saminoz

I have never said the police were not abusive to them ... unlike you though I do consider their admission to their own representatives relevant especially when the police were not there and they showed no fear of the police by saying they were abused. Further I find it relevant to the fact they changed their story. To not consider their free admission to embassy officials, lawyers and rights workers is to bury ones head in the sand and clearly shows a lack of being honest about the facts in this case. At the very minimum their credibility needs to be questioned but I personal believe combined with the others facts, you choose to ignore or discount, their admission is a clear indication of their guilt.

LMAO!!

JTJ questioning someone else's credibility!! Ironic or what?

JTJ, you keep forgetting that it is the same two lawyers that are alleged to have said that the B2 confessed the crime to them in an open meeting who later (within a couple of days) very publicly declared their innocence!!!

I would think that the latter statements hold more weight, don't they?

Early on you claimed to have no vested interest in this case, but pretty much all the dribble and claptrap, old posts and misrepresentations, blatant misdirection and nonsense you have come up with since, clearly have more give a truer picture fo your role than your earliest nonsensical claims statements.

Shill.

Cap

Fit

Wear

I want to see the cctv footage of the accused leaving the scene on their motorbike as claimed by the police in court

Good point and the time of said CCTV would be interesting more so. They obviously did leave the beach as they have never said they weren't there but time they left could be interesting.

yes why is it not in evidence ? something the defence should be focusing on, I'll wager any such evidence has been destroyed because it didn't fit with the prosecutions agenda, all cctv footage should have been handed over to the defence, why has this not happened, if the police used such footage during their investigation and the prosecution are using it in making their case then the defence should equally have access to all of it, anything collected by police is "in evidence" whether used or not

where is it ??????????????

The police have chosen a path in this investigation that is now being scrutinised across the world, if this does indeed turn out to be a "fit up" which I strongly suspect as I've seen nothing to make me think otherwise, we then face the horrific reality that a gang of brutal rapists and murderers are roaming freely on Ko Tao and will very likely strike again

If this is true, then maybe the money suspected to have been collected by the Police should be treated as evidence and shared with the defence! That would save them from having to ask for donations to cover expenses

A witness in the case has been murdered!! Ohn Marr who found the dead bodies has been murdered

Where did you hear/read this BB? Link?

Last one for tonight. Taxi drivers don't get offered 700k baht for false testimony against migrant workers! They'd turn them over for free. Hell. They may even get a reward around here.

There goes that misleading information again!

The Taxi Driver, who people here call was offered a Bribe, and was Interrogation by the Police, had nothing to do with the 2 Accused. This was in relation to a Foot Ball Team who became suspects.

The Taxi Driver was not offered a Bribe. He was offered the Reward Money which at that time was 700K, if he could give them evidence that this guys did it. Since he could not, this was dropped.

He was offered a bribe, according to pretty much all the journals reporting at that time. here are excerpts from two of them

"Thai police investigating the murder of two British backpackers tried to bribe a taxi driver to give false evidence against a football team then beat him up when he refused, it was claimed today.

Pornprasit Sukdam claims he was offered 700,000 baht (£13,300) if he agreed to be a fake witness to events leading up to the deaths of David Miller and Hannah Witheridge in Koh Tao."

"Pornprasit said the police detained him at 1.30 pm on Monday. During the interrogation, the police investigators asked him to agree to pretend to have knowledge of the incident, Pornprasit said. The police allegedly offered him a 700,000 baht (about 21,600 USD) reward and guaranteed him witness status. However, since he was not involved with the crime and did not have any knowledge related to it, Pornprasit declined the police offer. That made the police angry, he said. The police allegedly beat him up before releasing him on Monday at 6.30 pm."

Apparently the taxi driver is a member of the football club, Sun Service Team, and would not stitch up his club mates.

I'll do your reading for you Globby, someone needs to.

​*edited to harmonise font sizes

In a meeting with their embassy representatives, lawyer and right works the two defendants stated police threatened & abused while also admitting they did in fact kill the two but stated the were drunk and didn't mean to kill them. They of course have now changed their story and replaced their lawyer who was at this meeting out side of police presence.

And there you go again. Despicable. You are pulling a story from early on (7th October) and about two weeks before the B2 had had decent access to legal representation and recanted their confessions on the grounds they had been tortured out of them.

Should we discount the murdered even took place and all the crime scene info since it all happened before the 7th of October? This is some real strange logic you have. The confessed to their legal team, their embassy and rights workers outside police presence while also not being scared to tell them at the same time police abused them. This is fact and it happened, no matter how much you want to ignore it.

Just posts earlier you were saying what I posted was dishonest. Now you have found a new excuse to bury your head in the sand as you will do with anything that doesn't fit what your imagination wants to believe.

I am beginning to think you are either clinically insane or mentally defective. Your post doesn't make any sense at all!

They confessed at a time that they were, no doubt, petrified and after the Roti Seller, who had illegally posed as a representative of that same embassy, had advised them to admit guilt return for better treatment. They recanted those forced confessions once they felt safe enough to do so! What part of that can you not understand?

The same two lawyers you have selectively quoted are on public record, much, much later saying that they do NOT believe the two are guilty.

Try to keep up. Good grief!!! Are you really this obtuse in real life?

You manage to plumb new depths of negative credibility!!! You have become little more than a joke on this forum and you still owe the members an apology for your blatant attempts to distort the reports.

Ohhhh John u stoop to some low depths don't you.

You have taken this photo from a piece that says they did not confess until beaten etc.....

In a meeting with their embassy representatives, lawyer and right works the two defendants stated police threatened & abused while also admitting they did in fact kill the two but stated the were drunk and didn't mean to kill them. They of course have now changed their story and replaced their lawyer who was at this meeting out side of police presence.

Well GB u r blind then Read the report he took the picture from.. what a daft @rse

http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/burmese-suspects-koh-tao-murders-tortured-interrogation-lawyer.html

Headline.jpg

http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/burmese-suspects-koh-tao-murders-tortured-interrogation-lawyer.html

The picture of the above meeting described below can be found on numerous sites but your bizzare conspiracy theories lack common sense that we all know some sites are not able to be linked to here.

