jdinasia

Yes, I would include the blame on Hamas for provoking that war but as I don't think we have any credible details about the exact circumstances of those parents, I wouldn't get that specific about blaming those parents. In general, it is a fact that many quite young children are involved in the Hamas military activities as well, but knowing that it's a stretch to implicate those specific children without details.

You're disgustingly grasping at straws to try to find some justification in those children's deaths by connecting them to Hamas. Disgusting. Not even the IDF have tried to draw that very long bow.

"demonizing children "

You are not trying to find the "real culprits", you are trying to frame up a person because it validates your own prejudices.

I am doing what I can to gauge who the real culprits are. Let's see, what are my prejudices? Perhaps I can answer that, instead of AleG. I'm prejudiced in favor of justice, regardless of how important the social standing of the person the evidence points to, or how rich and influencial his daddy is. I'm prejudiced against framing suspects. Does that clear things up a bit?

[/u]"[/i] that's your whole schtick laid bare, to you he can't never be cleared of involvement, no matter what. Mind Case closed.

He can be cleared in my view. However there appears to be incriminating evidence that should be, but hasn't been looked in to. RTP excused him in a Bkk minute, and show no inclination to take another look at him or Mon - ever. A detective is supposed to look at ALL evidence and follow ALL pertinent leads. A professional detective does not excuse someone from scrutiny for reasons other than no evidence points at that person. If RTP investigators are screwing up in this case, and choosing not to look at possible suspects (for reasons of social status or payment or whatever), then it's not unprecedented. They did it in the Kirsty Jones murder case in Chiang Mai, and they've done it in dozens of other cases.

Again - not a single person has publicly come forward with evidence of the person you are fixated on, being on the island.

Here's yet another reason it's not easy to get people to come forward: There is at least one family, maybe others, on KT who have been characterized as mafia-like. That indicates that they may in the past, and may in the future be willing to harm someone who speaks out against their family. An important islander was shot and killed in broad daylight in a public place. People witnessed it, but no one has yet come forth to finger whodunnit. Perhaps JD needs to hone up on the atmosphere and history of tough guys on the island. There's text out there on the internet, or maybe all the stories are conspiracy theories.

Having spent time and made friends on the island, I don't need to rely on the Internet.

Your excuses for no pictures or people coming forward certainly doesn't explain why no foreigners have spoken out.

Clearly killing those kids on the beach was a war crime.

Can you use your critical brain to articulate what is the problem with the CCTV footage of Nomsod in Bangkok on the 15th?

As mentioned earlier, whether or not the Monday morning CCTV of Nomsod is valid, is becoming a moot point

It's been shown that it's viably possible for him to have travelled from KT to Bkk in well under the nearly 5 hours between the crime and the CCTV. More interesting is what the CCTV may show in the hours and days prior to 9:30 Monday morning - as regards the comings and goings of the (can never again be-) non-suspect.

You say it's a moot point because it completely invalidates your "theories", that you then go on to say "as regards the comings and goings of the (can never again be-) non-suspect. " that's your whole schtick laid bare, to you he can't never be cleared of involvement, no matter what.

Mind Case closed.

I say it's a moot point, because it is a moot point. I go on. If you want to stay stuck, that's your choice.

You are stuck on something proven untrue. Again - an entire episode on PBS.

Again - not a single person has publicly come forward with evidence of the person you are fixated on, being on the island.

Whether or not the video of NS walking through the apt lobby is real is fast becoming a moot point. The reason: it can be shown that a desperate young man with money could readily get from the island to Bkk in much less time (1 to 2 hours less), than the time between the crime and the video. Will RTP investigators want to pursue that avenue? Of course not. They won't want to consider anything which might implicate a person they're trying to shield.

I still haven't got an answer to a simple Q: is there any video showing NS entering the lobby that weekend (specifically; Sunday evening/night or Monday morn)? It would be interesting to see that video and its time stamp.

