Koh Tao murders: Police free bar owners and look for ex-village headman's son

[Artisi]

Anyone remember my conclusion about the KT prosecution on B2 could get dropped, should the BIB not come up with something compelling 'til 84 days limit? Well now even the lawyers have drawn the same conclusions(Source:Thai Tribune).

“The Thai police have encountered severe difficulties because they have no eyewitnesses. When the prosecutor’s office allows the case go to court, it will be heard. And then, if there is not enough evidence at that time, [the two Myanmar workers] may be acquitted,” said lawyer U Aung Myo Thant.

The last augmentation to the detaining period of B2 is now underway, and the case must be prosecuted by Nov 28th.

Still 9 days from today but unfortunately a lot of witnesses / alibis / false information can be arranged in that time.

[AleG]

Still stinks how they changed course so quick, and never referred back to those lines of enquiry again.

Why does it stink? They initially named a suspect, evidence cleared him, they moved on.

It happens all the time in crime investigation, albeit usually without releasing the info to the media to prevent the debacle that ensued, or would you rather have the first suspect that is named be found guilty even when further evidence exculpates him/them?

MR "G" , did you not read that they had evidence, and were confident that they were on the right trail. They only cleared him after the investigation team were changed.

Does that not arouse suspicion ? One team confident they are on the right track, new team comes in and they clear suspects and look elsewhere.

I am not sure what evidence cleared him? You talking about CCTV, DNA, witnesses?

The evidence that he was not on the island at the time of the murders.

[changnaam]

Still stinks how they changed course so quick, and never referred back to those lines of enquiry again.

Why does it stink? They initially named a suspect, evidence cleared him, they moved on.

It happens all the time in crime investigation, albeit usually without releasing the info to the media to prevent the debacle that ensued, or would you rather have the first suspect that is named be found guilty even when further evidence exculpates him/them?

MR "G" , did you not read that they had evidence, and were confident that they were on the right trail. They only cleared him after the investigation team were changed.

Does that not arouse suspicion ? One team confident they are on the right track, new team comes in and they clear suspects and look elsewhere.

I am not sure what evidence cleared him? You talking about CCTV, DNA, witnesses?

The evidence that he was not on the island at the time of the murders.

What evidence are you referring to?

His father claiming he did not know where he was?

The badly photo shopped cctv still?

The fact he could not be located for a few days after?

The fact that his gf stated on facebook he was "AWOL"?

Great bit of evidence I am sure you will agree.

[AleG]

Why does it stink? They initially named a suspect, evidence cleared him, they moved on.

It happens all the time in crime investigation, albeit usually without releasing the info to the media to prevent the debacle that ensued, or would you rather have the first suspect that is named be found guilty even when further evidence exculpates him/them?

MR "G" , did you not read that they had evidence, and were confident that they were on the right trail. They only cleared him after the investigation team were changed.

Does that not arouse suspicion ? One team confident they are on the right track, new team comes in and they clear suspects and look elsewhere.

I am not sure what evidence cleared him? You talking about CCTV, DNA, witnesses?

The evidence that he was not on the island at the time of the murders.

What evidence are you referring to?

His father claiming he did not know where he was?

The badly photo shopped cctv still?

The fact he could not be located for a few days after?

The fact that his gf stated on facebook he was "AWOL"?

Great bit of evidence I am sure you will agree.

You refuse to accept the evidence because it doesn't fit with the narrative you want to believe, for example by dismissing the CCTV footage as "photo shopped"; incidentally, calling a CCTV recording "photo shopped" shows that you really don't have the knowledge to judge such things.

On the other hand you may want to try to provide any evidence at all that he was A) in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and that he committed them. After you fail at that you may want to ponder on the merits of the accusation.

[balo]

MR "G" , did you not read that they had evidence, and were confident that they were on the right trail. They only cleared him after the investigation team were changed.

Does that not arouse suspicion ? One team confident they are on the right track, new team comes in and they clear suspects and look elsewhere.

I am not sure what evidence cleared him? You talking about CCTV, DNA, witnesses?

The evidence that he was not on the island at the time of the murders.

What evidence are you referring to?

His father claiming he did not know where he was?

The badly photo shopped cctv still?

The fact he could not be located for a few days after?

The fact that his gf stated on facebook he was "AWOL"?

Great bit of evidence I am sure you will agree.

You refuse to accept the evidence because it doesn't fit with the narrative you want to believe, for example by dismissing the CCTV footage as "photo shopped"; incidentally, calling a CCTV recording "photo shopped" shows that you really don't have the knowledge to judge such things.

On the other hand you may want to try to provide any evidence at all that he was A) in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and that he committed them. After you fail at that you may want to ponder on the merits of the accusation.