Officials from the Burmese embassy in Bangkok on Monday travelled to the neighbouring island ofKoh Samui to meet the two Arakanese migrants who have been remanded in custody pending murder and rape charges. The embassy officials, led by second secretary Htun Aye, were accompanied by Thai and Burmese lawyers, as well as migrant rights activists. The embassy said Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun signed over power of attorney to the legal team contracted by the embassy.

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."

A lawyer contracted by the Burmese embassy to defend two Burmese migrants accused of murdering a British couple on the Thai island of Koh Tao said the men confessed to the crimes on Monday, but told the legal team they had been tortured. 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 Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe on 15 September.

http://arakanindobhasaa.blogspot.com/2014/10/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says.html

And there you go again. Despicable. You are pulling a story from early on (7th October) and about two weeks before the B2 had had decent access to legal representation and recanted their confessions on the grounds they had been tortured out of them.

You are also selectively quoting only lines which you want to portray the B2 in the worst possible light. From that same article, if you had been a little more level and honest you could have continued Lawyer Aung Myo Thant's comments to include "However, he said, their stories were “somewhat inconsistent” and “their faces portrayed fear”. “From what we have learned, there are inconsistencies with both the forensic report and evidence provided in the case,” said Aung Myo Thant.“The defendants kept repeating that they were very drunk that night. Based on what we have been told, it seems to us like this case is a set-up and not based on hard facts.”

Stop using these out of date quotes to further your agenda. You constantly do it with the family statements and now are doing the same with these lawyer's comments. You owe the forum a little more respect than that.

(Sorry about using the red bold font people, I just thought I'd try a little of JTJ's warped attention grabbing on him, for a change! )

In a meeting with their embassy representatives, lawyer and right works the two defendants stated police threatened & abused while also admitting they did in fact kill the two but stated the were drunk and didn't mean to kill them. They of course have now changed their story and replaced their lawyer who was at this meeting out side of police presence.

I am well used to you being disingenuous JTJ, but with this post you have shown how low you will go, how you will use unrelated snippets to try to create a fiction to support your ultimate aim of protecting the island's elite, derailing sincere interest in justice and furthering the RTP sham. You should now publicly declare your vested interests in this case.

I know you have been following this case closely since day one and I also know that you are well aware that this team publicly declared their belief in the innocence of the two Burmese accused after this meeting. The two guys directly opposite the B2 and the guy to their left stood up at a press conference and stated this publicly.

To use this photo from Irrawaddy and then change the subject matter to suit your own agenda is very low and, possibly, criminal.

I didn't know what would come after you had previously lost your credibility, but this disgusting perversion of a post surprised even me.

I think you should apologise to the forum for this deliberate distortion of the facts of this part of the defense.

Shame on you.

Pathetic beyond words

Uh, LOL.

Listen GB, I've lived here during and followed this case since it happened. I mention NS as often as Shark Tooth, Hoe Man and Mon yet you only complain when I mention NS, why? Yes the police do have an obligation to explain to the people that pay them what evidence they have to convict someone. It has to do with transparency, try google.

And Protocols? They've been proven near non existent in this case and many others. I don't but the evidence police have verbally given, that's not enough for many, many people, my wife and her family, and people all over the world included. Why do you have a problem with that? If Zaw and Win turn up in evidence that can't be disputed then fine, but they haven't... Neither have any other suspects at this point. I'm

Here giving an opinion... That's what this board is for.

Sounds like you may need a nap, you're cranky.

Listen Darkknight666.

You opinion is was not criticized by my post. You have stressed you other opinions on other people and you have noticed I never jump in.

But when you purposely give false and misleading information here, this s not an opinion at all. It is false and misleading information.

You said NS refused to give his DNA to the Police. I told you that he did not refuse as he was never requested to do so.You know this. This is not the only time you have said this and been corrected.

Personally I don't mind anyone's opinion here and whether I agree to it or not. But what I don't like is some Spin Doctor to come here with a pack of lies and totally "Contaminate" "Corrupt" or :"Destroy" this site with purposely misleading garbage. Go to the other ones where it is excepted.

And again No! The Police do not have to explain to you anything, This is what courts are for.

If I seem grumpy it is because someone (we both know) called me names again and a Butthead! I would suggest to that person if he can not be civil to go wash his mouth out with soap and then come back and try again. .

I'm sure he'll do that just as soon as you grow up a little and stop whining on about the same tired old crud.

You have dished out more than your fair share of insults child, so try practicing some respect for other posters yourself. If you could also try coming up with an original thought or two, that would be very nice and most unexpected.

I think we've gone about as far as we can with this thread until the case resumes in court so if both sides could simply try and maintain awareness of their respective positions and key issues, then we probably wouldn't have to have these daily food fights that inevitably end up with Globby spitting out his dummy, JTJ (mis)-quoting the families (again!), Aleg pretending to be pseudo intellectual and everyone else wishing they were as wise (and restrained) as me (no ban for three whole days now!! ).

I am more than willing to give it a rest until something new, relevant and interesting comes up.

Failing that chaps, just ignore the thicket of RTP apologists and they'll be broadcasting blind with no one to parry their dodgy reasoning.

The day Thailand operates a nuclear reactor will mark my last day in the Kingdom.

A country which to date cannot operate a functioning, safe, pedestrian crossing system within its urban areas is not one yet ready for the storage of radioactive material.

Well goodbye then because Thailand already has a functioning nuclear reactor in Chatuchak. It was comissioned in 1961 and has been operating from 1962 until today.

So don't let the door hit your dumbass on the way out.

Seeking (I assume the asylum you are seeking is the lunatic variety?)

That's a fairly ill researched and trolling post if ever I have seen one.

There is a very small research reactor in Chatuchak, NOT supplying any grid electricity.

Current plans don't call for the building of as plant, even if it ever got the go ahead, until 202 with the anticipated on-stream delivery in 2026.

Don't let the door swing back and smack you in the face! (but I won't insult or flame you!)

You may or may not be who you say but this does not mean you know this case. How long have you been an Investigator in this case?

To back your statement just show me one Media Report who says this Crime Scene has been Contaminated!

I'm waiting!