Yes, for example by helicopter, then he rappelled down to get in through his dormitory window which explains why he is not seeing coming in through the lobby, taking the elevator or walking through the hallway to his dormitory since before the time of the murders until hours later. He was chucking out bills out the window to silence any witnesses too.

It's so easy to make things up, no wonder some people become hooked on it.

Are you trying to be witty or funny? To some of us, trying to ascertain who the real culprits are is serious biz. If some posters want to joke and post nonsense pics/videos - how about doing it in the 'Jokes' category of T.Visa. My posts refer to things which RTP investigators either:

>>> didn't think to look for, or
>>> looked for, but gave up for some such reasons: "it's private property, you can't see it" or
>>> looked for and found, but decided it wasn't worthwhile because; "it might implicate the protected people" or
>>> looked for and found, but chose to trash it because "it might implicate the wrong people" or because it didn't fit with what superior officers and/or the Headman's sought for scenario.

I ask a lot of questions, in prior posts, but the people who claim to know what happened that night can't or won't answer. Here's a repeat Q: is there any CCTV showing NS arriving at the lobby on Monday morning, Sept. 15? Is there any CCTV of him coming or going in that lobby (or anywhere in Bkk) on Sunday the 14th?

Not surprisingly you don't mention.

>>>>- looked for and found absolutely no evidence to support any conspiracy theories - and thusly cleared previous suspects due to one being in BKK and the other one not having a tattoo

Ok, let's look at your statement, above, seriously. First off, do you know what the RTP have been looking for? You probably have no better idea than anyone outside the inner circle - of what they've been looking for, or what they've disregarded, or what clues they've missed, or what they've trashed, etc. So all we (concerned observers) have to go on is what's announced by the RTP, the reenactment, and other info we hear/see which may/or may not be valid. We also have our own individual minds - which can deduce things. For example, I can look at the video of 'running man' and, though it's a grainy video, can deduce it's a skinny young man who resembles Nomsod. Someone else can look at that video and, if they're hell-bent on keeping Nomsod in the clear, will claim they don't see a likeness. Mon can tell everyone it's him in the video, but no-one except those trying to shield NS will agree.

It's not a conspiracy theory to have an opinion on something and/or put forth a viable scenario about what happened at a crime. It is, however, a conspiracy for some top brass to intentionally feed false info to lower-ranking troops while intentionally skewing data to nail two scapegoats. When social media showed that it could not have been Hannah's phone found alongside the B2's dwelling, it was not a conspiracy theory for that photo to be taken and posted on social media. JD will have you believe it was. However, RTP officially announced they had found that phone - as proof of evidence. Unfortunately for the RTP, they were unaware of that photo on social media, so were therefore caught in a lie and what appeared to be 'planting evidence.' Seeing they had no viable way to squirm out of their ruse, they quickly switched tracks and claimed it was instead David's phone found. Claiming, as they did initially that it was Hannah's phone, fits more with the definition of 'conspiracy' than opinions and speculation of posters on T.Visa and other social media blogs.

Let me help you; he is talking about Thai PBS, the broadcaster, the one that produced an entire segment proving that your theories are wrong:

Happy to oblige.

Whether or not the video of NS walking through the apt lobby is real is fast becoming a moot point. The reason: it can be shown that a desperate young man with money could readily get from the island to Bkk in much less time (1 to 2 hours less), than the time between the crime and the video. Will RTP investigators want to pursue that avenue? Of course not. They won't want to consider anything which might implicate a person they're trying to shield.

I still haven't got an answer to a simple Q: is there any video showing NS entering the lobby that weekend (specifically; Sunday evening/night or Monday morn)? It would be interesting to see that video and its time stamp.

Yes, for example by helicopter, then he rappelled down to get in through his dormitory window which explains why he is not seeing coming in through the lobby, taking the elevator or walking through the hallway to his dormitory since before the time of the murders until hours later. He was chucking out bills out the window to silence any witnesses too.

It's so easy to make things up, no wonder some people become hooked on it.