And you're the expert to tell us that the CCTV footage is good enough evidence to prove the headmans son was on the island? I can promise you its not good enough evidence in any court in the world! If someone use photoshop to prove a point or a theory I have no problems with that , but its not real evidence. What we see is a young asian boy, you could pick hundreds of asians that would fit in that video.

[AleG]

The evidence that he was not on the island at the time of the murders.

What evidence are you referring to?

His father claiming he did not know where he was?

The badly photo shopped cctv still?

The fact he could not be located for a few days after?

The fact that his gf stated on facebook he was "AWOL"?

Great bit of evidence I am sure you will agree.

You refuse to accept the evidence because it doesn't fit with the narrative you want to believe, for example by dismissing the CCTV footage as "photo shopped"; incidentally, calling a CCTV recording "photo shopped" shows that you really don't have the knowledge to judge such things.

On the other hand you may want to try to provide any evidence at all that he was A) in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and that he committed them. After you fail at that you may want to ponder on the merits of the accusation.

And you're the expert to tell us that the CCTV footage is good enough evidence to prove the headmans son was on the island? I can promise you its not good enough evidence in any court in the world! If someone use photoshop to prove a point or a theory I have no problems with that , but its not real evidence. What we see is a young asian boy, you could pick hundreds of asians that would fit in that video.

Why yes, I am in fact an expert on video editing and visual effects, thanks for asking.

Just so you know, Photoshop is an image manipulation software, it is not used for video.

What I'm telling you is that the absence of evidence is not good enough to prove the headman's son was on the island.

Now, where is the evidence that the (social media) accused was in Koh Tao at the time and committed the murders?

[changnaam]

The evidence that he was not on the island at the time of the murders.

What evidence are you referring to?

His father claiming he did not know where he was?

The badly photo shopped cctv still?

The fact he could not be located for a few days after?

The fact that his gf stated on facebook he was "AWOL"?

Great bit of evidence I am sure you will agree.

You refuse to accept the evidence because it doesn't fit with the narrative you want to believe, for example by dismissing the CCTV footage as "photo shopped"; incidentally, calling a CCTV recording "photo shopped" shows that you really don't have the knowledge to judge such things.

On the other hand you may want to try to provide any evidence at all that he was A) in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and that he committed them. After you fail at that you may want to ponder on the merits of the accusation.

And you're the expert to tell us that the CCTV footage is good enough evidence to prove the headmans son was on the island? I can promise you its not good enough evidence in any court in the world! If someone use photoshop to prove a point or a theory I have no problems with that , but its not real evidence. What we see is a young asian boy, you could pick hundreds of asians that would fit in that video.

Why yes, I am in fact an expert on video editing and visual effects, thanks for asking.

Just so you know, Photoshop is an image manipulation software, it is not used for video.

What I'm telling you is that the absence of evidence is not good enough to prove the headman's son was on the island.

Now, where is the evidence that the (social media) accused was in Koh Tao at the time and committed the murders?

If you had available all cctv from the island that night, and it had not been tempered with, would you be so confident?

[AleG]

Why yes, I am in fact an expert on video editing and visual effects, thanks for asking.

Just so you know, Photoshop is an image manipulation software, it is not used for video.

What I'm telling you is that the absence of evidence is not good enough to prove the headman's son was on the island.

Now, where is the evidence that the (social media) accused was in Koh Tao at the time and committed the murders?

If you had available all cctv from the island that night, and it had not been tempered with, would you be so confident?

So confident about what? That absence of evidence is not evidence? Yes, I am very confident that is so, I don't need CCTV footage to validate that statement because it's based on elementary logic.

[SteveFong]

Crimes on the Blog, Word press has a story that I didn't notice before

The CCTV footage provided by the certain lawyer for the certain son of the certain "influential" figure

was only of the next morning, and NOT, the time of the crimes.

Also,

fingerprints on the hoe,

that don't match the Burmese boys

[SteveFong]

Apparently,

the said argument, that was dismissed, did indeed occur, and multiple witnesses have given statements confirming it

these are hard to dismiss from the logical mind,

they must have been reported to UK police by the Wares and the friends of Hannah

there also must be many people who know this

the people implicated early on must be very pissed the the burmese kids havent been indicted

mistakes will be made,

they always hound the guilty until they make a move

it makes me wonder,

if there aren't undercover detectives still n Ko Tao

and where is the pancake man?

[AleG]

Crimes on the Blog, Word press has a story that I didn't notice before

The CCTV footage provided by the certain lawyer for the certain son of the certain "influential" figure

was only of the next morning, and NOT, the time of the crimes.

Also,

fingerprints on the hoe,

that don't match the Burmese boys

Holy s**t you mean the hoe that was laying around the suspects picked up had fingerprints from someone else on it!!!??? Well, case dismissed! After all it's a well know fact that people rigorously remove their fingerprints from gardening equipment after each use.