Your wait is over GB - I have JUST ONE:

<<<<26) The Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post or Phuketwan publications will be deleted from the forum.>>>>

This media report says the crime scene was contaminated. Also, that CONTRARY to media reports, the island was never locked down.

Where do you think the media got the idea the island was locked down? The Police.

You guys keep going on about the media getting the story wrong etc - YES, because the RTP keep feeding them lies and Misinformation.

But I am sure you guys will be able to discredit Phuketwan because they are being sued by the military at the moment, ergo they must be a pack of liars.

Heres a couple more for the mix

They did not seal the island, contaminated the crime scene http://www.dailymail...eak-scared.html

reports described how the crime scene was contaminated, how the police failed to cordon off the island http://thediplomat.c...land-of-smiles/

The Reports said? That is some proof?

Well, I guess it is proof that Reporters have opinions which when reporting a Crime should keep to themselves, and as I said long ago that I am not pleased with reporting here as much of it is based on their opinion instead of actual news.

No you're just being deliberately obtuse and even more childish than usual.

You typed: "just show me one Media Report who says this Crime Scene has been Contaminated!"

You have been provided with several and now you're trying to change the goalposts again. Really silly and now you're just embarrassing yourself..........again.

Join JTJ in the zero credibility bin and leave the debate for the grown ups son.

(Ahh, I shouldn't have done that! Now JTJ will post yet again some ancient quote from the families and Globby will misquote something else from his misprint of the Esperanto dikshunary and fesorus!)

Edit: added closing comment........

and again....

and again....

stop!

Oh Dear!

It was no great leap to foresee that the meaning of Jimmy's excellent analogy would go right over your head. I suspect that to you, analogy is something you'd take anti histamines for.

End result the same, you, as usual, end up with a red face, a runny nose and are crying all the time.

The point of his post was to demonstrate, in a manner that even the simplest and blindest on this forum would understand, the principle of openness and transparency and why the lack of this has polarised this debate so badly!

That this was too much to grasp is no great surprise to most of us on here and more than demonstrates your inability to grasp simple, let alone slightly complex, issues.

I hear that there's still plenty of space left in the "Basic Playdough Shapes" forum! Go grab a space somewhere you can contribute in a meaningful fashion!

No, that´s not it; what polarizes this debate is that some people try their damnedest to make it an Us vs. Them issue, were "Us" are righteous and just and anyone that doesn't play along is evil, like here.

John Cleese explained that attitude brilliantly:

Bp9sLP0IcAAAV79.jpg

I think you slightly missed the point of my post too Aleg, but thank you for telling me what I am thinking!

I won't read anything into the fact that you chose to quote, instead of a subject matter expert, a comedian (albeit a very good comedian)!

I don't see any real signs of anyone being called evil on here (OK, I also felt uncomfortable with DarkNight666's RTP/Killer tag, (but look at his handle for dog's sake! ) which I felt was borne out of frustration) and polarisation inevitably leads to an Us vs. Them scenario IMHO.

However, good post Sir and I certainly applaud your use of the reference material.

Now I shall look for a sub thread where I can legitimately call up the excellent Monty Python's Argument Sketch!

Why does someone who has a different opinion then yours have to have an agenda? Why can't we just have an opinion based on what we have learned by ourselves? An opinion that is based on what we have read about this case in the Media, which is our only source of information, and therefore not written in stone?

But you say "Us" and "Them" like some new Marshal in Town here to clean up this site and restore law and order here. Being a participating member here from the very start do you really want to know the difference between "Us" and "Them"?

"Us" (We) base our own opinion on what we read from a credible media report. We don't want to see anyone who is innocent be tried guilty, but at the same time we do not want to release 2 possible murders and rapist free to commit this crime someplace else, Until it is proven in a court of law, as enough evidence has been collected to accuse them. If the DNA is re-tested proven there is no DNA Match to the accused, then we would reconsider our opinion and would consider them being innocence.

"Them" (You) on the other hand base your opinions on pure speculations and theory. You do not have one shred of evidence to conclude their innocents. You base your evidence on what you call the Prosecutors lack thereof, but yet the trial in in it's infancy. Perhaps worst of all is that if this DNA Re-testing comes back and doesn't go your way, and still proves it matches the 2 accused, you will not accept this. You will say it should have been tested in the UK , or Singapore, and not in Thailand, even though this was the request of the Defense Lawyers, You will add more people to some grand conspiracy and claim they were all bought off to.

The real big difference between "Us" and "Them" is that we can still be rational and use our judgement and logic, and be opened minded, to form our own opinions. Where you are all Brain Washed, and are no longer able or capable to think for yourselves. You wouldn't care to know the truth or justice for the 2 Victims even if it crept up behind you and hit you on the back of the head with a Garden Hoe. ,

Goldbuggy, regarding your description of "Us" and "Them", I would just like to clarify why I would be considered a "Them" because it is not included as an option in your post.

A huge amount of weight in this whole case is being placed upon the DNA evidence. I think it's fair to say that if there was no DNA match the RTP would still be looking for the perpetrators today. Once there was a match the "investigation" effectively ceased.

From the outset the RTP decided that it would be best if collection of all the forensic evidence was kept "in house", and this is when I sensed that something may be amiss with the investigations.The Central Institute of Forensic Science, now headed by Khunying Pornthip, was set up for precisely the purpose of avoiding such a scenario as this by providing forensic services under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice, and so independent of the RTP "in house" forensics division and I cannot think of one valid reason for the RTP failing to involve the CIFS in this case that benefits anyone other than the RTP themselves. So many question marks over this case would have been removed if Khunying Pornthip and her team had been able to take responsibility for this role.

Here is an analogy I used once before and I think it still offers an easy to understand explanation as to why I am what you would consider a conspiracy theorist.

If you have ever seen a sporting event where a relatively crucial decision is made by the toss of a coin (which team will kick first, which end a team chooses to play from etc.) you will have noticed that the typical procedure goes something like this:

The referee and captain(s) from both teams will gather in the middle of the pitch.

The referee will show both sides of the coin to both team captains.

The referee then tosses the coin high into the air in full view of the team captains, the TV cameras and onlookers.

