jdinasia

1st hearing for such a high profile case after almost 10 months? In my opinion this clearly shows they are playing for time so that worldwide interest in the case fades. Would make it easier to hang 2 patsies.

When the hearing was moved to December 26th last year, didn't you claim that was so they could try, convict, and execute the 2 Burmese defendants before the scheduled report from the UK inquest?

Nothing seems to have changed there then, does it ?

Not in the minds of the conspiracy theorists.

However, the first pre-trial hearing came and went, nobody was tried, convicted and executed.

First it was too fast and thus a conspiracy ; now it is too slow and thus...... Yet again, a conspiracy.

1st hearing for such a high profile case after almost 10 months? In my opinion this clearly shows they are playing for time so that worldwide interest in the case fades. Would make it easier to hang 2 patsies.

When the hearing was moved to December 26th last year, didn't you claim that was so they could try, convict, and execute the 2 Burmese defendants before the scheduled report from the UK inquest?

LOL.

Boomerangutang - no the "running man video" is not evidence that anyone specific was on the island.

No Boomerangutang, nobody who left the island has come forward to support your conspiracy theories.

No Boomerangutang, the press.(the same people who ran an analysis of the video from the BKK apartment, have not even now reported on the furniture conspiracy theory.

No Boomerangutang, I am not the only person calling your conspiracy theories exactly what they are..

You still can't seem to manage the difference between conspiracy and conspiracy theories.

Strange - the video Stephen keeps harpies on about was analyzed by the press. What the press say able it matches what AleG says.......

Note - the press brought in an expert.

Now - where's ANY evidence he was on the island?

Why haven't any people who were actually there (and are now safely back overseas) come forward with anything?

Why hasn't any single reputable source come forward about the furniture claims at the apartment? (remember that they actually did analyze the video)

Why hasn't a single facet of the conspiracy theories been verified?

If you know that you weren't there, and the police investigation revealed that you weren't there....

Why would you or the police look as if any other result was possible?

Of course it was a foregone conclusion.

Sure JD but you're forgetting what in the Catechism might be called the "Immaculate Escape".

LOL

If you know that you weren't there, and the police investigation revealed that you weren't there....

Why would you or the police look as if any other result was possible?

Of course it was a foregone conclusion.

To those who believe in the guilt of the 2 Burmese lads I would ask this:

The prosecution's case appears to be based mainly around the DNA evidence. DNA collection, preservation and analysis is an incredibly exacting scientific process that can be ruled as potentially contaminated and inadmissible if there are even the slightest errors made during this process. Please could you tell us what images you have seen and what information about the subsequent investigation has been reported that convinces you that the DNA evidence was most likely collected, preserved and analyzed in accordance with international standards, is uncontaminated and should therefore be trusted?

Or is it simply blind faith...?

Your concept of the prosecution case needs revisions

It doesn't change what Mario stated.

I hated the idea of 7-11 when I moved here.

Then I noticed that 7-11 hired all types of people. Skin color or religion wasn't an issue.

Prices are clearly marked etc.

What I find most interesting (and most discrediting) about the conspiracy theories is that none of the people who were on the island and have since returned to the UK and elsewhere have spoken out.

The family statements released by the FCO suggests that sub-judice in no way applies to a case in Thailand. Yet not one of the friends of the victims has come forward to state that the premise of the prosecution case is wrong.

LOL

Glad I could get you to laugh out loud.

Your willingness to commit defamation really did make me laugh out loud.

LOL

Again - you have no idea how much investigation went into clearing suspects. You are deliberately leaving out the University documents etc.

Why? Obsession

Nomsod could have gotten off with a street vendor saying she saw him buy some fried crickets at 8 am that morning. Come on, JD, do you think he and his lawyer needed any solid evidence to get him off the hook? And what about his g.f. who couldn't contact him for the entire night on Sunday? People they know say they're nearly inseparable, and always know where the other is. There are probably more proofs which put doubt on his flimsy alibi, but special interests are doing all they can to keep them from the light of day. He's as free as a bird and can never be further investigated. Aren't you happy about that? Rejoice.

