I have not followed your view on the case, but now I understand your view. You would rather wait for the trial to start right?. Please go right ahead and please do so. Because as long as the trial has not started people have the right to talk about different scenarios. Because it's a possibility. I think the police did the same thing too. As long as there are no eyewitness, then all we or anyone can do is speculate and then try to find the evidence to prove it.

So you would rather have everyone wait till the trial start? Then wait till the trial start and stop commenting on this forum. Appears you are trying to surpress the right to free speech, if that is so, that is a different matter all together. More like a personal issue to me. Which maybe the North Korean leader can help you with.

What is you and negative fallacy, stop it with that. And here you go again manipulating my statement. When did I ever said that the suspects were not guilty. Right I never said that. So please apologize again. I made it clear that no one should blindly believe any of the two statement. Have you even read my post before spewing out trash? And if you notice, my original comment is because someone mentioned two others poster and I was making that general statement about how some people view it that way. Sorry the world don't revolve around you. You are starting to sound like a broken record.

After reading the article about the bloody weapon, why would the murderers leave the weapon near the body and opt to take the phone and sunglasses instead?

Kind of a weak evidence plant. I mean, who would need sunglasses at night, other than that 80's song.

I think the weapon left at the scene was to throw the police off track? Things just don't fit.

As usual we are getting half-truths from the media or is the intention aimed at discrediting the police?

Sorry my friends, no one really needs the media to discredit the police. They have been discrediting themselves just fine up to this point.

This is being brought up not to put a smoke screen over the problem in the present government, by bringing up actions carried out by the Bush government. By bring this up the leftest press goes after Bush and does not report on IRS criminal activities, NSA spying on Americans, DOJ raciest activities, EPA breaking the law, thousands of troops on the ground in Iraq, questionable constitutionality of the ACA, civil right advisers to the W/H which are delinquent on taxes, and many other problem.

None of the above affects Thailand. The CIA torture after 911, will indicate that possibility the Thaksin government, working with the CIA, by providing facilities at a military base in Rayong to carry out the torture.

Great post and all true!

I love how the American regime wants us to register with them so they can track us even more easily....no way, why do you think half of us are overseas, we had to get free of Uncle Sams plantation!!

I wonder if that is why the American government always back the Thaksin based government.

On Tuesday Thai junta chief and prime minister Prayut Chan-Ocha appeared to call into question the victims' conduct in addition to the perpetrators of the attack.

'We have to look into the behaviour of the other party too because this kind of incident should not happen to anybody and it has affected our image,' he told reporters, referring to the two tourists.

Police earlier said the pair had been seen partying at a local bar just hours before they died.

Sky News 16th Sept.

This statement was made the day after the murders by the prime minister. When I first head it it seemed an outrageous and insensitive statement to make. But now after all that has passed in the investigation, I am left wondering whether this was not just a stupid passing remark founded on nothing, but that the 'victims' conduct'/'behaviour' could be related to an argument that took place in the bar. If Mon was allowed all over the crime scene with the police, no doubt he also had plenty to tell them about his side of the story which may have painted a bleak picture of the victims behaviour before they were murdered. Pure speculation on my part of course. Anything for justice.

How does "pure speculation" benefit justice?

Facts benefit justice, pure speculation detracts from justice.

Pure speculation may warrant investigation, possibly leading to facts being discovered, which in turn may affect the outcome/justice of the case .

Ah.... That explains my tax dollars being spent on the pure speculation that the world is flat

...

Despite us knowing that it is not.

Would that be the same speculation that the RTP are not tainted by bribes and money?

As long as that is solidly in people's minds, they will continue to question their findings.

You really have nothing to add to anything except speculating that the police is right. Proof to me that the police are right, before making any more comment about others views.

Let's make this simple, shall we?

Did the two Burmese men currently standing trial had their DNA analyzed and did the analysis result in a negative match before they were arrested?

A- Yes

B- No

C- I don't know

Let's see, has any thing been cross examined or question. Have they been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

A- Yes

B- No

C- I don't know

Not so simple now is it?

No, it is quite simple; your answer was D) I don't know.

Boomerangutang and others claim the answer is A) Yes, they provide no support for that assertion, but still use that unfounded "fact" as a premise to their arguments.

Sorry you didn't answer my question. You expect others to answer, why can't you answer? Unless you can claim beyond the a reasonable doubt that the two are guilty and the report proves they are guilty, then don't use their statement to validate your opinion. Any one can make a statement. Would you invest all your savings in to a businesses just because some stranger told you it was the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Don't believe everything you hear. Study the facts, which has not been exposed to any one. Sorry your argument at this point is as weak as all of us. So continue debating with out referring to the police statement. Unless you have certified with your own eyes that their findings are solid. Then you can make the same claim as they have.