A pre-determined team captain will call either heads or tails whilst the coin is in the air.

All those involved (the team captains and the referees) will stand back to allow the coin to land on the ground in plain view of everyone so their can be no doubt as to whether it's a head or a tail.

The referee will look at the coin where it lays on the ground, without touching it, and will announce whether it is a head or a tail.

They stage the coin toss like this because it is deemed to be fair, transparent and because it removes almost all possibilities of foul play.

What they do not do, and for very good reasons, is allow the home team players (who have called heads for example) to crowd around the coin as it lands so that neither the referees, the TV cameras nor the opposing team can see it and accept the result as final and fair when the home team captain says "Yeah, it was a head...", picks up the coin and returns it to the referee whilst his teammates all nod their heads in agreement, and the opposing team scratches theirs, which is basically what happened with everything regarding the collection and analysis of the forensic evidence in this case.

In the above sporting event scenario, if the away team were seen walking away from the coin toss appearing unconvinced of the fairness of the outcome and were heard muttering things like: "I never saw it land..." or "It coulda been a tail you know..." then you and your fellow "Us" contingent would be labeling the away team as conspiracy theorists and calling their mutterings "wild and baseless speculation". Meanwhile an impartial observer (or anyone with half a brain for that matter) would have noticed that the problem lies with the the coin toss procedure and its obvious lack of transparency and would be aiming their criticism at this rather than at the away team players.

Now if the impartial observers were then advised that actually a more transparent coin toss system was widely available and had been brought into effect some 12 years earlier to prevent such suggestions of foul play and deception, and that the only reason this new system was not used for this particular coin toss was because the home team refused to implement it... Well, it should come as no surprise to find that no matter how loudly the home team players accuse the away team of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, the finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the home team and their very deliberate decision to use the old "crowd round the coin" coin toss procedure, with everyone except for the home team players and their most loyal of fans having serious doubts about their intentions and their integrity.

In the world of sports it is expected and accepted that fans will blindly support their team simply because it is Their Team and because they are loyal fans. There is no expectation of a logical thought process being behind the reason they give their support to their team. However, in the scientific world of criminal investigation and forensics, and in the very real world of the murder trial we are discussing here, one would expect that the majority of impartial observers would use logic, probability and rational thinking as a basis for making a decision as to whether they throw their support behind a guilty verdict or an innocent verdict, perhaps combined with a certain amount of "gut feeling". However, what I find puzzling about the "Us" contingent is that despite Goldbuggy's assertions to the contrary, their support of a guilty verdict appears to be based almost exclusively on a sports team style blind loyalty, perhaps coupled with some gut feeling, because how can anyone using logic and rational thinking support results that were achieved as a direct result of the highly prejudicial "coin toss" their team insisted on using?

And so that is why I am a "Them". I thought there was something very fishy about the coin toss...

Well, let me ask you something since you compare this to, lets say a Football Game. You mention this coin toss and being able to see the truth. A Referee and 2 Captains see the coin being tossed and land on the ground, then the call is made. So here is my question to you.

How many times as a Fan or Spectator have you actually seen with your own eyes which way the coin has landed, and if it was Heads or Tails? Would Zero be close? So you put your faith in 2 Captains and the Referee to tell you the truth. Could not 3 people be bribed to lie about this?

In a Murder and Rape Investigation, Arrest, and Trial, and as a Spectator, you don't have any rights to know all the Evidence any more then you have the right as a Fan to walk out onto the field and see the coin toss in your own country. With the exception of attending the Trial, which in my country on big profile cases you would never find a seat in the Court Room. So it is up to the 2 Captains (Prosecution and Defense Lawyers) and the Referee (Judges) to tell you how it ends up.

As to all this other stuff about DNA Testing and who should do it, that could become endless trail (got it right this time) of Speculation. You say a different branch in Thailand, some with say Singapore, some FBI, some Scotland Yard, and so on. It is pretty obvious from knowing were the 2 accused are now, that this DNA Testing that took place, was good enough to keep them their until this Trial at least. .

Oh Dear!

It was no great leap to foresee that the meaning of Jimmy's excellent analogy would go right over your head. I suspect that to you, analogy is something you'd take anti histamines for.

End result the same, you, as usual, end up with a red face, a runny nose and are crying all the time.

The point of his post was to demonstrate, in a manner that even the simplest and blindest on this forum would understand, the principle of openness and transparency and why the lack of this has polarised this debate so badly!

That this was too much to grasp is no great surprise to most of us on here and more than demonstrates your inability to grasp simple, let alone slightly complex, issues.

I hear that there's still plenty of space left in the "Basic Playdough Shapes" forum! Go grab a space somewhere you can contribute in a meaningful fashion!

Goldbuggy, regarding your description of "Us" and "Them", I would just like to clarify why I would be considered a "Them" because it is not included as an option in your post.

A huge amount of weight in this whole case is being placed upon the DNA evidence. I think it's fair to say that if there was no DNA match the RTP would still be looking for the perpetrators today. Once there was a match the "investigation" effectively ceased.

From the outset the RTP decided that it would be best if collection of all the forensic evidence was kept "in house", and this is when I sensed that something may be amiss with the investigations.The Central Institute of Forensic Science, now headed by Khunying Pornthip, was set up for precisely the purpose of avoiding such a scenario as this by providing forensic services under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice, and so independent of the RTP "in house" forensics division and I cannot think of one valid reason for the RTP failing to involve the CIFS in this case that benefits anyone other than the RTP themselves. So many question marks over this case would have been removed if Khunying Pornthip and her team had been able to take responsibility for this role.

Here is an analogy I used once before and I think it still offers an easy to understand explanation as to why I am what you would consider a conspiracy theorist.

If you have ever seen a sporting event where a relatively crucial decision is made by the toss of a coin (which team will kick first, which end a team chooses to play from etc.) you will have noticed that the typical procedure goes something like this:

The referee and captain(s) from both teams will gather in the middle of the pitch.

The referee will show both sides of the coin to both team captains.

The referee then tosses the coin high into the air in full view of the team captains, the TV cameras and onlookers.

A pre-determined team captain will call either heads or tails whilst the coin is in the air.

