.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
- Popular Post
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
Aleg
With reference to the promotion, on what date was the promotion announced with his name actually stated
-
Regards Nomsod
http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-former-koh-tao-murder-suspect-confirms-innocence-48943.php
"I've been affected a lot," said Warot Tuwichian, a 22-year-old Bangkok University student. "I haven't attended classes since the incident occurred because people keep asking me if I am the killer. People on social media also harangued me." - See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-former-koh-tao-murder-suspect-confirms-innocence-48943.php#sthash.5ZaiGEpD.dpuf
-
1
-
-
As far as I know the only independent investigation into the 2010 crackdown was carried out by Human Rights Watch , and it is not good reading from any side.
-
Stolen clothes..... As pointed out it is not likely. It probably won't play well in court.
"defendants claim that their clothing were stolen "
"prosecution suggests that defendants disposed of bloody evidence "
Which scenario would you tend to believe?
It is my understanding that the RTP are claiming that there was no blood on the clothes because they had been washed
As for defense not disclosing its information, this would be normal and especially so in Thailand where the prosecution doesnt reveal the evidence in there possesion
It would appear that some posters like the judiicial system of discovery but appear not to like the defence to have the same privilege
Correction the translator made the claim the clothes had been washed
-
1
-
-
stephenterry, on 23 Mar 2015 - 09:37, said:catsanddogs, on 23 Mar 2015 - 09:14, said:stephenterry, on 23 Mar 2015 - 04:13, said:
More background and a mystery. See below:
“According to the testimony of Maung Maung, who shared accommodation with the two suspects [Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun], they were all three drinking and playing guitar on the night of the incident,” the Burmese lawyer told DVB.
“Maung Maung said he then went to see his girlfriend and did not return until 5am.”
Lawyer Aung Myo Thant and MAT representative Kyaw Thaung both confirmed to DVB that Maung Maung had told the embassy team that he had witnessed Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun in bed sleeping when he returned to the room at 5am and that nothing seemed suspicious.
According to Kyaw Thaung: “Maung Maung said he woke them up and asked them, ‘Where is the guitar?’ at which point one of the pair indicated it was in AC Bar [where the British couple, Hannah Witheridge and David Miller, had been drinking with friends the night before]. Maung Maung said he then went to AC Bar to look for the guitar and his sandals, ‘because they were expensive – 350 baht’, he said.
From the above, at least one of the B2 returned the guitar to the AC bar after finishing up their session on the beach. At what time? Supposedly before the bar closed at 3am. Which means they could have been present when the victims left. Doing what? More drinking? Could explain their 'we were drunk' statement.
So either they followed the victims back to the beach after 3am, or went back to their lodgings. Any CCTV?
The implications are enormous:-
1. Who witnessed their return to the AC bar with the guitar?
2. What did they do there? Drink? or Leave?
3. Where is the CCTV to evidence their movements?
4. The scenario that they were at the beach within a hundred metres of the crime scene is (probably) correct up to the time when they left to return to AC bar.
5. The scenario that they were at the beach within a hundred metres of the crime scene at the time when the attacks took place is contestable (because the guitar didn't return to AC bar on its own).
6. Muang Muang's statement that nothing seemed suspicious when he returned to their lodgings at 5am is exculpatory evidence.
Does anyone have a timeline of their movements?
There is always the possibility that neither of the B2 took the guitar back to the bar - maybe someone else did for whatever reason. Maybe someone borrowed it and took it back to the bar after the B2 had left the beach. Maybe Hannah borrowed it? Why would the B2 take it back to the bar instead of to their lodgings?
The very fact that the guitar moved from the beach to the AC bar has not been explained anywhere. That's why it is important to hear what the B2 say about their movements, and what happened to the guitar. When they were awakened they stated that the guitar was at the AC Bar, that indicates first hand knowledge of its movements (not that someone borrowed it).
If another person was involved, he/she would be a witness at a time after Muang Muang left them on the beach. Maybe the AC bar was more secure than their lodgings? Maybe they fancied another drink?
There is yet another report that says the B2 went for a swim and when they came out of the water, their clothes and the guitar had disappeared.