Yes, the footage is from the next morning, the next morning being about six hours after the crime was committed, how long do you think it takes to get from Koh Tao to Bangkok?

[Bleacher Bum East]

Why yes, I am in fact an expert on video editing and visual effects, thanks for asking.

Just so you know, Photoshop is an image manipulation software, it is not used for video.

What I'm telling you is that the absence of evidence is not good enough to prove the headman's son was on the island.

Now, where is the evidence that the (social media) accused was in Koh Tao at the time and committed the murders?

If you had available all cctv from the island that night, and it had not been tempered with, would you be so confident?

So confident about what? That absence of evidence is not evidence? Yes, I am very confident that is so, I don't need CCTV footage to validate that statement because it's based on elementary logic.

http://www.forensic-access.co.uk/cctv-video-forensic-image-analysis.asp

Since you're an expert I assume you know about CCTV analysis and "facial mapping" as described in this link.

This is a UK company and I think it's safe to assume the UK investigators have the same capability.

You would expect that the Thai police have performed a CCTV analysis like this, including facial mapping of anyone at anytime who was a person of interest in the crime. And that this analysis would show with a fairly high level of probability whether the person seen in the CCTV footage was one of the accused or another person they have identified at any point as a person of interest (not just the accused and not just any one particular person, but any person of interest).

I think the family of the victims, the media, Thai citizens wanting integrity and safety for their country, the accused and their defense attorneys, etc. have a right to ask whether this type of common investigative analysis has been performed and what where the results. And if CCTV analysis of this type wasn't performed, why not?

BTW in your debate about whether CCTV can be photo-shopped: it wasn't claimed that CCTV footage was photo-shopped, it was claimed a still from the footage was. I'm curious to know whether that is possible. Can you answer?

[AleG]

Why yes, I am in fact an expert on video editing and visual effects, thanks for asking.

Just so you know, Photoshop is an image manipulation software, it is not used for video.

What I'm telling you is that the absence of evidence is not good enough to prove the headman's son was on the island.

Now, where is the evidence that the (social media) accused was in Koh Tao at the time and committed the murders?

If you had available all cctv from the island that night, and it had not been tempered with, would you be so confident?

So confident about what? That absence of evidence is not evidence? Yes, I am very confident that is so, I don't need CCTV footage to validate that statement because it's based on elementary logic.

http://www.forensic-access.co.uk/cctv-video-forensic-image-analysis.asp

Since you're an expert I assume you know about CCTV analysis and "facial mapping" as described in this link.

This is a UK company and I think it's safe to assume the UK investigators have the same capability.

You would expect that the Thai police have performed a CCTV analysis like this, including facial mapping of anyone at anytime who was a person of interest in the crime. And that this analysis would show with a fairly high level of probability whether the person seen in the CCTV footage was one of the accused or another person they have identified at any point as a person of interest (not just the accused and not just any one particular person, but any person of interest).

I think the family of the victims, the media, Thai citizens wanting integrity and safety for their country, the accused and their defense attorneys, etc. have a right to ask whether this type of common investigative analysis has been performed and what where the results. And if CCTV analysis of this type wasn't performed, why not?

BTW in your debate about whether CCTV can be photo-shopped: it wasn't claimed that CCTV footage was photo-shopped, it was claimed a still from the footage was. I'm curious to know whether that is possible. Can you answer?

Yes, a still frame can be "Photoshopped", and when you then compare it with the other frames in the footage it would stand up like a sore thumb, not very useful is it?

So, more hypothetical and speculation, were are the actual facts?

[jpeg]

And you're the expert to tell us that the CCTV footage is good enough evidence to prove the headmans son was on the island? I can promise you its not good enough evidence in any court in the world! If someone use photoshop to prove a point or a theory I have no problems with that , but its not real evidence. What we see is a young asian boy, you could pick hundreds of asians that would fit in that video.

And with that exact same particular gait too.

[AGareth2]

well this must be what is worrying the prosecution ^^

[thailandchilli]

I'm pretty sure the still is not photoshopped. I have seen the full video of Nomsod walking into the condo, its still online. The still that was taken from it looks genuine. BUT that does not mean I believe the authenticity of the video. I have a cctv at home and its possible to go back at any point in the stored memory of the videos and change the day & time stamp to any date you want. This is what I believe has happened here, it fits with the report that the table and chairs that are seen in the video and still had been removed from that position 3 weeks before.

[Bleacher Bum East]

So confident about what? That absence of evidence is not evidence? Yes, I am very confident that is so, I don't need CCTV footage to validate that statement because it's based on elementary logic.

http://www.forensic-access.co.uk/cctv-video-forensic-image-analysis.asp

Since you're an expert I assume you know about CCTV analysis and "facial mapping" as described in this link.