First of, if you look back you'll see I answered your question in an edit to my post about two minutes after posting it.

Second, I'm not the one making statements of fact with no basis in actual evidence, those would be the people that continue to claim that the men currently on trial were DNA tested and cleared before they were arrested, and then using that as a premise in their arguments. Why don't you lecture them about making unsupported claims?

That is what I am saying. It's hearsay at the moment. Why do you believe in a statement?

If previous statement said they are clear, and now they are not, then they should explain how they goofed up. And two seemingly correct procedure ended in two different result? Sure they are human and prime to making mistakes. If they explain why they made the mistake, then we have more over sight during the second round of testing. Which should have been by a third independent party. This now becomes the issue of credibility. So do you know why there it's a difference in test result?

Outside of the police statement and family statement, what other solid proof do you have that these two are the murderer? One thing police in Thailand knows too darn well is that most Thais are gullible. Because they are all taught to respect elders without taking back. Critical thinking piece it's not encouraged.

My only fear is that the statement by the police and the family will find these two guilty by the public. And without public support, These two will never get a fair trial.

Let's make this simple, shall we?

Did the two Burmese men currently standing trial had their DNA analyzed and did the analysis result in a negative match before they were arrested?

A- Yes

B- No

C- I don't know

Let's see, has any thing been cross examined or question. Have they been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

A- Yes

B- No

C- I don't know

Not so simple now is it?

No, it is quite simple; your answer was D) I don't know.

Boomerangutang and others claim the answer is A) Yes, they provide no support for that assertion, but still use that unfounded "fact" as a premise to their arguments.

Sorry you didn't answer my question. You expect others to answer, why can't you answer? Unless you can claim beyond the a reasonable doubt that the two are guilty and the report proves they are guilty, then don't use their statement to validate your opinion. Any one can make a statement. Would you invest all your savings in to a businesses just because some stranger told you it was the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Don't believe everything you hear. Study the facts, which has not been exposed to any one. Sorry your argument at this point is as weak as all of us. So continue debating with out referring to the police statement. Unless you have certified with your own eyes that their findings are solid. Then you can make the same claim as they have.

You know, if you are going to make specious assumptions at least make them consistent, on one hand you cast suspicions when a DNA test takes only one or two days to be completed, on the other you think 100-200 tests could be completed in one week.

You have absolutely no idea if the samples that the defendants gave were tested before they were arrested, none. Before you accuse people of lying you should take a look at yourself and ask what is it called to claim something to be true without actually knowing if its true.

Your "most reasonable explanation" is nothing but make believe based on false premises.

3rd Oct

A source said Cho admitted he been captured on a surveillance camera but insisted he had nothing to do with the murder of the two Britons.

Police then collected DNA samples from Cho and sent them for testing, the source said. https://www.dvb.no/news/thai-police-say-burmese-man-has-confessed-to-koh-tao-murders-burma-myanmar/44663

Yes, that was after he was arrested, as I said;

One of the three suspects identified only as Cho, who was about 25 to 27 years old, was detained at the main wharf of Nakhon Surat Thani Municipality at 6am on Thursday after he left Koh Tao on a ferry at 9pm on Wednesday.

The man was taken to Provincial Police Region 8 investigation centre where he was questioned for five hours. Members of the press were barred from approaching the investigation centre and prohibited from taking pictures.

Police officers also refused to talk to reporters until Pol Lt Gen Decha Butrnamphech, commissioner of the Provincial Police Region 8, emerged from the investigation centre at 3pm to say the case was expected to be solved soon. “I’m very satisfied with the investigation,” he said.

A source said Cho admitted he been captured on a surveillance camera but insisted he had nothing to do with the murder of the two Britons.

Police then collected DNA samples from Cho and sent them for testing, the source said.

Not quite what you said, what you said is pretty clear in the post 'You have absolutely no idea if the samples that the defendants gave were tested before they were arrested, none'

My link states this is how he got the information and not as you stated that he had 'no idea'

Let's make this simple, shall we?

Did the two Burmese men currently standing trial had their DNA analyzed and did the analysis result in a negative match before they were arrested?

A- Yes

B- No

C- I don't know

Let's see, has any thing been cross examined or question. Have they been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

A- Yes

B- No

C- I don't know

Not so simple now is it?