How many times did you say that the police theory changed after Panya was promoted?

You have no idea what was investigated, Nor do you know what exculpatory evidence was given to the police. What you do know is what his lawyer presented to the press.

You simply don't have the right to the private details of someone's life.

Again - you have no idea how much investigation went into clearing suspects. You are deliberately leaving out the University documents etc.

Why? Obsession

Yet one more in the GOP clown car!

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Goldbuggy

Your response contains a number of errors , and ommissions that I am left to arrive at a conclusion that you are not really interested in the crime and posting with an intent of being vexatious

Oh?

Well I stand to be corrected.

Prove it!

Goldbuggy, as you are in fine form as your offensive and obnoxious style proves, let me ask you a serious question.

Do you trust the police in this country to carry out a thorough, impartial investigation and to not succumb to any levels of dishonesty or corruption ?

From the street Plod up to the highest officer ...... do you think that this investigation has been beyond reproach?

I'm assuming that you will not answer this question but I'd l be curious to know your views.

How about you JD? or AleG or JTJ?

First statement is simply an ad hominem.

The answer to the first question is : yes

The answer to the third question is : no

I have stated ( since the beginning) that there have been flaws in the investigation. I don't think those flaws are fatal flaws.

If you really want Bernie by all means vote for Bernie!

I support a lot of his issues but can't really say I'd be thrilled to see him as president. Not thrilled by Hill either!

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I am so glad that I have your permission to vote my conscience!

He has to keep claiming that a newsarticle that was later revised is both factual and relevant.

The man from Maryland. The man from Virginia. People don't know their names anyway. No there won't be any strong challenges to Hillary for the nomination but if she scandals out they might get lucky.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And there you have kind of hit the nail on the head, but if she scandals out".

Politics has descended to a level of sound bites and trivia. Nobody in the popular media really cares what the candidates believe, everyone is more focussed on exposing some personal scandal to bring down whoever it is you oppose.

Politicians, Hillary included, run their campaigns by spinning, avoided their own scandals and digging like Hell to expose the opponents crimes and misdemeanors, preferably some sordid sexual indiscretion, since it does appear that we the public can't get enough of watching someone fall from grace after have a 'dick selfie' or the like plastered over the news.

Hillary to her advantage has on her side a long history, during which most of her dirty laundry has been aired more than once. If the email server 'emailgate' is the best the opposition can dig up, maybe she's on a roll

The consistently accurate money is on the Democratic Party to be the winning party in 2016.

The Democratic Party is a 2/1 favorite, the Republican Party is at 8/5 to win.

HRC is favored at 6/5, compared to JEB at 5/1.

Meanwhile Marco Rubio and Scott Walker are both 9/1.

Rand Paul is 16/1, Elizabeth Warren is 18/1 and Chris Christie is 20/1

John Kasich, Martin O'Malley and Ted Cruz are all 33/1.

Bernie Sanders is 250-1. So don't throw away anything as precious as one's vote.

Since we are discussing getting the nomination here, there's no such thing as a throw away vote

It's time to take our country back from the elite war hawkish religious zealoty neocons who's solution is obstruction, racism and scourge of the poor and middle class.

Way to go Bernie.. I'll vote for you.

That makes at least two votes for Bernie. You and Mrs. Sanders.

You count like a Republican

Absolutely nobody I know uses WhatsApp anymore.

There's absolutely no need to introduce the confessions to the police into court testimony. There are 2 other confessions/public statements to use. That of the first defense attorney and the other to the HRC commissioner.

As to the issue of the bottle, I am unaware of any mention of it being broken. There was also mention of a metal bar. The coroner will be on the stand to discuss cause of death. Not being able to present either a bottle or a metal bar isn't a significant issue for the prosecution. This goes for the bloody clothes. After all, the crime was committed at the beach by the ocean.

What would it take to get a conviction in the US?

1) we were there.

2) items belonging to the victims were given to a friend who will testify.