All those involved (the team captains and the referees) will stand back to allow the coin to land on the ground in plain view of everyone so their can be no doubt as to whether it's a head or a tail.

The referee will look at the coin where it lays on the ground, without touching it, and will announce whether it is a head or a tail.

They stage the coin toss like this because it is deemed to be fair, transparent and because it removes almost all possibilities of foul play.

What they do not do, and for very good reasons, is allow the home team players (who have called heads for example) to crowd around the coin as it lands so that neither the referees, the TV cameras nor the opposing team can see it and accept the result as final and fair when the home team captain says "Yeah, it was a head...", picks up the coin and returns it to the referee whilst his teammates all nod their heads in agreement, and the opposing team scratches theirs, which is basically what happened with everything regarding the collection and analysis of the forensic evidence in this case.

In the above sporting event scenario, if the away team were seen walking away from the coin toss appearing unconvinced of the fairness of the outcome and were heard muttering things like: "I never saw it land..." or "It coulda been a tail you know..." then you and your fellow "Us" contingent would be labeling the away team as conspiracy theorists and calling their mutterings "wild and baseless speculation". Meanwhile an impartial observer (or anyone with half a brain for that matter) would have noticed that the problem lies with the the coin toss procedure and its obvious lack of transparency and would be aiming their criticism at this rather than at the away team players.

Now if the impartial observers were then advised that actually a more transparent coin toss system was widely available and had been brought into effect some 12 years earlier to prevent such suggestions of foul play and deception, and that the only reason this new system was not used for this particular coin toss was because the home team refused to implement it... Well, it should come as no surprise to find that no matter how loudly the home team players accuse the away team of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, the finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the home team and their very deliberate decision to use the old "crowd round the coin" coin toss procedure, with everyone except for the home team players and their most loyal of fans having serious doubts about their intentions and their integrity.

In the world of sports it is expected and accepted that fans will blindly support their team simply because it is Their Team and because they are loyal fans. There is no expectation of a logical thought process being behind the reason they give their support to their team. However, in the scientific world of criminal investigation and forensics, and in the very real world of the murder trial we are discussing here, one would expect that the majority of impartial observers would use logic, probability and rational thinking as a basis for making a decision as to whether they throw their support behind a guilty verdict or an innocent verdict, perhaps combined with a certain amount of "gut feeling". However, what I find puzzling about the "Us" contingent is that despite Goldbuggy's assertions to the contrary, their support of a guilty verdict appears to be based almost exclusively on a sports team style blind loyalty, perhaps coupled with some gut feeling, because how can anyone using logic and rational thinking support results that were achieved as a direct result of the highly prejudicial "coin toss" their team insisted on using?

And so that is why I am a "Them". I thought there was something very fishy about the coin toss...

Great post Jimmy K++

GB and nigeone

Quote>"Compromised" means to accept standards lower than is desirable, "Compromised" does not mean "Destroyed".

For example if you were investigating the Crime Scene you would expect to find the footprints in the sand of the 2 Victims, plus any others who could belong to the murders. But now that 6 others entered the Crime Scene, the Crime Scene has been compromised.

This doesn't mean these footprints of the victims and possible murders aren't there anymore. It just now means that you have to sift through everyone's footprints that were in there, and clear them all as suspects, which is not desired. Unless of course a herd of cattle went through and destroyed all the footprints, but judging from photos of the police measuring the footprints, I don't think this was the case.

Now if you think the sperm samples taken from Hannah at the Forensic Lab was compromised and planted, then I have no more to say to you on this subject as then we disagree, Your not for real are you?? Compromised means what it says and in your analogy it's clear that if many people are allowed unchecked and not in a sterile environment some of those said footprints could have been compromised or even destroyed. You do know what happens to sand when it's walked don't you?? What about all the pics downloaded onto Facebook before the it came out that a murders had been carried out. Then there's the pictures of clothes in one place then scattered all around and a police guy stating he moved the body. How many of the people walking on that beach would have been wearing flip flop type shoes! Not easy to differentiate on sand wouldn't you agree. There was umpteen people walking over that crime scene including I will say again a possible suspect. How can that possible suspect be elimated from the case. Well we know the answer to that don't we! You haven't thought your reply out have you!. And are you telling me it's not possible to plant samples? and again we have only the RTP word up to now that they have any samples and they haven't been to clever at being forthcoming with anything up to now. The perfect case!!

Yes we do disagree and quite honestly this argument of yours is a joke. And as you've obviously not read previous post of mine and understood DNA taken from Hannah does not in any shape or form confirm that the DNA belonged to a murderer. Just that it belonged to someone there. Is that so hard to understand!!

Check the Dictionary for the word "Compromise". That is where I got this meaning from. Not sure where you got yours though.<End quote

You are both right so why argue?

However when using a word one should look at the context in which it is used. One place crime scene investigators can look to make certain that evidence is of the highest quality is contamination Yes, a crime scene can be comprised but through the contamination of that scene. Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there. Investigators can even compromise and contaminate the scene with their own footprints.

If I was referring to this matter, as you two gentleman are, I would say that the crime scene has been contaminated thus compromising the investigation given what is now known to have occurred there. As such, one could reasonably state that any evidence collected there and possibly elsewhere, has been compromised. Careful appraisal is required so that a plan can be created so one knows what needs to be collected and the best way to do so but after looking at the evidence coming from the court, it appears this did not occur and the matter has been a monumental stuff up from the beginning.

Evaluating a scene before anyone enters can be the key to keeping contamination to a minimum. When doing a preliminary survey of the crime scene one needs to know what his/hers equipment and manpower needs are. Some scenes may require the presence of specialists, so maybe someone can answer this? When were the first specialist police called to the scene? I mean forensic and crime scene investigators, not the local BIB.

I have also read, with interest, that many people are criticising the DNA obtained. I do not know what procedures were followed by police but given what is coming out now then one would have to say that police failed to ensure the integrity of the DNA. Samples must be properly collected and care must be taken not to taint it, so given what has come to light regarding the DNA then it can reasonably assumed that it has been tainted therefore, compromised.

