Isitjustme

GOLDBUGGY states:-

Quote>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!< End quote

Sorry if I've kept you waiting.

Let me suggest that you sit down, take a deep breath and I will explain, as simply as I can, what you seem to have difficulty in understanding but firstly you must ensure you thoughts are not affected in any way by any substances that are mind altering. It doesn't matter one iota if you cannot accept my qualifications and experience, that is you prerogative but at least I know where I am coming from, it is quite evident that you do not, it appears you don't know if you're Arthur or Martha. If you don't understand that, it means confused ok.

No matter what is pointed out to you, you are not willing to learn or accept anything unless it follows you train of thought. Can't you think logically or outside the square? Have you ever heard the saying that humans never stop learning, we will learn something new everyday, it is only a fool who does not.

I know only what I have read, heard and seen, does this not apply to yourself, or have you been observing a different case? I would say that given your question, it appears you are, or at the least you have your head stuck in the sand (No pun intended). What is your reason for continually asking childish, irrelevant and inane questions? I told you before I won't answer these because you well know that you are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Now for your lesson. But don't worry, I will provide the answers, so you won't have to wrack your brain or look foolish if you fail.

1. The most important role when attending a crime scene is to protect the area. Why?

A. To keep the relevant evidence uncontaminated until it can be recorded and collected.

2. When does the protection of the scene begin and cease?

A. From the time of arrival of the first police officer and ends when police relinquish control of it.

3. Why is it necessary to protect the scene?

A. because a successful prosecution can hinge on the condition of the evidence at the time it is collected.

4. Provide the legal definition of contamination? A hint, do not refer to the dictionary definition.

A. Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there.

5. What did you see in the photographs of the crime scene at the time of Police initially attending and shortly thereafter?

A. Civilians, not involved in the investigation walking about the scene. later many, many spectators also roaming in and about the area.

6. Given what you have seen and learnt, would this be something introduced to the scene, which was previously not there? (multi choice answer, 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. maybe.)

A. 1, yes.

7. Was the clothing placed into a neat pile for photographic purposes, if this occurred what does this indicate?

A. it would indicate that someone has moved it, thus contamination arises and that the evidence was compromised.

8. Was the alleged murder weapon removed and then brought back to the scene?

A. According to police, yes, therefore again contaminated and compromised.

Hopefully this is sufficient for you to understand the situation but given your past responses, I doubt it. Now to answer you last question. I do not need a media report to adjudge that the crime scene was severely contaminated and comprised, I just have to fall back on my experience, see what has been presented by the media and use common sense, the latter unfortunately I can see is not very common.

If you still want to carry on in such an adverse manner, then feel free to do so but it will only highlight that you have no idea of what you are on about and that all you can do, instead of providing legitimate debate, is respond in a manner that shows you have little, if any knowledge of crime scene investigation or what the legal definitions of words are. it also highlights that you are unwilling to learn anything even when shown you still will not accept that someone else can be right,. I can be wrong, and have been on a number of occasions but I learn and try not to make the same mistakes again, something you should try to do.

Oh by the way, I sat and passed the detectives' exam in 1982 and was designated the same year. Can you tell me the year you sat for the TVF detectives' exam and if you were ever designated as a fully fledged armchair detective or did you fail? I think the latter, as you posts give a clear indication of this. Now off you go and if you have learnt something today, say thank you..

Armchair detective? Probably not. Couch potato? Plausible. Your insights are very enlightening and interesting.... at least for those of us blessed with some common sense. Keep them up.

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. .

And your qualifications and experience are? Mine was in law enforcement for 30 years, and when I left I held the rank of Detective Sergeant, was a qualified crash, crime scene, fraud and homicide investigator, after having undertaken the necessary specialist courses. I was also the lead investigator in many, many cases. So I think I have a bit of an idea about what I have stated. If I may, I'd suggest you read my post and understand what the following means.

"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." Also this, "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.

Now I have no problem with someone, who has the experience, knowledge and qualifications critiquing what I have written but when someone, who clearly has no idea of what they are on about, then I suggest you do not enter the debate in relation to crime scene investigation unless you know what you are talking about, which quite clearly, you do not.