This is a UK company and I think it's safe to assume the UK investigators have the same capability.

You would expect that the Thai police have performed a CCTV analysis like this, including facial mapping of anyone at anytime who was a person of interest in the crime. And that this analysis would show with a fairly high level of probability whether the person seen in the CCTV footage was one of the accused or another person they have identified at any point as a person of interest (not just the accused and not just any one particular person, but any person of interest).

I think the family of the victims, the media, Thai citizens wanting integrity and safety for their country, the accused and their defense attorneys, etc. have a right to ask whether this type of common investigative analysis has been performed and what where the results. And if CCTV analysis of this type wasn't performed, why not?

BTW in your debate about whether CCTV can be photo-shopped: it wasn't claimed that CCTV footage was photo-shopped, it was claimed a still from the footage was. I'm curious to know whether that is possible. Can you answer?

Yes, a still frame can be "Photoshopped", and when you then compare it with the other frames in the footage it would stand up like a sore thumb, not very useful is it?

So, more hypothetical and speculation, were are the actual facts?

I wasn't hypothesizing or speculating anything . . . I was just curious and I didn't know the answer.

In fact I haven't gotten involved one way or the other in the discussion about whether any particular individual should be a prime suspect/ a person of interest/has been cleared and therefore should be out of the discussion entirely/should never have been a suspect, etc. etc.

I'm interested in whether a professional, fair and thorough investigation and trial takes place, because if that happens it provides the best chance for justice and taking the killers "off the street". So when relevant I put in my two cents worth about what would go into such an investigation and trial...as well as arguments available to both sides on gray areas.

Regarding a professional, thorough and fair investigation, A CCTV analysis including facial mapping of the running man in the Koh Tao video would provide "actual facts", wouldn't it? [This is the CCTV footage I was referring to when I spoke about analysis and mapping in my last post as well]

So I believe one should be performed if it hasn't already ... I make no prediction or speculation about what the results would show because I have no idea what they would show.

And as far as a professional, thorough and fair investigation goes, your response does beg an obvious question:

If a photo-shopped still frame would stand out like a sore thumb when compared to other frames in a piece of footage, it would make sense to review those other frames as well, wouldn't it? This would also provide "actual facts".

BTW I do agree with you that in most cases "the absence of evidence is not evidence" . . . although in some cases such an absence could be circumstantial evidence in and of itself, especially when viewed in combination with other circumstantial evidence.

Also, as an expert have you provided your analysis and opinion about the feasibility of changing dates on video footage, and whether that may or may not have occurred in this case? Do you have enough publicly available information to perform that analysis? If you do, I'd be interested in your expert opinion and the reasons behind it. Again, I have no idea as I know nothing about the subject, but am interested in what you think.

[siampolee]

Below is a copy of a post I made in a thread elsewhere in TVF concerning this horrific crime.

As a matter of interest is there any information regarding the current whereabouts of other local island parties who may well be of interest to the investigators and a further focal point of interest in this case?

Possibly pursuing a degree course overseas perhaps?

[AleG]

Yes, a still frame can be "Photoshopped", and when you then compare it with the other frames in the footage it would stand up like a sore thumb, not very useful is it?

So, more hypothetical and speculation, were are the actual facts?

I wasn't hypothesizing or speculating anything . . . I was just curious and I didn't know the answer.

In fact I haven't gotten involved one way or the other in the discussion about whether any particular individual should be a prime suspect/ a person of interest/has been cleared and therefore should be out of the discussion entirely/should never have been a suspect, etc. etc.

I'm interested in whether a professional, fair and thorough investigation and trial takes place, because if that happens it provides the best chance for justice and taking the killers "off the street". So when relevant I put in my two cents worth about what would go into such an investigation and trial...as well as arguments available to both sides on gray areas.

Regarding a professional, thorough and fair investigation, A CCTV analysis including facial mapping of the running man in the Koh Tao video would provide "actual facts", wouldn't it? [This is the CCTV footage I was referring to when I spoke about analysis and mapping in my last post as well]

So I believe one should be performed if it hasn't already ... I make no prediction or speculation about what the results would show because I have no idea what they would show.

And as far as a professional, thorough and fair investigation goes, your response does beg an obvious question:

If a photo-shopped still frame would stand out like a sore thumb when compared to other frames in a piece of footage, it would make sense to review those other frames as well, wouldn't it? This would also provide "actual facts".

BTW I do agree with you that in most cases "the absence of evidence is not evidence" . . . although in some cases such an absence could be circumstantial evidence in and of itself, especially when viewed in combination with other circumstantial evidence.

Also, as an expert have you provided your analysis and opinion about the feasibility of changing dates on video footage, and whether that may or may not have occurred in this case? Do you have enough publicly available information to perform that analysis? If you do, I'd be interested in your expert opinion and the reasons behind it. Again, I have no idea as I know nothing about the subject, but am interested in what you think.