Are you trying to be witty or funny? To some of us, trying to ascertain who the real culprits are is serious biz. If some posters want to joke and post nonsense pics/videos - how about doing it in the 'Jokes' category of T.Visa. My posts refer to things which RTP investigators either:

>>> didn't think to look for, or

>>> looked for, but gave up for some such reasons: "it's private property, you can't see it" or

>>> looked for and found, but decided it wasn't worthwhile because; "it might implicate the protected people" or

>>> looked for and found, but chose to trash it because "it might implicate the wrong people" or because it didn't fit with what superior officers and/or the Headman's sought for scenario.

I ask a lot of questions, in prior posts, but the people who claim to know what happened that night can't or won't answer. Here's a repeat Q: is there any CCTV showing NS arriving at the lobby on Monday morning, Sept. 15? Is there any CCTV of him coming or going in that lobby (or anywhere in Bkk) on Sunday the 14th?

Not surprisingly you don't mention.

>>>>- looked for and found absolutely no evidence to support any conspiracy theories - and thusly cleared previous suspects due to one being in BKK and the other one not having a tattoo

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

Sorry to make you sad, but as usual, you mis-read and mis-interpreted what was written - and then tried to disparage it. I wasn't even thinking of PBS when I wrote that. I was referring to the word 'conspiracy' and your favorite phrase 'conspiracy theory.' Actually, the examples I used should bring a smile to your face, because it precludes the police, from just below the top of the pyramic on down, from being part of a conspiracy to nail the B2. If there is a conspiracy to fudge the data, it would only need to be among those at the very top - to result in the quagmire the B2 are in now.

And I still didn't get an answer to what PBS you're referring to. Is it the US's PBS, or some Thai entity?

Let me help you; he is talking about Thai PBS, the broadcaster, the one that produced an entire segment proving that your theories are wrong:

Happy to oblige.

How amazing. Now Nomsod doesn't have to be mentioned and still someone who doesn't know him, flies in to defend him.

Nope - you mentioned his name. Boomerangutang mentioned CCTV and added PBS to the list of people / groups in on the conspiracy

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

No sadder than playing dumb to pretend he doesn't know which PBS you are referring to.

But hey.

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

So now boomerangutang thinks TV stations might be in on the conspiracy?

Amazing

The lead attorney on the case has actually said very little. 23 NOV 2014:

Among the sceptics is Nakhon Chomphuchat, the leading Thai human rights lawyer defending the suspects. “If I thought they had done it I couldn’t work for them,” he told the Guardian. “Of course, no one can ever say with 100% accuracy, but I’m pretty certain they didn’t.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Everyone is entitled to representation. If a lawyer chooses to ask the court to be removed from a case after taking the case, that is his right but he is not obligated to do so. So I think your supposition that the 2 accused have not confessed to their lead attorney is speculation on your part.

Legal representation has changed.

Not as of May 31, 2015 per that newspaper can't be named.

Perhaps I am mistaken.

I thought the first lawyer that divulged the confession to him had been replaced by a team

The lead attorney on the case has actually said very little. 23 NOV 2014:

Among the sceptics is Nakhon Chomphuchat, the leading Thai human rights lawyer defending the suspects. “If I thought they had done it I couldn’t work for them,” he told the Guardian. “Of course, no one can ever say with 100% accuracy, but I’m pretty certain they didn’t.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Everyone is entitled to representation. If a lawyer chooses to ask the court to be removed from a case after taking the case, that is his right but he is not obligated to do so. So I think your supposition that the 2 accused have not confessed to their lead attorney is speculation on your part.

Legal representation has changed.

You do realize that you are not discussing law as it is practiced in Thailand, don't you?

Regarding law as practiced elsewhere...

In the US a lawyer can and often does represent defendants who confess, either to them or publicly.

I found a very viable way in which a young man could get from KT to Bkk in close to 3.5 hours - well under the 5 hours which would have been needed to enact that alibi video at the apartment lobby in Bkk. I'm going to a be a bit cagey (Thai and RTP style) about the details, for now. I would ask the RTP to do a bit of investigation on that issue, but they'd either:

>>> not listen to my suggestion (no speak Engrish)

>>> laugh out loud (ha ha ha, a farang suggesting what we could do!)