No, because farang refers specifically to foreigners of western origin, you just assume that was the word used and derive your conclusions from your assumptions while at the same time dismissing what was actually said.

"The translation from Thai to English of the word Foreigner is Farang"

There's a Thai language section in these forums, I suggest you go there and disabuse yourself of that notion.

The origin of the word farang as we can say, is debatable. To me it seems to be a slang more than anything to describe a Caucasian of European descent. It may have originated from the word 'farangcee'. Which stands for France. They just shorten it.

Why does it matter? The word Farang was not used ... the word Foreigner was and the two suspects in custody are clearly foreign and of Asian decent as the same article states the knew from the DNA at the time the article was published more than 2 months ago.

I don't know if it matters or not, but some how you are compel to respond to it. So maybe it does matter to you.

But if Thai witness did mention the word farang, then it describe a non Asian foreigner.

That's all I am saying.

and if cows could fly ... is all I am saying

Edit: and that responding to something to point out it is BS certainly should be seen as somehow giving it credence unless of course you are living in a fairly tale world

It appears to be that you bought "hook line and sinker" the police statement. And seems like you are trying to to make 'pig' fly.

@ John Thailand John

"Nobody saying they had a witness saying Burmese -- clearly says Foreigners. Again you are focusing on the trivial and bending reality to try to promote the very implausible".

Actually the statement clearly says Foreigner.................not Foreigners................and if Pol Lt Gen Mamen was speaking in English it could be debated what he meant by the term Foreigner but as he was probably speaking in Thai...... The translation from Thai to English of the word Foreigner is Farang......or Falang............and no Thai refers to other Asians as Falang............

No, because farang refers specifically to foreigners of western origin, you just assume that was the word used and derive your conclusions from your assumptions while at the same time dismissing what was actually said.

"The translation from Thai to English of the word Foreigner is Farang"

There's a Thai language section in these forums, I suggest you go there and disabuse yourself of that notion.

The origin of the word farang as we can say, is debatable. To me it seems to be a slang more than anything to describe a Caucasian of European descent. It may have originated from the word 'farangcee'. Which stands for France. They just shorten it.

Why does it matter? The word Farang was not used ... the word Foreigner was and the two suspects in custody are clearly foreign and of Asian decent as the same article states the knew from the DNA at the time the article was published more than 2 months ago.

I don't know if it matters or not, but some how you are compel to respond to it. So maybe it does matter to you.

But if Thai witness did mention the word farang, then it describe a non Asian foreigner.

That's all I am saying.

@ John Thailand John

"Nobody saying they had a witness saying Burmese -- clearly says Foreigners. Again you are focusing on the trivial and bending reality to try to promote the very implausible".

Actually the statement clearly says Foreigner.................not Foreigners................and if Pol Lt Gen Mamen was speaking in English it could be debated what he meant by the term Foreigner but as he was probably speaking in Thai...... The translation from Thai to English of the word Foreigner is Farang......or Falang............and no Thai refers to other Asians as Falang............

No, because farang refers specifically to foreigners of western origin, you just assume that was the word used and derive your conclusions from your assumptions while at the same time dismissing what was actually said.

"The translation from Thai to English of the word Foreigner is Farang"

There's a Thai language section in these forums, I suggest you go there and disabuse yourself of that notion.

The origin of the word farang as we can say, is debatable. To me it seems to be a slang more than anything to describe a Caucasian of European descent. It may have originated from the word 'farangcee'. Which stands for France. They just shorten it.

Most Thais refer to foreigner as "dang chad". And the proper way if written would not be farang for sure. And you are welcome to use Google translate to confirm.

This is another danger of people believing everything they read or blindly believing the source. It's why I think there is much to debate about this case.

That is why I see that this case is so troubling. As soon as they get closure to the truth, the other police does a back pedal and changes their tunes. As to cover up. For sure a farang or two may have some important info. And that is what majority of the Thais following the case has come up with as well. That is why CSILA is such a popular page for Thais, and now 'farang' or yet better, 'dang chad'.

not taking your pathetic bait.................its clear your vested interest in KT makes your biased views blind to any argument other than supporting the RTP line

No bait at all. News sources give facts.

Your source according to you, requires speculation.

For you yes

Pardon?

The reason we link to news articles and not blogs is to prevent the necessity of speculation. Speculation is something some members have promised not to do regarding this case.