What I think is that it's exceedingly easy to throw hypotheticals around to rationalize a reason to dismiss evidence. Everyone and their dog has seen the footage (not just a still frame) of the man in question, so the "photoshopped" still frame theory is baloney.

Yes the CCTV footage can be tampered with, where is the evidence for that?

I'm still waiting for any evidence that places the headman's son in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and in the crime scene, endless discussions and accusations yet... zero actual evidence.

Now there are at least two reasons for that, first because there is no such evidence because he wasn't there and didn't commit the crime or second a vast conspiracy involving probably hundreds of people in Thailand and abroad to suppress all the evidence. Now which one is more likely?

[Bleacher Bum East]

Yes, a still frame can be "Photoshopped", and when you then compare it with the other frames in the footage it would stand up like a sore thumb, not very useful is it?

So, more hypothetical and speculation, were are the actual facts?

I wasn't hypothesizing or speculating anything . . . I was just curious and I didn't know the answer.

In fact I haven't gotten involved one way or the other in the discussion about whether any particular individual should be a prime suspect/ a person of interest/has been cleared and therefore should be out of the discussion entirely/should never have been a suspect, etc. etc.

I'm interested in whether a professional, fair and thorough investigation and trial takes place, because if that happens it provides the best chance for justice and taking the killers "off the street". So when relevant I put in my two cents worth about what would go into such an investigation and trial...as well as arguments available to both sides on gray areas.

Regarding a professional, thorough and fair investigation, A CCTV analysis including facial mapping of the running man in the Koh Tao video would provide "actual facts", wouldn't it? [This is the CCTV footage I was referring to when I spoke about analysis and mapping in my last post as well]

So I believe one should be performed if it hasn't already ... I make no prediction or speculation about what the results would show because I have no idea what they would show.

And as far as a professional, thorough and fair investigation goes, your response does beg an obvious question:

If a photo-shopped still frame would stand out like a sore thumb when compared to other frames in a piece of footage, it would make sense to review those other frames as well, wouldn't it? This would also provide "actual facts".

BTW I do agree with you that in most cases "the absence of evidence is not evidence" . . . although in some cases such an absence could be circumstantial evidence in and of itself, especially when viewed in combination with other circumstantial evidence.

Also, as an expert have you provided your analysis and opinion about the feasibility of changing dates on video footage, and whether that may or may not have occurred in this case? Do you have enough publicly available information to perform that analysis? If you do, I'd be interested in your expert opinion and the reasons behind it. Again, I have no idea as I know nothing about the subject, but am interested in what you think.

What I think is that it's exceedingly easy to throw hypotheticals around to rationalize a reason to dismiss evidence. Everyone and their dog has seen the footage (not just a still frame) of the man in question, so the "photoshopped" still frame theory is baloney.

Yes the CCTV footage can be tampered with, where is the evidence for that?

I'm still waiting for any evidence that places the headman's son in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and in the crime scene, endless discussions and accusations yet... zero actual evidence.

Now there are at least two reasons for that, first because there is no such evidence because he wasn't there and didn't commit the crime or second a vast conspiracy involving probably hundreds of people in Thailand and abroad to suppress all the evidence. Now which one is more likely?

"What I think is that it's exceedingly easy to throw hypotheticals around to rationalize a reason to dismiss evidence."

I agree, that's why I don't do it in general, and don't draw definitive conclusions if I do. But good investigators throw hypothetical possibilities around all the time . . . and then follow up to see if they can be proven true or false.

Everyone and their dog has seen the footage (not just a still frame) of the man in question, so the "photoshopped" still frame theory is baloney.

I had forgotten the footage was available ... I tend to agree with you on this.

Yes the CCTV footage can be tampered with, where is the evidence for that?

This is what I was asking you . . . as an expert do you see any evidence the time display was tampered with?

I'm still waiting for any evidence that places the headman's son in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and in the crime scene, endless discussions and accusations yet... zero actual evidence.

I agree that there is zero actual evidence that has been made public as far as I'm aware of . . . whether there is any evidence that has not been made public I have no idea.

A CCTV analysis including facial mapping would presumably rule him out as being the running man if he wasn't on the island. So you would think that he would encourage this analysis to be performed since it is non-invasive and doubts still linger (see The Guardian not just social media).

Again, I have no idea what it would show, just that it should be done.

Do you agree?

Now there are at least two reasons for that, first because there is no such evidence because he wasn't there and didn't commit the crime or second a vast conspiracy involving probably hundreds of people in Thailand and abroad to suppress all the evidence. Now which one is more likely?

Yes those are two of the possible reasons for that . . . and I agree that the first is more likely than the second.

But there are many more possible reasons in between. . .