Burmese embassy representative went to see two boys for more information.: Media interview and answer by embassy official. The Embassy officer said: “The two boys told him that they were swimming at beach near AC Bar and Maya Bar on that night, after 10 or 15 minutes, when they come back to the beach after swimming, they did not find their guitar and cloth on where they left. Somebody may be stolen their cloth and guitar.but on 14 Oct the police bring as evidence their cloth and guitar to the court.
https://crimesontheblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/burmese-on-the-beach-at-crime-time/
I have often wondered if they told Maung Maung that they had left the guitar at the AC bar because they were too embarassed to admit that they had eiher lost it or it had been stolen.
Muang Muang reportedly went back to AC bar to get the guitar and sandals, it has not been revealed if he did in actual fact find the guitar or sandals. It is assumed that he did not find the guitar ,
therefore did he enquire further with the B2 or is there more than one guitar
There was reports early in the investigation that a guitar was recovered i with nobody taking ownership,
The guy delivering a guitar to the RTP (footage on tv) what is the significance
-
1
-
-
If the DNA evidence is accepted by the court then the B2 are in difficulty
I cannot disagree
Lets not forget that after the Burmese were arrested , the name of all three and the age of one of them was reported incorrectly , an explanation as never been forthcoming as far as I know
This leads me to question if during the course of DNA testing of migrants it would have been possible to give false details
-
1
-
-
My golden nugget (whether for prosecution or defense, your choice): There was a guy on the beach on the other side of the rocks who was there screwing his Thai girlfriend who is an eyewitness to the whole affair but he hasn't come forward publicly because he had told his Thai wife in Bangkok that he was at the time away on a business trip to Singapore.
Can you expand on this
Is the RTP in possesion of this info, and what is your source
-
So, who is the third burmese.
Muang Muang was originally held in custody. Could it be he was going to be railroaded also. But much to the rtp chagrin, came up with a strong alibi. Oops said the officer. We thought there were 3. but now we can only pin it on two.
MM was more savvy than the other two. He had an inkling of his legal rights. The B2 were easy prey for scapegoating, with older men gathered around, fists and teeth clenched. First thing the cops probably said was 'you're illegal, and we can slam you in jail for a long time.' The B2's families rely on the few satang which get sent from their sons each month - because there is zero social security for elders in Burma.
Burmese young men were casually playing sepak takraw on the beach, when police, in their frantic zeal to nab scapegoats, went to round them up. Two were able to run away. Guess who the two were? Yup, so when they were caught, the cops were doubly angry at the young men who didn't heed their calls of 'Don't run! Come back here!' Next day: 'safe-house' with a threatening interpreter who introduced the broken bottle idea. Not an attorney in sight. The rest is scapegoat history.
Utter fantasy
JD
Who do you think is the 3rd Burmese
-
- Popular Post
So you're not going to provide details to back up your claim that there is CCTV footage to evidence the B2 were in the area at the approximate time of the murders. How surprising.
Your refusal of facts has gone on long enough:
Aleg
There is no time stated , so it may place at the crime scene but not at the time of the murders
If I was to use your logic ,then Mon would also be at the crime scene at the time of murders, due to cctv
-
3
-
Link
Officially recanted on the 21st of OctoberRTP deny retraction 12 Oct
Lawyers confession made under duress 7th Oct
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/4435.
Most sources quote the BKK post
Cant disagree
-
RTP deny retraction 12 Oct
Lawyers confession made under duress 7th Oct
Officially recanted on the 21st of October
Link
-
RTP deny retraction 12 Oct
Lawyers confession made under duress 7th Oct
-
Maybe they were not drunk. Maybe they witnessed things that night that they were too afraid to speak about and saying they were drunk gave them an excuse not to divulge what they saw because they knew what the repercussions would be, should they speak.Even if the Burmese are found guilty they won't be executed, at least not legally. How many executions this century? Thaksin executed 3 prisoners ( legally)- 2 Thais and one Taiwanese, very publicly back in the early years of his tenure but since then? - now injection, not firing squad, very few.
Some say if the Burmese are found not guilty the RTP have won because the guilty part(ies) have escaped justice. But I beg to differ- focus will turn to, so who are the perpetrators?
Hannah and David's families, the media, etc will demand answers.
One thing about the Burmese suspects' statement puzzles me.
When asked what happened, did they not say they did not know, they were drunk?
But did not other sources say they only drank 3 bottles of beer throughout the night. hardly enough to not know what's going on.
Your version just makes them liars no matter how you look at it.
I could toss around as many maybes as the conspiracy theorists but let's see what the trial reveals.
I think there is some merit to what catsanddogs has posted but I am unwilling to post at this juncture the reasons why
-
2
-
-
Zero.... a big FAT 0...