News source only report what is given. And it's from the police. The very police that can not be trusted 100%. As money can by freedom in Thailand. It's so common to read articles that the police would say, some how the suspect slipped away while in custody. Kind of prove the point. It's more of embarrassment, but not in Thailand. It's business as usual.

Can you tell me in your opinion on Thai police. How many percentage do you think are honest? And very few cops here take bribes?

I don't think people would have doubts, but with rtp record and their own personal encounter with police, makes people question these authorities. Is questioning authority wrong? We are talking about two lives that we would like to see a fair trial for.

If you trust the news 100%, then you must trust the source 100%. Which means you trust the police 100%.

A few more inconsistencies that have not been mentioned since and formed no part of the stage managed reenactment.

"Witheridge, meanwhile, was dragged away from the first attack spot, said the same police officer. The officer said Witheridge did manage to run for some distance but was hit repeatedly in the face with a hoe which suggested whoever attacked her could have held a personal grudge against her."

"Traces of Miss Witheridge's DNA and that of one other person were found on a cigarette butt some 50 yards from where her body was found, suggesting the 23-year-old shared it with her attackers and even had a conversation with them before being killed"

But don't let that get in the way of a perfect investigation

Obviously many of you are so determined to see the culprits acquitted, that you keep on ignoring things that have long been debunked. One of the things you keep on saying is that it was stated that it was a "perfect" case. However, and this was explained by one of the members here who understands Thai, the article was, as is quite understandable for someone with a brain, written in, and therefore translated from THAI, and the word "somboon" was incorrectly interpreted as "perfect", while it should have been "complete" instead.

Now, is there any need to have to keep on going on about this? Just snap out of it and behave a little more reasonable. And as I requested before, I'll do it again here,

Thai Visa!! Respect the parents wishes and grand them the privacy and the victims their dignity requested as such in their official published statement, by banning any topic related to the murders!

It's insensible and plain inappropriate of the moderators to let this go on, period. Shame on you TV!

Let's be fair and say that the parents of the two accused never asked people to stop talking about it. They asked for help. That is also two family, two lives and they too have a right to insure that their kids get a fair trial.

Now just how did you know they were the culprit? Did you examine the evidence against them yourself? Or is it because the police said so? And now because the family saw a brief report about the case and really never review the entire case? And said that the evidence appears over whelming against the two men, some how validated the police report. And made posters like you believe in the report. I was afraid the statement like their's would influence public opinion that the police have the right culprits and you are proof of it.

Like I said before, you and the other poster like to exploiting the family statement for your own argument. You will never stop the search for the truth.

The two defendants have not been found guilty. But by the actions of the police and now the prosecution, it is fair to say that there will be no fairness in this trial.

And btw, majority of people posting here would like to see fairness. Did you forget what that word mean?

And also stop calling them the culprit, that is spreading false rumours that they are guilty. The trial hasn't started yet and you have not read the entire case to come to that conclusion. Please respect the family of the two defendants.

IMHO, I don't think the family read the entire 1,000 page report to come to that conclusion? Or did they read a summary highlighting what the prosecutor thinks will stick in court.

Has anyone ever watch a movie trailer and thought the movie was going to be great and came out disappointed later.

I think the family should not have made such a statement without reading the entire report and, closely examining the findings and even questioning it. And in its original content, Thai, as things do get lost in translation. I suppose the translation of the report were provided by RTP. It definitely sways public opinion and put in the question of fairness for the defendant.

So for all of those posters hanging on to the family statement as proof of a solid case, need to stop referring to it as proof that the police has a solid case.

So you think that the families should not trust the UK police?

You think that the statements from the families influenced judges?

I think people should be able to form their own opinion and not believe others. Especially when you are talking about two human lives. This is not as trivial as you think.

JD, why do you make things up. I never wrote that it influence the judge, but it surely influenced you.

So, the families get briefed by the UK police, they then issue a statement saying that there's powerful and convincing evidence, but that is not OK. However, people who have not been involved with anyone having direct contact with the investigation can speculate and say anything and that is OK? People do make up their own minds, even those that said that they would refrain from speculation are still at it ( having already made up their minds)

I asked you the question regarding the judges based on this "put in the question of fairness for the defendant." if the judges are not influenced then the trial will be fair.

There you go. You just proved my point. I knew you would eventually get it. Everything is a speculation at this point. Me and your statements. Or have you seen the full case report. I just hate it when you exploit the family statement to be an end all and to prosecute these two. Yes spreading rumor.

Not spreading rumor at all.

The families met with the UK police and discussed the case. Putting them in a better position than you or me to make a statement.