And I have no idea as between the first and other possible reasons.

Neither I nor anybody else on TVC has enough information to declare anybody guilty at this point.

[mojorison]

Crimes on the Blog, Word press has a story that I didn't notice before

The CCTV footage provided by the certain lawyer for the certain son of the certain "influential" figure

was only of the next morning, and NOT, the time of the crimes.

Also,

fingerprints on the hoe,

that don't match the Burmese boys

Holy s**t you mean the hoe that was laying around the suspects picked up had fingerprints from someone else on it!!!??? Well, case dismissed! After all it's a well know fact that people rigorously remove their fingerprints from gardening equipment after each use.

Yes, the footage is from the next morning, the next morning being about six hours after the crime was committed, how long do you think it takes to get from Koh Tao to Bangkok?

The answer is less than 2 and a half hours. Koh Tao to Samui by speedboat 40 minutes...(My boat will do 40 knots ..Phangan to Samui in 12 minutes.... not the tourist speedboat). soonest BKK Airways flight, 40 minutes later you're in BKK...you could do it in an hour and a half if you were under the pump.

[AleG]

What I think is that it's exceedingly easy to throw hypotheticals around to rationalize a reason to dismiss evidence. Everyone and their dog has seen the footage (not just a still frame) of the man in question, so the "photoshopped" still frame theory is baloney.

Yes the CCTV footage can be tampered with, where is the evidence for that?

I'm still waiting for any evidence that places the headman's son in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and in the crime scene, endless discussions and accusations yet... zero actual evidence.

Now there are at least two reasons for that, first because there is no such evidence because he wasn't there and didn't commit the crime or second a vast conspiracy involving probably hundreds of people in Thailand and abroad to suppress all the evidence. Now which one is more likely?

"What I think is that it's exceedingly easy to throw hypotheticals around to rationalize a reason to dismiss evidence."

I agree, that's why I don't do it in general, and don't draw definitive conclusions if I do. But good investigators throw hypothetical possibilities around all the time . . . and then follow up to see if they can be proven true or false.

Everyone and their dog has seen the footage (not just a still frame) of the man in question, so the "photoshopped" still frame theory is baloney.

I had forgotten the footage was available ... I tend to agree with you on this.

Yes the CCTV footage can be tampered with, where is the evidence for that?

This is what I was asking you . . . as an expert do you see any evidence the time display was tampered with?

I'm still waiting for any evidence that places the headman's son in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and in the crime scene, endless discussions and accusations yet... zero actual evidence.

I agree that there is zero actual evidence that has been made public as far as I'm aware of . . . whether there is any evidence that has not been made public I have no idea.

A CCTV analysis including facial mapping would presumably rule him out as being the running man if he wasn't on the island. So you would think that he would encourage this analysis to be performed since it is non-invasive and doubts still linger (see The Guardian not just social media).

Again, I have no idea what it would show, just that it should be done.

Do you agree?

Now there are at least two reasons for that, first because there is no such evidence because he wasn't there and didn't commit the crime or second a vast conspiracy involving probably hundreds of people in Thailand and abroad to suppress all the evidence. Now which one is more likely?

Yes those are two of the possible reasons for that . . . and I agree that the first is more likely than the second.

But there are many more possible reasons in between. . .

And I have no idea as between the first and other possible reasons.

Neither I nor anybody else on TVC has enough information to declare anybody guilty at this point.

No, I don't see any evidence that the footage has been tampered with, that I leave to those that put forward the hypothesis,

I don't have the time or inclination to go chasing whatever theory's tale people let loose.

I don't know if a facial analysis has been done on the CCTV footage from either Koh Tao or in Bangkok, I have seen though very crude photo manipulations superimposing the face of Namsod on the Koh Tao footage, which was not particularly convincing and more a case of leading to conclusions rather than deriving them from evidence.

As for your last paragraph, well, you may want to take the time to explain that to the mass of people in this threads that "know" the two Burmese men are innocent, that headman's son is the murderer and that there is a vast conspiracy to cover that up.

[AleG]

Crimes on the Blog, Word press has a story that I didn't notice before

The CCTV footage provided by the certain lawyer for the certain son of the certain "influential" figure

was only of the next morning, and NOT, the time of the crimes.

Also,

fingerprints on the hoe,

that don't match the Burmese boys

Holy s**t you mean the hoe that was laying around the suspects picked up had fingerprints from someone else on it!!!??? Well, case dismissed! After all it's a well know fact that people rigorously remove their fingerprints from gardening equipment after each use.

Yes, the footage is from the next morning, the next morning being about six hours after the crime was committed, how long do you think it takes to get from Koh Tao to Bangkok?