>>> notify the people who are involved with the specific transport vehicles, to make sure they don't reveal anything uncomfortable. In other words: continue the cover-up.

>>> say, in effect: 'that's not important. The B2 are going to trial, so only the B2 are being looked at.'

>>> say 'we've already looked at that, and there's nothing there. Forget about it.'

OK come on Boomer. Just a little hint wouldja -- we're just dying to know.

He's still ignoring the fact that PBS did an entire show with experts (that aired in Thailand) where they analysed the CCTV recordings from the time of the murders until he left the apartment to go to school.

But hey.....

confessions came through the pancake man they are not legit

confessions came after they were beaten threatened with drowniir and had plastic bags put over their head

even alqueda confesses when that happens

when they have a lawyer all they do is confirm to the lawyer that they confessed but as soon as the pancake theater was out of the room they immediately said they were tortured

confessions are as bogus as seeing those boys are involved in the murders

The confessions to the police will probably not be admissible in court.

The first lawyer and the HRC commissioner can be called to testify about the confessions made to them. (not the roti vendor- the lawyer and the HRC commissioner didn't use the roti vendor for translation)

The confession to a lawyer could not have happened.

If a client confesses a crime to his lawyer then his lawyer is not permitted to enter a not guilty plea on their behalf. If the client insists on a not guilty plea then the lawyer must remove himself from the case.

A lawyer must not knowingly mislead the court. Has happened many times where clients have told their lawyer the did the crime but plead not guilty and the lawyer has to remove himself from the case.

2 points

1) the legal concept you are using is not necessarily germain.

2) it was a confession with mitigation.

So they didnt actually confess to their lawyers then. Glad you agree.

Nope - not only did they confess to the lawyer and HRC commissioner, both made public statements about it.

Please catch up with the case.

confessions came through the pancake man they are not legit

confessions came after they were beaten threatened with drowniir and had plastic bags put over their head

even alqueda confesses when that happens

when they have a lawyer all they do is confirm to the lawyer that they confessed but as soon as the pancake theater was out of the room they immediately said they were tortured

confessions are as bogus as seeing those boys are involved in the murders

The confessions to the police will probably not be admissible in court.

The first lawyer and the HRC commissioner can be called to testify about the confessions made to them. (not the roti vendor- the lawyer and the HRC commissioner didn't use the roti vendor for translation)

The confession to a lawyer could not have happened.

If a client confesses a crime to his lawyer then his lawyer is not permitted to enter a not guilty plea on their behalf. If the client insists on a not guilty plea then the lawyer must remove himself from the case.

A lawyer must not knowingly mislead the court. Has happened many times where clients have told their lawyer the did the crime but plead not guilty and the lawyer has to remove himself from the case.

2 points

1) the legal concept you are using is not necessarily germain.

2) it was a confession with mitigation.

Most on here believe the Judge had no choice whether the Judge had a choice or not.

No song right now but the famous quote from the US is:

"I could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich ..." (Sol Wachtler)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/11/25/sol_wachtler_the_judge_who_coined_indict_a_ham_sandwich_was_himself_indicted.html

Whatever credible organizations might say about this trial as well as posters on here, this is Thailand. Thailand has Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thailand it seems is well within its International rights to adhere to its own Rules of Criminal Procedure. That seems to be what they are doing regardless of protestations of outside NGOs and other government diplomatic representations in Thailand to which they seem to be saying: Mind your own f&^%king business.

It certainly isn't like Myanmar has a system that is any better. They may have some legislators willing to posture up but I don't expect any formal complaints today come from the government.

The Thai judicial system may have some issues but so does my home country.

confessions came through the pancake man they are not legit

confessions came after they were beaten threatened with drowniir and had plastic bags put over their head

even alqueda confesses when that happens

when they have a lawyer all they do is confirm to the lawyer that they confessed but as soon as the pancake theater was out of the room they immediately said they were tortured

confessions are as bogus as seeing those boys are involved in the murders

The confessions to the police will probably not be admissible in court.

