More DNA of killed panther detected in knives and chopping board used by Premchai’s hunting team

[YetAnother]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

But forensic scientist Dr Kanita Ouitavon, chief of the wildlife forensic unit of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plants Conservation, said the chopping knives and chopping board were among 40 pieces of evidence sent for DNA test by the police.

thanks for saying nothing; all,hereabout, know this will end up in nothing ;and for well chronicled reasons; this is the place where we live; it isnt civilized in any western sense

[dinsdale]

16 hours ago, Just Weird said:

A dead panther is not evidence of who killed it, they're looking for human DNA!

I think you're right Just Weird. I think the evidence is circumstantial. Let's see. Found in nation park. Hunting weapons. Dead panther carcass. Cooking utensils. Black panther soup. No way can this be considered proof of guilt.They were all there hunting in a national park. Hunting in a nation park is illegal. They're all guilty. 

[yellowboat]

17 hours ago, coulson said:

I think by now everyone is satisfied they have enough evidence, so how about getting back to work and stop toying around with DNA already.

NO !  Keep going !  Keep it in the news.   Keeping it in the news puts pressure on the police to do actual police work.  Outstanding parking tickets are good too !  This guy just needs to be dragged through the mud and all those who help him. 

[Just Weird]

15 hours ago, coulson said:

Caught red handed at the scene, with the carcass, its missing genitalia, the weapon, the ammunition, the utensils, the bribes, the bribes and more bribes all recorded.....I think they could have wrapped it all up by now given the PM's personal backing!

 

But alas no, they're still playing with evidence to cook up the *real* story.

 

Do you understand what I was getting at now???

So nothing to directly implicate Premchai as the killer then?  Do you understand what I am saying now?

[Just Weird]

14 hours ago, rkidlad said:

I must remember this logic and rationale for if I ever decide to burgle a house. I'll bring some low-level acquaintances with me, along with a sack with bolt cutters and an alarm disabler, etc. I'll be sure not to have any of my DNA on anything. If caught by the police, I'll just deny I'm doing anything wrong other than trespassing. As long as my DNA isn't on the tools or stolen goods, they can't do anything to me, right?

 

I guess Thai police and courts don't do 'circumstantial evidence' through reasoning. You have to literally be caught with the smoking gun in your hand. Well, if you're rich, anyway. 

I'm sure that you think that what you said in that comment was logical in connection with the poaching case.

 

If I were you I'd abandon any ideas you may have to successfully take up burgling as a pastime, stick to your usual mess-ups here on Thaivisa, you can't get locked-up for that!

[rkidlad]

1 minute ago, Just Weird said:

I'm sure that you think that what you said in that comment was logical in connection with the poaching case.

 

If I were you I'd abandon any ideas you may have to successfully take up burgling as a pastime, stick to your usual mess-ups here on Thaivisa, you can't get locked-up for that!

Okay. So instead of saying it isn't logical - actually explain why that is?

 

I bet you can't. Just more meaningless words backed up with nothing. Much like your nonsense references that you never share a link to. 

 

Come on, Just Weird. I dare you. 

 

 

[Just Weird]

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

I think you're right Just Weird. I think the evidence is circumstantial. Let's see. Found in nation park. Hunting weapons. Dead panther carcass. Cooking utensils. Black panther soup. No way can this be considered proof of guilt.They were all there hunting in a national park. Hunting in a nation park is illegal. They're all guilty. 

Four people, three weapons...?

 

You must be rkidlad's alter ego.

[Just Weird]

5 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Okay. So instead of saying it isn't logical - actually explain why that is?

 

I bet you can't. Just more meaningless words backed up with nothing. Much like your nonsense references that you never share a link to. 

 

Come on, Just Weird. I dare you. 

 

 

Commenting about something related to the poaching case would make sense for a start, not some airy-fairy imaginary burgling fantasy that has no relevance to anything.

[rkidlad]

Just now, Just Weird said:

Commenting about something related to the poaching case would make sense for a start, not some airy-fairy imaginary burgling fantasy that has no relevance to anything.

Yes, burglary is a common crime committed in Thailand. So we can use this to better understand how police and courts deal with the criminals involved. Killing endangered animals is less common so many people don't understand what the protocol is. I used the burglary as something that people can better understand in relation to a crime where the people have been caught red handed. It's an analogy.

 

You do know what an analogy is? You do know what hypothetical means? You can think for yourself?

[NoBrainer]

I am glad to see that they were actually eating the animal. It would be a real shame to kill an animal just for fun.