The answer is less than 2 and a half hours. Koh Tao to Samui by speedboat 40 minutes...(My boat will do 40 knots ..Phangan to Samui in 12 minutes.... not the tourist speedboat). soonest BKK Airways flight, 40 minutes later you're in BKK...you could do it in an hour and a half if you were under the pump.

Right, he only had to had a very fast speedboat waiting for him to do the deed (something nobody noticed), kill the victims, rape the woman, hop on the boat, go to Samui (I guess he cleaned up and changed clothes on the boat trip?), take the first flight out (which leaves around 7AM) without anyone noticing him (i guess Bangkok Airways is also in the conspiracy) or showing up in any CCTV footage from either airport. Arrive to BKK, race to his apartment and just casually walk in front of a camera he knew was there to establish his alibi.

As usual the solution for a conspiracy flailing is to make the conspiracy even bigger. Now we have added the supposed boat driver, people and security staff at Koh Samui airport, Bangkok Airways, people at Suvarnabhumi airport, etc, etc...

That is the problem with starting from a conclusion and trying to work out how to fit the "facts" to lead back to a premise, one starts to deny actual evidence in favour of constructing elaborate and implausible hypothetical scenarios.

[thailandchilli]

Crimes on the Blog, Word press has a story that I didn't notice before

The CCTV footage provided by the certain lawyer for the certain son of the certain "influential" figure

was only of the next morning, and NOT, the time of the crimes.

Also,

fingerprints on the hoe,

that don't match the Burmese boys

Holy s**t you mean the hoe that was laying around the suspects picked up had fingerprints from someone else on it!!!??? Well, case dismissed! After all it's a well know fact that people rigorously remove their fingerprints from gardening equipment after each use.

Yes, the footage is from the next morning, the next morning being about six hours after the crime was committed, how long do you think it takes to get from Koh Tao to Bangkok?

The answer is less than 2 and a half hours. Koh Tao to Samui by speedboat 40 minutes...(My boat will do 40 knots ..Phangan to Samui in 12 minutes.... not the tourist speedboat). soonest BKK Airways flight, 40 minutes later you're in BKK...you could do it in an hour and a half if you were under the pump.

Right, he only had to had a very fast speedboat waiting for him to do the deed (something nobody noticed), kill the victims, rape the woman, hop on the boat, go to Samui (I guess he cleaned up and changed clothes on the boat trip?), take the first flight out (which leaves around 7AM) without anyone noticing him (i guess Bangkok Airways is also in the conspiracy) or showing up in any CCTV footage from either airport. Arrive to BKK, race to his apartment and just casually walk in front of a camera he knew was there to establish his alibi.

As usual the solution for a conspiracy flailing is to make the conspiracy even bigger. Now we have added the supposed boat driver, people and security staff at Koh Samui airport, Bangkok Airways, people at Suvarnabhumi airport, etc, etc...

That is the problem with starting from a conclusion and trying to work out how to fit the "facts" to lead back to a premise, one starts to deny actual evidence in favour of constructing elaborate and implausible hypothetical scenarios.

If you do some research in previous media articles and on this forum you will see the police were at one time looking for a fast speedboat seen leaving called "little Duck" but that lead seemed to disappear, "Thais may have been involved in the murders and had tried to destroy evidence linking them to the attacks. Some people on Koh Tao had given false information to police in a bid to divert attention. Police Maj Kittipong Kaosam-ang was quoted as saying

[T_Dog]

Holy s**t you mean the hoe that was laying around the suspects picked up had fingerprints from someone else on it!!!??? Well, case dismissed! After all it's a well know fact that people rigorously remove their fingerprints from gardening equipment after each use.

Yes, the footage is from the next morning, the next morning being about six hours after the crime was committed, how long do you think it takes to get from Koh Tao to Bangkok?

The answer is less than 2 and a half hours. Koh Tao to Samui by speedboat 40 minutes...(My boat will do 40 knots ..Phangan to Samui in 12 minutes.... not the tourist speedboat). soonest BKK Airways flight, 40 minutes later you're in BKK...you could do it in an hour and a half if you were under the pump.

Right, he only had to had a very fast speedboat waiting for him to do the deed (something nobody noticed), kill the victims, rape the woman, hop on the boat, go to Samui (I guess he cleaned up and changed clothes on the boat trip?), take the first flight out (which leaves around 7AM) without anyone noticing him (i guess Bangkok Airways is also in the conspiracy) or showing up in any CCTV footage from either airport. Arrive to BKK, race to his apartment and just casually walk in front of a camera he knew was there to establish his alibi.

As usual the solution for a conspiracy flailing is to make the conspiracy even bigger. Now we have added the supposed boat driver, people and security staff at Koh Samui airport, Bangkok Airways, people at Suvarnabhumi airport, etc, etc...

That is the problem with starting from a conclusion and trying to work out how to fit the "facts" to lead back to a premise, one starts to deny actual evidence in favour of constructing elaborate and implausible hypothetical scenarios.