They made a statement.

Those are facts, not rumors.

You sure glossed over the question of the judges being influenced.

So do you think the two are guilty or not? Or is there a possibility of them being innocent

And since you are stuck with me answering the judge thing, I will answer it. First I never said judge or anything. You just like to make things up so you can argue about it. Public opinion can sway decisions. Not always, but the possibility is there.

In case of the judge being swayed by the statements, chances are probably slim. Because the judge won't be swayed easily as you have been by the statement.

You questioned the fairness of the trial regarding the family statements. Not me. I see no reason for the family to have less right to make a statement than the conspiracy theorists do.

As for "So do you think the two are guilty or not? Or is there a possibility of them being innocent"

Those are not either / or questions.

I do think that they are guilty. There is a possibility of them being innocent. That is why we have trials.

Do you think that the families have less rights to decide who to believe, and what they can say than you have?

If you notice, this entire debate is about credibility of the police and how investigation had been carried out.

So how did you come to the conclusion that they are guilty? And by your posting, you seem to back up your claim with the statement from the family. Or merely exploiting their statement to validate your claim.

But the statement the family made should not have swayed anyone opinion about the case. Everyone has the right to say our do any thing, but we also have the responsibility for our action. Because what they said validate your position on the rtp report. That is the danger I was pointing out about the statement. Because to you it's a definitive answer that proves the two are guilty. I find it disturbing.

I may be assuming too much that the family statement swayed you. If I am wrong, I apologize. But of it didn't sway you, what did? Statement from the police? The report by the police, which no one saw. Better yet, you should say that you assume that they are guilty based on the statement of the RTP.

ASSUME....Yes you assumed without questioning the integrity of the investigation.

Assuming that they are guilty, doesn't make them guilty. So conspiracy, I guess you have your version as well. Conspiracy to find this two guilty with out reviewing the evidence.

IMHO, I don't think the family read the entire 1,000 page report to come to that conclusion? Or did they read a summary highlighting what the prosecutor thinks will stick in court.

Has anyone ever watch a movie trailer and thought the movie was going to be great and came out disappointed later.

I think the family should not have made such a statement without reading the entire report and, closely examining the findings and even questioning it. And in its original content, Thai, as things do get lost in translation. I suppose the translation of the report were provided by RTP. It definitely sways public opinion and put in the question of fairness for the defendant.

So for all of those posters hanging on to the family statement as proof of a solid case, need to stop referring to it as proof that the police has a solid case.

So you think that the families should not trust the UK police?

You think that the statements from the families influenced judges?

I think people should be able to form their own opinion and not believe others. Especially when you are talking about two human lives. This is not as trivial as you think.

JD, why do you make things up. I never wrote that it influence the judge, but it surely influenced you.

So, the families get briefed by the UK police, they then issue a statement saying that there's powerful and convincing evidence, but that is not OK. However, people who have not been involved with anyone having direct contact with the investigation can speculate and say anything and that is OK? People do make up their own minds, even those that said that they would refrain from speculation are still at it ( having already made up their minds)

I asked you the question regarding the judges based on this "put in the question of fairness for the defendant." if the judges are not influenced then the trial will be fair.

There you go. You just proved my point. I knew you would eventually get it. Everything is a speculation at this point. Me and your statements. Or have you seen the full case report. I just hate it when you exploit the family statement to be an end all and to prosecute these two. Yes spreading rumor.

Not spreading rumor at all.

The families met with the UK police and discussed the case. Putting them in a better position than you or me to make a statement.

They made a statement.

Those are facts, not rumors.

You sure glossed over the question of the judges being influenced.

So do you think the two are guilty or not? Or is there a possibility of them being innocent

And since you are stuck with me answering the judge thing, I will answer it. First I never said judge or anything. You just like to make things up so you can argue about it. Public opinion can sway decisions. Not always, but the possibility is there.

In case of the judge being swayed by the statements, chances are probably slim. Because the judge won't be swayed easily as you have been by the statement.

You questioned the fairness of the trial regarding the family statements. Not me. I see no reason for the family to have less right to make a statement than the conspiracy theorists do.

As for "So do you think the two are guilty or not? Or is there a possibility of them being innocent"

Those are not either / or questions.

I do think that they are guilty. There is a possibility of them being innocent. That is why we have trials.

Do you think that the families have less rights to decide who to believe, and what they can say than you have?

If you notice, this entire debate is about credibility of the police and how investigation had been carried out.