What evidence do you have to say the taxi driver is not telling the truth ?Sean explained his social networking post.
There's no reason to believe the taxi driver claim. I find that claim to be ludicrous. People seem to think that there are ultra-powerful people on the island with unlimited resources, if that was true simply being told what to say should suffice to get the desired result. Certainly if it were true nobody would come forward to admit the coercion.
Haven't you claimed to be working with Reprieve or the defense and also to have a personal reason to dislike the RTP?
Zilch.... nuffin... not an ounce accept her blinkered evaluation of the situation.
Personally I wouldn't expect anyone to make up trumped against the RTP. The Thai's are loathed to say anything about anything so he is obviously very scared and thought better out in the open before he ends up in a ditch perhaps. We know how it works don't we...... Well some of us do.
What evidence do you have that he was telling the truth?
None... Blah blah blah
Feel free to read my post. It is based on claims made by posters in these threads about the power of the people that the posters want to be involved. Is it proof? Nope.
Are your claims proof? Nope.
BTW your non-answer to my direct question is duly noted.
JD
you are stating that the taxi driver is ludicrous, so the onus is upon you to subdtantiate
-
I maybe wrong , but it is my understanding that the confessions were retracted after the prosecution decided to maximise the punishment
The prosecution wasn't given the case until much later.
See edited post above
-
I maybe wrong , but it is my understanding that the confessions were retracted after the prosecution decided to maximise the punishment
From Mizzima
Police in Thailand have denied that the two Myanmar suspects in the highly-publicised beach murders case have retracted their confessions, the Bangkok Post reported on October 12.
The police have also recommended longer sentences for the suspects, Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin, both 21, the newspaper said.
The suspects were arrested on October 3 over the murders of British tourists Hannah Witheridge, 23, and David Miller, 24, on a Thai resort island on September 15.
The Bangkok Post report quoted Police Major Praween Pongsirin as having said on October 11 that the suspects had maintained their confessions and repented their crime.
Their widely reported retraction was a rumour, said Pol Maj Praween, the deputy commissioner of the police region in which the murder occurred.
Pol Maj Praween also denied that prosecutors had rejected the investigation case file as incomplete. The evidence in the case was accurate and strong, he said.
A panel of prosecutors had merely asked police investigators to review the case and to maximise the punishment in light of evidence the suspects had tried to cover up the crime, the Bangkok Postquoted him as saying.
Police have resubmitted the investigation report to prosecutors along with a higher recommended sentence.
Police Maj Praween said the suspects were told of the revised penalty recommendation, but police have not said how many years in prison they may face.
-
Sean explained his social networking post.
There's no reason to believe the taxi driver claim. I find that claim to be ludicrous. People seem to think that there are ultra-powerful people on the island with unlimited resources, if that was true simply being told what to say should suffice to get the desired result. Certainly if it were true nobody would come forward to admit the coercion.
Haven't you claimed to be working with Reprieve or the defense and also to have a personal reason to dislike the RTP?
JD have you heard of logical fallacy
-
What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.
Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!
Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?
Defaming her was in the national interest?
They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.
Didn't Ms. Yingluck defame herself by publicly denying to have had a meeting ?
Rubi
you cannot defame yourself
Watforusalso
evidently according to the article you can state untruths if its in the national interest, however in other defamation cases it would appear telling the truth is no defence
You can defame yourself but it is neither a criminal nor civil offense
If, as PM you lie and get caught, you pretty much don't have a leg to stand on when you cry to the court.
In Thailand the truth is not always a defense for defamation. This is less true when you are a public figure.
From Wiki
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.
-
What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.
Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!
Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?
Defaming her was in the national interest?
They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.
Didn't Ms. Yingluck defame herself by publicly denying to have had a meeting ?