Looking at the overall situation, there has to be questions raised as to the credibility of police and why those who were first in attendance failed to carry out the very basics of policing, (securing the crime scene) thus giving rise to a flawed investigation. We can also do without all the outside influence and the irrational statements being made by some in authority. If this were back in my country it could result in mistrial or even those sprouting off being held in contempt of the Court.

I don't assume or presume as some have indicated, nor do I want to get involved in conspiracy theories, who thinks who is involved, the mafia, the headman, his sons or brothers, if the boys are innocent or guilty, how their confessions were obtained or whatever. I have in the past sided with police, as being an ex-copper one hopes that things are above board and that the investigation was carried out in a manner that would see justice prevail, one way or another. However, from what is now evident then the veracity of the police evidence must be called into question and their procedures closely scrutinised to ensure that from now and into the future this does not occur, there is transparency in all matters, fairness provided to all alleged offenders and that the families of the victims get closure.

Unfortunately, non of this has appears to have occurred in this case. I am not saying that all police have acted in a manner that would discredit them but certainly many have and they should be called to task for what they have done, many, at the very least, should be charged with neglect of duty or at the worst, a criminal offence. I know many will say this is Thailand, sure it is but unfortunately this is the way they operate. Hopefully, in time, the good cops will prevail and rid the system of inept and corrupt officers and the judicial system will get a long need overhaul. Sure, it will take time, many, many years, maybe not in my life time, but if and when this happens, then the hopefully people will find that Thailand is not so bad after all and the disgusting criticism now being displayed by some on this forum will cease.

In so far as the two alleged offenders, I do not know if they are guilty or innocent. No one on here does either. What everyone needs to understand that we were not there, we do not know what occurred, although many assume or say for certain they are guilty, some the opposite, they are innocent. I think emotions are playing a big role in this and should be put to one side. If they are convicted on the evidence obtained or not obtained, contaminated or concocted, then justice will have to be called into question. If they are found not guilty, then one needs to evaluate the overall situation and determine if they were innocent because they were, or if the decision was made because of a technicality or other undue outside influences. I really don't know in regards to the last two scenarios but one way or another this matter will come to it's conclusion and the whole process will start over, those on this side, those on that side, berating each because they believe they are right.

An excellent review of the circumstances. Fair,rational,logical and sensible. Sadly none of these traits has much place in a Thai court of law

Contamination does not mean Compromised! Not one Media Report posted the Crime Scene was contaminated! If you were in the Desert and someone gave you a cup of water with a bug floating on top, (Compromised) could you still drink tis safely? But if someone gave you a cup of water that was (Contaminated), could you drink that safely?

Contaminated means toxin, poison, polluted which does not describe this crime scene at all. Did you not see the Police measuring everyone's foot prints?

Is it possible to contaminated a Crime Scene? Sure! If someone dropped the A-Bomb on it. .

Strange post showing the amazing lack of understanding or simple "head in the sand" syndrome of the writer.

I'll give you a head start: "Contamination is the presence of an unwanted constituent, contaminant or impurity in a material, physical body, natural environment, workplace, etc." (thank you Wikipedia)

I'd say that Mon was certainly an unwanted constituent in the environment of the crime scene, wasn't he? Given the unsavory reputation of his powerful family, I guess you could also argue for impurity and, thank you GB, something toxic.

Mon, along with severely untrained island Police, compromised the crime scene with their presence.

Read the whole story as linked. "The travel insurance company only covers accidents on mopeds of 55cc or less,"

He was not on a moped, I'm sure.

Your last sentence....BOTH.

It may have been over 55cc, but the definition of Moped I grew up with is any scooter you don't have to shift. I had a friend with a 250 cc Moped in Texas.

Since no scooters less than 100cc can be registered for the street in Thailand, it seems disingenuous that an insurance company can claim (and charge for) coverage for scooters, but limit it to 55cc.

I may be wrong but I believe the term moped is a conjoining of the words motor and pedal, as the original mopeds were low powered machines that required the users to supplement the low engine power by cycling on some pedals to assist in standing starts and also going up steeper hills.

They were known as low displacement machines originally (49cc. I seem to remember in the UK) but later as the engines grew, the pedals were no longer needed and these became "nopeds" or more commonly now "scooters".

They're usually called scooters if they have a "step through" body form.

Sorry to interrupt your mutual admiration fest (Aleg types the same crud JTJ "likes" him, JTJ types the usual tripe and, surprise surprise, Aleg likes him right back!! ) again gents but aren't you forgetting that one of the other characters of interest (and NS' uncle) was reported to have immediately come forward and claimed that it was he, and not NS in the "running man" clip? What happened to that little morsel and does anyone have a link to the original post/claim?

No matter how you, in particular, JTJ try constantly to discredit every tiny morsel of the scant CCTV evidence that got past the information blackout, serious questions still remain that just add fire to the speculation and increasing skepticism about the handling of this case by the RTP.

If the RTP were being direct, transparent and forthcoming, shouldn't they investigate the fairly distinctive couple caught on tape in front of "Running Man"?

The apparent & somewhat clumsy altering of just the actual day and month (if I remember correctly) of the time stamp on some CCTV clips purporting to show NS at the university the next morning (the reason I say apparently altered is because the day and month of the time stamp were in a different color and in one case, format (in the middle of the time stamp but inconsistent!) to the rest of the time stamp. It really does look like someone has done a rushed but pretty poor job of making it look like earlier clips were from a time better suited to the "I was in BKK!" alibi, doesn't it? I might suggest that in the first screenshot, someone substituted another day & month to make it look like it was the morning following the crime (it could have been any number of the previous Monday mornings in 2014 up to that weekend). In the second, they seem to have been even more sloppy with the color of the characters but tried to change to make it look as though he was there on the Saturday before the attack too. I assume he must have got his hair cut on Sunday as the hairstyle and length seem somewhat different from the "Saturday" to the "Monday"!

I know that we are on opposite sides of the reality barrier here but, seriously, doesn't any of these issues cause you to have the tiniest, slightest, teeniest little doubt in the integrity of the RTP's investigation?

Just asking, and I have tried to be very, very civil as I just returned from a three day holiday for (I thought) humorously likening someone's intellect to that of a salad vegetable! I fell foul of TVF's own Article 44 measures, it seems!