The first lawyer and the HRC commissioner can be called to testify about the confessions made to them. (not the roti vendor- the lawyer and the HRC commissioner didn't use the roti vendor for translation)

Hard one to answer for the lawyer and the HRC commissioner. Asked if the guys confessed to the murder they will say something along the lines of.

Yes they confessed to the murders, we then asked them why they confessed. They told us they had been tortured. We then told them they now have nothing to fear as we are on their side and asked them if they still confess to murdering the two people. They then said of "course we didn't do it"

So that's that confession thrown out of court. Hard wasn't it ?

Missed it by a mile. In both cases.

Coming from you I'll take it as being spot on then

Statements made to the lawyer and HRC commissioner were independent

confessions came through the pancake man they are not legit

confessions came after they were beaten threatened with drowniir and had plastic bags put over their head

even alqueda confesses when that happens

when they have a lawyer all they do is confirm to the lawyer that they confessed but as soon as the pancake theater was out of the room they immediately said they were tortured

confessions are as bogus as seeing those boys are involved in the murders

The confessions to the police will probably not be admissible in court.

The first lawyer and the HRC commissioner can be called to testify about the confessions made to them. (not the roti vendor- the lawyer and the HRC commissioner didn't use the roti vendor for translation)

Hard one to answer for the lawyer and the HRC commissioner. Asked if the guys confessed to the murder they will say something along the lines of.

Yes they confessed to the murders, we then asked them why they confessed. They told us they had been tortured. We then told them they now have nothing to fear as we are on their side and asked them if they still confess to murdering the two people. They then said of "course we didn't do it"

So that's that confession thrown out of court. Hard wasn't it ?

Missed it by a mile. In both cases.

I am not going to quote the UN UDHR above -- If you don't like the results of the trial, then you can appeal based on the UN UDHR etc.

Actually, legal appeals go to the court of appeals. If you have standing to open a complaint to the UN, feel free. Regardless of the results of the trial, I doubt that the Burmese government will be talking to the UN

I neglected to clarify that this was given to Israel after WWII, taken away soon thereafter by force by Jordan, and then recaptured by Israel in 1967 in The Six Day War. At this time Israel is occupying only that which was given by international decree after WWII, including Israel's historic E. Jerusalem and the Old City. This was built by Israel over the past at least 3,700 years.

"Palestinians" are newcomers, having named themselves that in 1988 under Yassar Arafat.

As the PLO has been around since 1964..

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf esp. Article 14

Thailand ratified and became party 29 OCT 1996

As acove -- Article 14

Thanks, sorry missed it the first time!

confessions came through the pancake man they are not legit

confessions came after they were beaten threatened with drowniir and had plastic bags put over their head

even alqueda confesses when that happens

when they have a lawyer all they do is confirm to the lawyer that they confessed but as soon as the pancake theater was out of the room they immediately said they were tortured

confessions are as bogus as seeing those boys are involved in the murders

The confessions to the police will probably not be admissible in court.

The first lawyer and the HRC commissioner can be called to testify about the confessions made to them. (not the roti vendor- the lawyer and the HRC commissioner didn't use the roti vendor for translation)

Those persons are in a privileged position. Very easy for the defence team to argue this. Even you know that JD.....

No doubt there needs to be members of the UN at this trial to ensure the courts know they are being watched. The world knows of the corruption, this is their "time to shine" and eat crow and show the world that they have a shred of decency left. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be DNA collected on behalf of the defence from the "other" suspects. It is just a matter of when..... that discarded cigarette butt, that empty soda can.....

And here is a classic case of police tunnel vision. Pretty much the same scenario these two boys are in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Milgaard

Privileged positions? Yes, lawyer for the defense, and a Human Rights Commissioner. Both of whom made public statements that the 2 Burmese defendants told them that they did it.

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf esp. Article 14

Thailand ratified and became party 29 OCT 1996

Is there something specific in that 92 pager that we should be looking for?