As for your examples and the questions asked, I have no intention of fuelling the fire by even contemplating providing an answer to such childish and irrelevant requests. I'd suggest you learn and understand legal definitions and maybe then you won't engage in such written foolishness.

Again well said. Succint and to the point. And factual. Makes a nice change on here.

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. .

No, you're misunderstanding the use of contaminated when applied to a crime scene. Look it up.

Why bother responding to these guys? Rising to their bait. They love it. Let them fester in their ignorance.

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

The court was told officers had inspected it with a magnifying glass but deemed there were no viable fingerprints on it, and no DNA evidence to collect.

http://news.sky.com/story/1523975/police-never-checked-cctv-after-britons-killed

H12.jpg

Get the <deleted>*k, I cant believe this is happening. I have to admit as soon as I read that I laughed out loud until I remembered the victims families and the B2. This is outrageous incompetence and neglect of duty. It really cant get worse can it? Yes it probably can and will.

Since I've seen a video were police are swabbing the hoe to collect DNA evidence the statement is wrong or, once again, a "miscommunication".

swabbing it or cleaning it?

Here's an update on the latest from the "perfect case" that the RTP put together.

http://news.sky.com/story/1523975/police-never-checked-cctv-after-britons-killed

Police failed to check CCTV images of a boat leaving a beach close to where two British backpackers were found murdered, a Thai court has heard.

There were gasps in the courtroom as Police Colonel Cherdpong Chiewpreecha revealed a series of apparent blunders in the investigation into the deaths of David Miller, 24, and Hannah Witheridge, 23, on the island of Koh Tao.

The court in Koh Samui heard that the senior investigating police chief and his officers did not believe the killer would have taken that boat, which left an hour or so after the estimated time of death of the pair.

You can't make this shit up!....... How can people on here defend the RTP Clowns?

Un-effin-believable!!! Seems like all the most important bits of the investigation and crime scene data collection and analysis went into the "too hard" basket or were ignored early on based upon assumptions.

Shocking revelations in that article. No wonder there were gasps in the courtroom.

Seems as though their "ironclad" case has more holes than a sieve.

Have rtp actually done a single thing correctly? I mean....anything at all? One ballsup after another.

So, IF the accused are found guilty they will be handed down the death sentence - at least that's what we hear, read and was also mentioned yesterday in "Deutsche Welle's" (Germany's voice to the world) main news block.

Just in on a German news tickers (http://www.wochenblitz.com/nachrichten/65996) today:

A Thai male, who raped ten (10) girls (minors) and murdered four (4) of them, got sentenced for life yesterday for the rape and murder of a four-year old in February 2013 in the province of Loei.

The court had solid proof of the case and found the accused guilty as charged in all points. The 38-year old man "Khun Nui" already had received a sentence in December 2013 for the rape and murder of a six-year old. The rape/murder took place in Samut Prakarns Sukhumvit Road Soi 105 (Soi Lasalle). At that time Bangkok's police chief Kamronwit Thoopkrajang explained the press, that said girl was the youngest victim of a total of ten minors since 2008. Nui admitted having searched for one victim per month. He had killed two kids in Loei and another in Bangkok's district of Bang Bon. Six of his victims survived.

The same media reported earlier on the very same case (http://www.wochenblitz.com/nachrichten/46402) with full details of the rape and murder.

The relevance to the Koh Tao case is, that the entire world is watching on how this possibly very heavily tainted case is getting dealt with. Here they talk about mandatory death sentence and, irrespective of outcome, millions of people wonder what really happened at that night on Koh Tao and it might have become simply impossible for the courts to figure that one out. A mistrial might be the court's only way out and also secure the image of the courts; the police' image on how they handle(d) the case tainted their image beyond reasonable doubt already.

All the while a very, very, very sick man is locked up in jail - again - for the rape of murder of kids and possibly will be handed down a pardon whenever pardons are handed out again. If you have death penalties, then apply these appropriately across the board, if you have evidence enough (as seems the case with this monster). Quite obviously not the same court/judge/jury.

If you have a mistrial (and Koh Tao might be a prime example for the court) then .......... The scape goat though is not identified yet!

I thought " No Thai could ever commit such a crime"

Sickening stuff really. Would be a laughable comment if it weren't so sick.

PM must be very proud having jails which don't contain a single murderer or rapist.