Rubi
you cannot defame yourself
Watforusalso
evidently according to the article you can state untruths if its in the national interest, however in other defamation cases it would appear telling the truth is no defence
-
I don't get this you believe this that fled they went intot the temple with weapons which is speculation on your part is it not? And them the post immediately after that one you mention getting facts right?I don't believe this story, it would depend on what exactly what she witnessed - I still maintain that those who fled into the temple were carrying assault rifles and had just been engaged in a fire fight with soldiers - as a witness she could have testified and verified that armed men were present - she is either dead or is living in hiding in a neighbouring country and has been told to keep her mouth shut
Either it's well documented the dead in the temple had weapons and were those who fled or your making assumptions which I don't have an issue with but its a double standard with your back to back posts ?
yes it is as you say my opinion or speculation - the rest of my post clearly states that facts are not possible without credible witnesses and hard evidence - as for witnesses who ? or where are they ?. exactly what this topic is about - a credible witness that disappeared one I imagine that was always going to tell the truth - she could testify that the army fired into the temple - well we already know that but what else did she see that certain parties would rather was not known - well I have my own thoughts on that
Another poster also made the point that a court ruled on this incident - at a time when the police reds and government were bought an paid for by Thaksin - the court has to decide on evidence presented - like I already said I am not disputing that soldiers were firing into the temple - I am not disputing that soldiers did indeed kill people in 2010 - someone also made the point as to why weapons were never found near these victims - do I really need to explain why
a common fault of many posters on these forums are posting what they claim to be facts when in fact they are opinions just like my posts - the difference is that it is obvious I am passing an opinion even if not stated in the post
why would this family come forward now ? I believe it is because they want the army to investigate - not because they believe the army were involved in the disappearance but because they already know who and want to come forward
lets see what happens next - the police and army should be all over this like a rash if they have nothing to hide
The temple had been declared a safe haven by the ruling government
-
I have always said that the investigation was flawed, just not fatally flawed imho.
Regarding Singapore, is that a fact? However, once you have the reference DNA processed the vast majority can be quickly eliminated by others.
I happen to have personal knowledge with DNA comparison, and it does NOT get processed in one day. An example of USA analysis times here : http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0086.htm
Private lab turnaround time:
http://www.genexdiagnostics.com/about/laboratory/turnaround-time - Genex guarantees the use of PCR technology and capillary laser sequencing for all DNA paternity tests. The turnaround time for DNA paternity testing at Genex is 3 to 7 working days for good quality samples.
http://www.genetica.com/geneticawebv2.nsf/?Open - Our experienced laboratory professionals have developed automated and streamlined laboratory DNA test processes that allow us to provide you with quick DNA test turnaround time. After we receive the samples in the laboratory, the paternity results of the GENETICA DNA Test™ are typically available within 2 - 5 working days.
But of course, the RTP have access to DNA comparison that is done in an afternoon.......
It's odd that in your searches you didn't come across things like:
Court-Ready DNA Analysis in One Day
Or...
Should you require the results of the test sooner then we recommend our Express Testing service.
Or...Or..."it takes less than 24 hours to generate one complete DNA fingerprint"
And so on and so forth...
If I recall correctly did not illinois state police cancel a contract with Bodedue to poor quality work
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
as already mentioned if it was in a phone then the phone was not switched off - even then phones have a circuit to monitor battery temperature and will shut down if it reaches a certain level - maybe not all phones - cheap imitation from China may not
if it was a battery pack then it was active charging a device which in itself should not be dangerous unless it was a cheap substandard product without a safety circuit to monitor battery temperature
either way an investigation is needed to look into this
Your assumption that the phone has to be active is incorrect
These type of batteries have internal circuitry which if faulty can cause thermal runaway, it only needs the insulator between the anode and cathode to be compromised
-
4
-
As far as I understand the the hoe was used to kill David and the reason that there is none of his dna on the hoe is because it was washed in the sea
However there was an early report that stated the Police was suspicious of the hoe because they would normally expect the perpetrators to throw it into the sea hoping it would get washed away
-
I am trying to reason why on the 16th September the RTP could establish time of attack between 3 and 5 am
The 3 am would have come from interviewing friends (left between 3 and 4 ), but the official time of discovery is 6:30 ish,
So what is missing to get a time of 5am
-
1
-
Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case
in Thailand News
Posted
http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1411649002
25th September
Pol.Gen. Somyot also blasted the media for reporting that a primary suspect was thought to be in Bangkok after fleeing the island in the wake of the murders. According to Pol.Gen. Somyot, the police never sought a suspect in Bangkok, despite earlier comments from Koh Tao police officers that clearly stated otherwise.
The suspect, Warot Tuwichian, 22, has been cleared of any connection to the murder, police say.
"I am not feeling pressured by the foreign media, but I am not being negligent neither," Pol.Gen. Somyot said. "I don't want to talk about [the investigation] to the press right now, lest my statements contradict with the officers in charge of the investigation."
Here we have Somyot contradicting himself