Ah yes, the "the text is on different colour so it's a fake!" meme.

The only thing demonstrated by that is that 1) You don't know how security cameras work and 2) That people will cling to things that are known to be false no matter what.

It's been explained many, many times, the colors are different because that camera changes the color to provide more contrast with the background, as it was clearly explained by the Thai PBS report on the footage:

https://youtu.be/l4Z1zEjDj7I?t=2m29s

The link goes directly to a part of the video when the colors change as explained before.

As for Mon admitting he was the man on the "Running Man" video it's a case of, again, people jumping to unwarranted assumptions, turning them into facts and using those "facts" to support their theories. The fact is that there was one article where it said "Police have confirmed that Montriwat is the man appeared in the CCTV video footage near the scene and they still did not rule out a possible connection.", it didn't say anywhere what footage from what camera and at what time.

It works like clockwork, someone makes an unwarranted assumption, turns around and says "this fact unwarranted assumption doesn't make sense!, it proves it's all lies!". Well, knock me over with a feather.

So before you go on casting aspersions about the intelligence of other people make sure you are actually right in what you are saying.

Very good explanation of the CCTV time stamp issue, thanks.

I had not seen that before (I was probably enjoying some real life as I don't live on here looking to stick my finger in the next dyke, as you can see from my post count, compared to yours , JTJ's et.al.) so I shall have a deeper look.

I'd still like to know about the couple seen on the video in front of the "Running Man", as I am sure you would.

As for casting aspersions? I don't believe I cast a single one in my post!

Do you even know what an aspersion is? Perhaps you are confusing it with asparagus which is, indeed, another vegetable!

Maybe you are referring to the little quip about cucumber IQs that got me a 72 hour rest and thus showing your particular salad sensitivity?

I didn't realize what a delicate little ego you must have.

Sorry for bruising it.

Sincerely.

You should work for TAT JTJ. Can you get a transfer from RTP supporter to TAT spokesperson? Maybe there's a scheme similar to those sterling Tourist Police chappies?

Do I remember rightly, from way back in September when the whole debate started, that you have some interest in a diving outfit or some other business on KT?

This might explain why you are trying to protect the tourist industry, albeit by mistakenly blindly promoting everything the RTP has achieved as viable and correct.

Not speculating, my memory isn't what it once was. This thread has erratically killed off a few brain cells, not that I had too many in the first place!

Very sad if true......

There's also the insults, baseless accusations, character attacks, violations of privacy and threats aimed at silencing people. All in all, not a good showing.

By the way, the prosecution presented the CCTV of "Running Man" as evidence,saying it is Zaw Lin; I think there's a resemblance to that person (specially the very thick hair); but as I said it's not possible to make a 100% match without other corroborative evidence to support the notion.

Thanks Ale -- do you have a link or text string (if it is on a banned site) I can search on regarding Zaw Lin being the running man. The stories I read about the video day in court (assuming this is when it would have been introduced) didn't mention this and I read a few even one which broke down a time line based on the videos which doesn't include what I think would be a relevant thing. So many things get said here that are not backed up by credible reports, often things become facts that have no basis ... want to verify this is not the case with this.

Pol Col Cherdpong also showed the court footage of a small “Asian man” who was seen running back and forth several times between 3am and 5 am on the night of the crime. According to the officer, the man was traveling between the crime scene on the southern part of the beach and a Burmese community nearby.

The defendants' lawyers told Khaosod English that Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo both said they were not the man seen running in the CCTV footage presented to the court.

- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/koh-tao-trial-resumes-court-shown-footage-of-victims-final-night-53318.php#sthash.Cp3RStl0.dpuf

Based on the above, they didn't name the runner and the lawyers are saying it is neither defendant -- why say both if they prosecutors indicated it was a specific one.

Sorry to interrupt your mutual admiration fest (Aleg types the same crud JTJ "likes" him, JTJ types the usual tripe and, surprise surprise, Aleg likes him right back!! ) again gents but aren't you forgetting that one of the other characters of interest (and NS' uncle) was reported to have immediately come forward and claimed that it was he, and not NS in the "running man" clip? What happened to that little morsel and does anyone have a link to the original post/claim?

No matter how you, in particular, JTJ try constantly to discredit every tiny morsel of the scant CCTV evidence that got past the information blackout, serious questions still remain that just add fire to the speculation and increasing skepticism about the handling of this case by the RTP.

If the RTP were being direct, transparent and forthcoming, shouldn't they investigate the fairly distinctive couple caught on tape in front of "Running Man"?

The apparent & somewhat clumsy altering of just the actual day and month (if I remember correctly) of the time stamp on some CCTV clips purporting to show NS at the university the next morning (the reason I say apparently altered is because the day and month of the time stamp were in a different color and in one case, format (in the middle of the time stamp but inconsistent!) to the rest of the time stamp. It really does look like someone has done a rushed but pretty poor job of making it look like earlier clips were from a time better suited to the "I was in BKK!" alibi, doesn't it? I might suggest that in the first screenshot, someone substituted another day & month to make it look like it was the morning following the crime (it could have been any number of the previous Monday mornings in 2014 up to that weekend). In the second, they seem to have been even more sloppy with the color of the characters but tried to change to make it look as though he was there on the Saturday before the attack too. I assume he must have got his hair cut on Sunday as the hairstyle and length seem somewhat different from the "Saturday" to the "Monday"!

I know that we are on opposite sides of the reality barrier here but, seriously, doesn't any of these issues cause you to have the tiniest, slightest, teeniest little doubt in the integrity of the RTP's investigation?

Just asking, and I have tried to be very, very civil as I just returned from a three day holiday for (I thought) humorously likening someone's intellect to that of a salad vegetable! I fell foul of TVF's own Article 44 measures, it seems!

Okay so here you go. And it's very topical around your post.

Does the police guy in court indicating that the clothes were found neatly piled on a rock mean that's is what happened. Remember he said this in a court of law and as you say it must be credible otherwise it would be perjury..I'm really interested in your answer. And I suggest before you do answer you take a look at the pictures of the crime scene posted above. Quote!