[robblok]

The whole question is what proof is required for law. If you catch on 1 person with a gun and a dead animal its easy.

 

Now if you catch 4 people with 3 guns and some dead animals then do they need to prove who actually shot or are they all guilty by association. 

 

I am on the side of the panther, I hope the guy got convicted because I don't believe he is innocent with all the evidence. But for a court of law there might be more evidence needed.

[farcanell]

20 hours ago, GarryP said:

. It is becoming a game of finding as many semi-plausible excuses (there are no truly plausible ones available) to get Premchai of the hook.  The police are starting to look even more pathetic than usual. 

 

This is total BS unwarranted persecution of a good man....

 

surely by now they have enough witness testimony to prove that prem was not hunting, but was in fact, camping out amongst hunters to prevent them from poaching.

 

unfortunately for the dead panther, he couldn’t prevent that death, but I hear that he did prevent seven other panthers from being shot by dispicable poachers... this man is in line for an award.

 

? semi plausible?

?????

[neeray]

19 hours ago, robblok said:

No its not a coincidence, however they will have to prove who pulled the trigger. I think this is the problem here. I doubt there is a law here that makes you guilty by association. I am sure they can find him guilty for a few things.. but won't be able to prove he actually pulled the trigger. 

Ahh, that’s no fun. He won’t be able to brag to his buddies that he killed that dangerous, black panther. 

[farcanell]

21 hours ago, coulson said:

I think by now everyone is satisfied they have enough evidence, so how about getting back to work and stop toying around with DNA already.

You no unnerstan.....

soon no dna left to test... all used up... so solly... no proof.

[coulson]

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

So nothing to directly implicate Premchai as the killer then?  Do you understand what I am saying now?

Jeez I get it. We're effectively saying the same thing.

 

But there are multiple charges with a bounty of evidence. Whatever if they find someone else to take the fall over pulling the trigger, the evidence should be all wrapped up by now.

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, neeray said:

Ahh, that’s no fun. He won’t be able to brag to his buddies that he killed that dangerous, black panther. 

That is good way in, but i doubt his buddies would testify against him.

[geoffrobbo]

Just like the Red Bull guy, he is too well connected to go to court. All this evidence seeking is doing is raising the ante for envelopes.

[SABloke]

12 hours ago, Just Weird said:

No, it's not "alright"!

Did Premchai shoot it?  As there were four people there and only three guns someone obviously didn't shoot/kill it and you certainly aren't in a position to know who that person was.

I'm not bored with all the nonsense that most posters are saying, neither must you be as you're still commenting, unless, of course, you're trying to exert your (non-existent) authority to close the thread?

 

I agree with most of your sentiment in that proof is probably sought that he actually fired the gun BUT you accused some posters that they're jumping in with two feet and then you write this:

 

"As there were four people there and only three guns someone obviously didn't shoot/kill it"

 

No, it's not obvious  since the panther had 5 bullet holes in it and unless they had biometric gun locks it is plausible that 1 gun could have been be used by multiple people. 

[newatthis]

17 hours ago, tuktuktuk said:

Sounds to me they're still searching for a way to exonerate him.

I concur. His mates are out to prove him innocent. He won't need any "Dream Team" lawyers by the time the RTP have finished with any evidence.

[Sydebolle]

Throw the fat pig into the slammer and lose the keys immediately - get on with hunting other criminal suspects; the grandson of the Red Bull empire springs to mind and, if there is any meat on the bone (no pun intended) then get Dr T and his sister facing the bench.
Thailand would become a grown-up adult in the 21st century of the civilized world - overnight so to speak! 

[Just Weird]

22 hours ago, SABloke said:

 

I agree with most of your sentiment in that proof is probably sought that he actually fired the gun BUT you accused some posters that they're jumping in with two feet and then you write this:

 

"As there were four people there and only three guns someone obviously didn't shoot/kill it"

 

No, it's not obvious  since the panther had 5 bullet holes in it and unless they had biometric gun locks it is plausible that 1 gun could have been be used by multiple people. 

Wasn't clarification made by the forensic examiners that the multiple wounds in the panther were caused by some kind of pellets like shotgun pellets, not individual bullets?

 

"...1 gun could have been be used by multiple people".

It is also just as plausible (probably more so) that one of the three people there didn't kill the animal.   Why would multiple people share one gun to shoot the animal when it was likely that it had been killed already?   Do you think that the fourth person wanted to kill it again?