1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He's been proved guilty, then, has he, when was that reported?

He will not be proven and found guilty.. he has friends who helped him already all the time.. read my lips..

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I'm not condoning his actions, guilty or not (and at this stage he is innocent), but there was never any evidence of his sexually abusing the girl, neither has he been charged with that.    Why post that made-up nonsense?

The parents of Nong Chompoo left their older daughter in charge of the 3 year old on May 11, 2020, while they ran an errand, and the baby had reportedly wandered away on her own. But police didn’t buy that story when she was found naked with evidence of physical and sexual assault, dead in a forest on a mountain 2 kilometres away 4 days later.

 

https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/crime/nong-chompoo-uncle-surrenders-to-police-on-murder-charges

18 minutes ago, thequietman said:

The parents of Nong Chompoo left their older daughter in charge of the 3 year old on May 11, 2020, while they ran an errand, and the baby had reportedly wandered away on her own. But police didn’t buy that story when she was found naked with evidence of physical and sexual assault, dead in a forest on a mountain 2 kilometres away 4 days later.

 

https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/crime/nong-chompoo-uncle-surrenders-to-police-on-murder-charges

All other sources say there is no evidence of sexual assault after the autopsy. So your article is either the one that is correct and all the others are wrong or this one outlier is wrong and the others are correct. 

 

*edit* seems to be multiple different articles some stating no sexual assaut while others do.

 

https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2021/06/03/nong-chompoo-uncle-arrested-by-police/

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That was your comment, not mine, why don't you justify what you said instead of asking me to justify something that I didn't say?

I certanly did justify my comments earlier, we're still waiting for yours, Rumpole of the Bailey.

6 hours ago, chalawaan said:

I certanly did justify my comments earlier, we're still waiting for yours

Exactly which comment do you want me to justify?

6 hours ago, thequietman said:

she was found naked with evidence of physical and sexual assault, dead in a forest on a mountain 2 kilometres away 4 days later.

 

https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/crime/nong-chompoo-uncle-surrenders-to-police-on-murder-charges

The autopsy confirmed that there was no evidence of sexual assault.

7 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

7 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He's been charged with murder, that's the only charge.

Try again sir

 

Nong Chompoo’s uncle arrested by police - Thai Examiner

The warrant issued on Tuesday specified three charges including taking a child from the care of parents, child abandonment and tampering with evidence to corrupt the course of justice including a police investigation and an autopsy.

 

Police have also confirmed that the little girl was physically assaulted by her killer and sexually violated.

I stand corrected on the number of charges specified by the police but the police do not indict, the Prosecutor does that, how many charges has he been indicted for by the Prosecutor's Office?

 

The autopsy performed by Ubon Ratchathani Hospital confirmed that there was no evidence of sexual assault, regardless of what the police said.

On 6/5/2021 at 1:29 PM, robblok said:

Normally id be all for going after someone based on DNA. But he is her uncle so its normal that his DNA is on her. We are talking hairs and so on not sperm or anything like that.

 

The only thing is that he supposedly said something about the girl being missing to a monk before he could have known. That is the biggest evidence against him if true.

I have a number of young nieces and nephews. Their parents (like all Thai parents with young kids that I know) give them a shower at least once a day - sometimes more often if they've been playing outside. So I don't think you'd find an uncle's DNA on most Thai 3 year-olds unless they'd been in close physical contact with them in the last few hours.

 

Edit: I've just seen the report that he was actually looking after her right before she disappeared, so I guess that could account for the DNA. Raises a bunch of other questions, though.

3 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I have a number of young nieces and nephews. Their parents (like all Thai parents with young kids that I know) give them a shower at least once a day - sometimes more often if they've been playing outside. So I don't think you'd find an uncle's DNA on most Thai 3 year-olds unless they'd been in close physical contact with them in the last few hours.

Im not so sure about that, i mean the uncle could visit the house hair could drop and the kid could get it on her. It does not mean it has to be transferred from the uncle direct to the child it could be transferred different too. Some hair on her clothes from a previous time ect.

 

Just think its not definite proof. But it does point in his direction. Like i said before no real opinion just yet on this one. 

 

IMHO the most damming evidence is the talk with the monk. But I dont know all evidence. Anyway will have to have some faith in the police. I don't think they are always incompetent. 

17 hours ago, ALLSEEINGEYE said:

Where did I mention the Kardashians? Anyway, they totally suck too!!!!

Eh I was joking.