If you do some research in previous media articles and on this forum you will see the police were at one time looking for a fast speedboat seen leaving called "little Duck" but that lead seemed to disappear, "Thais may have been involved in the murders and had tried to destroy evidence linking them to the attacks. Some people on Koh Tao had given false information to police in a bid to divert attention. Police Maj Kittipong Kaosam-ang was quoted as saying

There was indeed a wide spread search for a speedboat the first few days after the murder, and the police did question one operator found high on drugs and sleeping in a cave on an island if I recall.

[SteveFong]

It had been reported on a certain archair detective web page stated that the speedboat was burned at sea, and then sunk

thus,

it has indeed, dissapeared

[mojorison]

Crimes on the Blog, Word press has a story that I didn't notice before

The CCTV footage provided by the certain lawyer for the certain son of the certain "influential" figure

was only of the next morning, and NOT, the time of the crimes.

Also,

fingerprints on the hoe,

that don't match the Burmese boys

Holy s**t you mean the hoe that was laying around the suspects picked up had fingerprints from someone else on it!!!??? Well, case dismissed! After all it's a well know fact that people rigorously remove their fingerprints from gardening equipment after each use.

Yes, the footage is from the next morning, the next morning being about six hours after the crime was committed, how long do you think it takes to get from Koh Tao to Bangkok?

The answer is less than 2 and a half hours. Koh Tao to Samui by speedboat 40 minutes...(My boat will do 40 knots ..Phangan to Samui in 12 minutes.... not the tourist speedboat). soonest BKK Airways flight, 40 minutes later you're in BKK...you could do it in an hour and a half if you were under the pump.

Right, he only had to had a very fast speedboat waiting for him to do the deed (something nobody noticed), kill the victims, rape the woman, hop on the boat, go to Samui (I guess he cleaned up and changed clothes on the boat trip?), take the first flight out (which leaves around 7AM) without anyone noticing him (i guess Bangkok Airways is also in the conspiracy) or showing up in any CCTV footage from either airport. Arrive to BKK, race to his apartment and just casually walk in front of a camera he knew was there to establish his alibi.

As usual the solution for a conspiracy flailing is to make the conspiracy even bigger. Now we have added the supposed boat driver, people and security staff at Koh Samui airport, Bangkok Airways, people at Suvarnabhumi airport, etc, etc...

That is the problem with starting from a conclusion and trying to work out how to fit the "facts" to lead back to a premise, one starts to deny actual evidence in favour of constructing elaborate and implausible hypothetical scenarios.

You have answered your own questions. Why didn't they check the airline records? Why didn't they check airport security... all these lines of investigation flatly ignored... strange. I could have a boat organized in 15 minutes (in fact I could have several). They could easily do the same. Of course they have boats available... it's a freaking island. we have boats. like you have cars. (I'm pretty sure there were reported sightings of boats at that time... once again not important enough to pursue.) Change clothes on the boat, old ones over the side... you're not going to junior prom.

Get this ridiculous conspiracy stuff out of your heads. It has been used in totally the wrong manner. Anytime holes are revealed, a bevvy of RTP glee club fire up with the conspiracy BS. It just shows that you don't fully understand what a conspiracy is. You can't use one camera to establish an alibi, when another camera shows something totally different. Both are either admissible or inadmissible... you can't pick and choose what evidence you want to use. How can you give one more credibility than the other? Think about it, then explain it to me how these 2 different sets of standards work.

[SteveFong]

There weren't two sets of standard

There were two sets of investigative teams

That is what set off the entire social media population

attention RTP:

see above post

[boomerangutang]

According to the heading of this thread, Police are looking for village headman's son?

Are they still looking? Oops sorry, almost forgot, they let him go as easily as Krabi cops let the Thai guy go who raped the Dutch backpacker, a few months prior to the Ko Tao double murder.

As a comparison (of how easy it is for a Thai who's buddies with police to get let off a crime investigation) - I heard about a young farang who had an accident. There were two riders as he was driving a motorcycle. They got some bruises. Cops got the farang driver, threw him in jail, and told him he would have to pay 3 million baht (I repeat: 3 million baht!!!!) or else spend the next 20 to 30 years in Thai prison. This, in a country where a Thai might have to pay a Bt.5,000 fine for driving a car which kills a van-load of people.

Let's see: Alleged to be driving a motorbike which takes a spill and slightly injures two passengers = if you're farang, you're put in jail immediately and extorted 3 million baht.

Alleged to have killed two people and raped one of them: you're not put in jail, You're required to pay nothing. and you're scot free forever and a day. = if you're Thai and your daddy is rich and important.

[boomerangutang]

trial starts in 5 days. Prosecution gets 5 days in July, and 5 more in August. Defense get 5 days in September.