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

Well first off it is not a topic around my post as I never raised it as a topic. I did not start this link or even mention it here once. Please check again who posted this.

I was however asked this question before which I again have no idea why he asked me. Or again why you asked me. He said it was the Prosecutor who said the clothes were stacked neatly, and you said it was the Police Officer. I said I never heard that before from anyone of them and asked for a link So that 2 different people, like you and him, would not get it wrong and now say it was the Prosecutor who said this or now the Investigator Police Officer.

I personally thought the clothes would be messy. You said they said it was neat. Then I say that is what happens when you have poor reporting who seem to be getting a lot of things mixed up lately. I can't tell you for sure as I was not at the crime scene or in court.

Perhaps the "poor reporting" you refer to is down to the fact that the court has restricted the access for journalists, even to the point of forbidding the taking of notes in the courtroom, coupled with the fact that the Thai press seem to be "mysteriously" absent?

Would it not have been more transparent to broadcast the trial, given the very high suspicion of a cover-up, or even allow transcripts of each day's testimonies?

Events in the trial to date show that this would have been a complete disaster for the Thai justice enterprise system and especially for the RTP.

The lack of transparency in this farcical trial is what is most probably hurting the RTP's pathetic case the most.

Could those of you who were brave enough to view the pictures of Hannah and particularly David confirm that the injuries to him could have been made by the blunt end of a hoe!! From everything I have seen and taken in his injuries were not consistent with a implement like that. I'm sure somebody will confirm or deny the possibility. Thanks

There was no wound to the back of David's head. There were a couple of wounds on the side of the head, but most of the wounds (similar looking) are on the front.

To my eyes, the pattern of David's wounds are consistent only with a protracted fight. The wounds do not look consistent with a blunt instrument.

The only possible explanation I can concoct (and concoct is the word) is that the single blow from behind that incapacitated David and left him to drown in the sea left no mark (being a blow in an area covered by hair from a blunt instrument) and the visible wounds were inflicted by sharp shells or other objects after he fell. Realistically, the RTP story is a load of round objects.

I'm not sure what the blunt end of a hoe means but I am sure that if you hit someone with either corner of the working end of a hoe it could leave wounds consistent with what I unfortunately viewed in the photos.

It is unfortunate that the English translation for the alleged murder weapon is "hoe", because this gives a misleading impression to those who have not seen the Thai version of this tool. If you are expecting

you are not going to appreciate the kinds of wounds that would be inflicted by

Good post and don't forget that the hoe in question was encrusted in cement. Hard to get a clean would from that particular hoe, I should think.

Those small woulds look like they were inflicted with a short, sharp, triangular-shaped blade.

Bars and businesses will adapt. New areas and bars will spring up elsewhere, which may not be a bad thing.

Loi Kroh deserves to be shut down. The bars are beyond woeful, sad establishments...with the crappiest pool tables ever.

This could be a blessing in disguise.

DLock are you serious ? "bars and busineses will adapt " So imagine,if you can, you are a bar owner or restaurant and you are tied into a long lease or have paid a lot of money for the freehold and almost overnight you are forced out of business and your staff have to be laid off and the cash flow stops.

Put yourself in their shoes , could you adapt ? start all over again from scratch ? and crappy pool tables taking priority over peoples lives ...amazingly sympathetic post.

I'm not saying the current LK business owners will be the ones to open new bars...

Clearly they don't have the money to invest in decent bars currently.

No sympathy from me if those pathetic, dreary bars are forced to close.

No loss.

What a sad, pathetic, cowardly, nasty little man someone would have to be to write something like this..

Show some empathy for people who have actually invested in their adopted country and, through no fault of their own, stand to see a drastic loss of revenue or even closure of their businesses.

If you don't like to looks or decor of the bars on Loi Kroh (there are many, many similar in Bangkok, Chiang Rai, Pattaya, Hua Hin, you name it...., then simply don't frequent them. You seem to hand personal knowledge of them though.

Perhaps you haven't used them but get to see them often when you go for your special LK "massage" every day?

I suspect you are just one miserable,ageing sexpat happy to survive on your fixed income and holier than thou personality.

Disgraceful.

So what makes you think that after their confessions they would be safe in jail anyway? Seems to me that would be the perfect time to bump them off if that was their plan, and not before they confessed.

Just put them in a cell with some shady characters doing life for murder, promise them a double helping for a week of Fish Head Soup and Rice, then...suddenly, case closed and nobody saw anything.

Which media is going to care or try to investigate or help 2 self confessed murders and rapists?

If there was justice in the world such a crime would happen to excuse for human beings like yourself as opposed to these decent young adults.

GB is showing what a nasty little piece of work he is again.......

They retracted their confessions that were achieved by torture and intimidation so how, until they are proven guilty, dare you to continue to use the "self confessed" line? Actions of a nasty, dreary little troll?

Can all speculations end here until the court start up again next month ?

We do not need another 100 pages , the repeat button is on daily. We all have our views and there's no need for some of the posters here (you know who you are) to repeat this over and over again. It wont help the case, some of you guys seem to spend your time more in front of your laptop and TV than outside. I am concerned about your health. .................

Says Balo, with 5,000+ posts to my modest (but way more intelligent) 60-odd!

It is not a war just because you are wearing a uniform and then rape and murder innocent civilians. It is a War Crime!

These deaths are predominantly because of internal civil wars ... just as the high numbers in Thailand are due to the unrest in the south.

What you're doing is making a very dubious claim of guilt by association, in fact as someone else pointed out there's no evidence that exposure to violence makes a person more likely to commit violence. If it were so WWII for instance would have been followed very soon by a pandemic of violence, or the majority of refugees from war-torn nations would turn out to be killers and rapists.

Sorry but your contention is completely unsupported by evidence.

Very much like the prosecution's "case"??

Mon WAS on the island. No only on it, all over it. I think you mean Nomsod was not on the island? We shall see.

Thanks, had the names confused. Bottom line under him they cleared both and the family as well as Sean.

Mon, Nomsod...... does it make any difference when you leap to their defence as per your usual stance?

You shill for one, you shill for all.

ZERO credibility