3) 2 admissible confessions (not counting the one to the police.

4) no alibi

5) we were so drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours that we don't really remember.

6) DNA

I think this is probably a bit simplistic.

With repect to your point #5. There has been confusion from way back about what they were drinking - largely the fault of translations. It was first stated as 'wine' but later corrected as 'alcohol' due to poor translations.

They may indeed have been very drunk as stated.

Extracts from publicised sources.

Courts are no longer allowed to accept as evidence suspects' accounts during their re-enactment of serious crimes after laws were amended to prevent a repeat of some high-profile criminal cases in which scapegoats were convicted. (There's a thing, surely not?)

For criminal cases liable to over five years imprisonment, the court will not consider suspects' testimony during police investigations, whether confessions or denials. (One could state that point3 above is inadmissable as the confessions were made during the investigation with RTP present at the time.)

Sri-amporn Salikup,chief justice of the Supreme Court, said a re-enactment provides an imaginative model of how the crime is committed. (However), a confession is not enough for conviction and police must provide evidence to prove that suspects committed a crime. If a suspect reverses his confession during a trial, then the re-enactment is meaningless, he said.

I would presume the defence could persuade the court that all confessions and their subsequent retractions fall within the investigation time-frame.

I wouldn't assume that. People are asserting that the police were with the HRC commissioner and his team. People are assuming that the lawyer was denied privacy with his clients. I am not assuming either to be true (or necessarily relevant)

The reenactment is something that I have never brought up (in any case I have discussed)

With the greatest respect, if you need to ask this question to begin with then you are in the wrong game.

Not raining on your parade, just saying.

If you really want to go forward with this idea, you will need to front a large amount of money and start going through high level intermediaries,

You would also have to be very wary of the local trait of having your idea completely taken over or stolen from you, with you having no recourse of action.

Good luck.

It's not just a local trait.

In the case of the OP, this simply isn't doable. If you have to ask on an Internet forum it means that you will be shopping your idea around too much. Someone is sure to talk to someone else and it, make a few changes, and set it up themselves.

BTW local bank's will death with foreigners it (and only if) they have significant collateral and a history of success in Thailand.

There's absolutely no need to introduce the confessions to the police into court testimony. There are 2 other confessions/public statements to use. That of the first defense attorney and the other to the HRC commissioner.

As to the issue of the bottle, I am unaware of any mention of it being broken. There was also mention of a metal bar. The coroner will be on the stand to discuss cause of death. Not being able to present either a bottle or a metal bar isn't a significant issue for the prosecution. This goes for the bloody clothes. After all, the crime was committed at the beach by the ocean.

What would it take to get a conviction in the US?

1) we were there.

2) items belonging to the victims were given to a friend who will testify.

3) 2 admissible confessions (not counting the one to the police.

4) no alibi

5) we were so drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours that we don't really remember.

6) DNA

Utter nonsense. You have no idea what it would take to get a conviction in the US, and yet your 1-6 list is presented as being somehow factual. Why would you need to do that?

It just serves to remind me that everything presented as factual in those other 20,000 other posts of yours should be viewed with disbelief unless and until proved otherwise...

I actually do know what it would take.

My post count is immaterial as is whether you believe me or not. The fact that you brought it up, however, is rather interesting though.

There's absolutely no need to introduce the confessions to the police into court testimony. There are 2 other confessions/public statements to use. That of the first defense attorney and the other to the HRC commissioner.

As to the issue of the bottle, I am unaware of any mention of it being broken. There was also mention of a metal bar. The coroner will be on the stand to discuss cause of death. Not being able to present either a bottle or a metal bar isn't a significant issue for the prosecution. This goes for the bloody clothes. After all, the crime was committed at the beach by the ocean.

What would it take to get a conviction in the US?

1) we were there.

2) items belonging to the victims were given to a friend who will testify.

3) 2 admissible confessions (not counting the one to the police.

4) no alibi

5) we were so drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours that we don't really remember.

6) DNA