So how did you come to the conclusion that they are guilty? And by your posting, you seem to back up your claim with the statement from the family. Or merely exploiting their statement to validate your claim.

But the statement the family made should not have swayed anyone opinion about the case. Everyone has the right to say our do any thing, but we also have the responsibility for our action. Because what they said validate your position on the rtp report. That is the danger I was pointing out about the statement. Because to you it's a definitive answer that proves the two are guilty. I find it disturbing.

I may be assuming too much that the family statement swayed you. If I am wrong, I apologize. But of it didn't sway you, what did? Statement from the police? The report by the police, which no one saw. Better yet, you should say that you assume that they are guilty based on the statement of the RTP.

ASSUME....Yes you assumed without questioning the integrity of the investigation.

Assuming that they are guilty, doesn't make them guilty. So conspiracy, I guess you have your version as well. Conspiracy to find this two guilty with out reviewing the evidence.

IMHO, I don't think the family read the entire 1,000 page report to come to that conclusion? Or did they read a summary highlighting what the prosecutor thinks will stick in court.

Has anyone ever watch a movie trailer and thought the movie was going to be great and came out disappointed later.

I think the family should not have made such a statement without reading the entire report and, closely examining the findings and even questioning it. And in its original content, Thai, as things do get lost in translation. I suppose the translation of the report were provided by RTP. It definitely sways public opinion and put in the question of fairness for the defendant.

So for all of those posters hanging on to the family statement as proof of a solid case, need to stop referring to it as proof that the police has a solid case.

So you think that the families should not trust the UK police?

You think that the statements from the families influenced judges?

I think people should be able to form their own opinion and not believe others. Especially when you are talking about two human lives. This is not as trivial as you think.

JD, why do you make things up. I never wrote that it influence the judge, but it surely influenced you.

So, the families get briefed by the UK police, they then issue a statement saying that there's powerful and convincing evidence, but that is not OK. However, people who have not been involved with anyone having direct contact with the investigation can speculate and say anything and that is OK? People do make up their own minds, even those that said that they would refrain from speculation are still at it ( having already made up their minds)

I asked you the question regarding the judges based on this "put in the question of fairness for the defendant." if the judges are not influenced then the trial will be fair.

There you go. You just proved my point. I knew you would eventually get it. Everything is a speculation at this point. Me and your statements. Or have you seen the full case report. I just hate it when you exploit the family statement to be an end all and to prosecute these two. Yes spreading rumor.

Not spreading rumor at all.

The families met with the UK police and discussed the case. Putting them in a better position than you or me to make a statement.

They made a statement.

Those are facts, not rumors.

You sure glossed over the question of the judges being influenced.

So do you think the two are guilty or not? Or is there a possibility of them being innocent

And since you are stuck with me answering the judge thing, I will answer it. First I never said judge or anything. You just like to make things up so you can argue about it. Public opinion can sway decisions. Not always, but the possibility is there.

In case of the judge being swayed by the statements, chances are probably slim. Because the judge won't be swayed easily as you have been by the statement.

IMHO, I don't think the family read the entire 1,000 page report to come to that conclusion? Or did they read a summary highlighting what the prosecutor thinks will stick in court.

Has anyone ever watch a movie trailer and thought the movie was going to be great and came out disappointed later.

I think the family should not have made such a statement without reading the entire report and, closely examining the findings and even questioning it. And in its original content, Thai, as things do get lost in translation. I suppose the translation of the report were provided by RTP. It definitely sways public opinion and put in the question of fairness for the defendant.

So for all of those posters hanging on to the family statement as proof of a solid case, need to stop referring to it as proof that the police has a solid case.

So you think that the families should not trust the UK police?

You think that the statements from the families influenced judges?

I think people should be able to form their own opinion and not believe others. Especially when you are talking about two human lives. This is not as trivial as you think.

JD, why do you make things up. I never wrote that it influence the judge, but it surely influenced you.

So, the families get briefed by the UK police, they then issue a statement saying that there's powerful and convincing evidence, but that is not OK. However, people who have not been involved with anyone having direct contact with the investigation can speculate and say anything and that is OK? People do make up their own minds, even those that said that they would refrain from speculation are still at it ( having already made up their minds)

I asked you the question regarding the judges based on this "put in the question of fairness for the defendant." if the judges are not influenced then the trial will be fair.

There you go. You just proved my point. I knew you would eventually get it. Everything is a speculation at this point. Me and your statements. Or have you seen the full case report. I just hate it when you exploit the family statement to be an end all and to prosecute these two. Yes spreading rumor.