Which embassy spokesman? BTW I think review could be synonymous with observe as opposed to investigate.

I'll leave it to you to trawl back to the media reports following DC's meeting in Milan. It's the UK version of the agreement reached.

Meeting ???

No Berty. We are talking about news reports. I certainly welcome any source you care to cite from reliable sources showing I am wrong.

Oh dear very disappointed yet again.

You always post as if you are in the know. Yet all you do is report what the RTP report.

No Berty, I post what is in reliable news sources.

No you don't, you quote thai news sources & thailand is ranked 137 out of 179 countries with regards to freedom of the press. http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

Which puts it, thais & people like you, under government control.

http://www.yorkvision.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/johnny-english-reborn05.jpg

Go get them Johnny! You can do it!

http://www.yorkvision.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/johnny-english-reborn05.jpg

Go get them Johnny! You can do it!

access denied.

Which embassy spokesman? BTW I think review could be synonymous with observe as opposed to investigate.

I'll leave it to you to trawl back to the media reports following DC's meeting in Vienna. It's the UK version of the agreement reached.

Ah the one with the unnamed diplomatic source....

Which embassy spokesman? BTW I think review could be synonymous with observe as opposed to investigate.

I'll leave it to you to trawl back to the media reports following DC's meeting in Vienna. It's the UK version of the agreement reached.

Ah the one with the unnamed diplomatic source....

Actually, it's factual, and a senior spokesman. This is serious, not playing games, JD. Could have been the FCO. I'm sure someone on here will provide the link.

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I believe the Thais will hunny trap them, unless females have been sent, and then black mail them the shut the up about anything dodgy

Or 'boys' the UK Police are 'very diverse' I am sure Stalwarts of British justice would not fall for such a thing as a Honey trap at all, wooooh I just remembered that British MP just did so maybe we're in trouble after all.

You are really coming across as pretty pathetic, both of you.

japsportscarmad probably has too many speeding fines in his baby Nissan?

Yes your right my good friend thanks for pointing that out. No baby Nissan I am afraid far too slow. No speeding tickets either. Not like Japan here where the police cars have the mandatory speed limited to 100, you would if you wanted to speed in Thailand need something faster than the tuned Camries the traffic police have :-) so I understand.

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

So I guess if you took a look at the mobile phone and bank/ATM records of all those persons mentioned in post #74 and there was no unusual or suspicious activity to be found, that would mean that all those bank and mobile phone records had been tampered or erased?

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Really are they. I thought when they used sources and 'un named' persons it probably wasn't true that's why they don't release a source as if them it's the press office issuing something to look favourable that may not be accurate but helps politically.

Why can't they name the source if it's true I don't understand.

How much input will they be allowed?

If just observing then they might as well stayed at home.

As for setting up a police station well that horse as truly bolted but I suppose anything is better than the current set up.

Still the RTP reckon they have the guys and the DNA so innocent until proven guilty but if they are then throw the full weight of the courts at them

Here is a sentence from a National News Bureau of Thailand article dated October 23rd. “Regional Public Prosecution 8 deputy director-general Thawatchai Siangjaew said that “Thai police will be able to answer every doubt raised but no outside authorities can send their people to work on this case as Thai laws do not permit such a scenario”.

What a scam, it's theater, a show for the public, the Brits will not be allowed to work on the case.

it is not a scam

Chris Ware stood up for his friend, and gave a full briefing of what happened that night.

The full details of what Scotland Yard detectives know, is everything we hoped for, and more.

So much so, that the word is, the Police general in charge, has recently gone on sick leave and his whereabouts are unknown

This case has blown wide open, and the people involved know it

Expect this to get bigger than any of the bad actors could have ever expected, and with it, international coverage of their arrests

Where did you find the story about Chris Ware givung evidence to the plods? I couldn't find it on any of the usual UK news websites.

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

Indeed you were correct, the trouble is none of us will never know the facts and often never do such is life.

 

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

 

Then why not try refraining from engaging in irrational discussions with people who have a different opinion or way of looking at things.

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

Indeed you were correct, the trouble is none of us will never know the facts and often never do such is life.

If the double negative was intentional then I think you're right.

The Koh Tao Murders... Simply follow the Electronic Trails...

Perhaps there is great value in what the British cops could follow and observer - - This is what a well-connected and computer savvy British cop should "follow and observe" in Thailand - -

Start with the obvious: The murders were perhaps committed by a well-connected Thai. That is what everyone suspects, so why not start there? Doesn't it appear that the village headman was too keen on avoiding a police investigation of his extended family and friends? To what lengths did he go to deflect an honest inquiry?

It has only been about 6-weeks since the young British couple were slain by unknown attackers. The DNA samples may have been compromised, but the electronic trails are still very warm.

Thai people (..wealthy and powerful and average..) all love their mobile phones and their ATM cards. The British investigators should follow the electronic trails, in order to establish probable or circumstantial evidence.

Even if the Koh Tao village headman and his family have all changed their mobile phone numbers, and opened new bank accounts, it doesn't matter. The local phone company computers retain all SMS text messages, and all cell tower connection data for 90-days. (This is true for DTAC, AIS, etc.) The Thai banking and ATM and CDM data is essentially retained "forever".

The British investigator needs only a starting point. He should start by determining this - -

1. What mobile phone number(s) were in use by the Koh Tao village headman, his son, and their extended circle of family and friends and cop buddies on or about 15-Sept-2014? Start with even just one verified phone number. Follow the connections. Read the text messages. You don't need triangulation data. Just a connection record with one single tower will show where in Thailand was any given mobile on any given day. The text messages, together with the approximate location of the Thai suspects, and the spider's web circle of connections will surely raise a few eyebrows. If we were back in the real world, that is how real police would establish locations and extract electronic information. (By the way, I am not referring to GPS/GPRS data from 3G/4G mobiles. All mobiles, even old 2G phones, leave connection data on the DTAC/AIS computers. Look at the signal strength bar graph on any Thai mobile. When switched on, a mobile phone is continually "connected" to at least one cell tower. Part of the 90-day data retention record is simply the tower registration number, to which that mobile phone is connected at any given time.) (Also, please realize that when you "erase" SMS text messages from your mobile, you have only erased the local copy. The server copy still has a 90-day shelf life...)

2. What bank accounts were in use by the Koh Tao village headman, his son, and their extended circle of family, friends, mia nois, girlfriends, (and cop buddies) on or about 15-Sept-2014? Follow the ATM withdrawals and the CDM redeposits from that day forward. Follow the account-to-account transfers. Follow the money trails. Ask questions. If we were back in the real world, that is how real police would investigate "suspicious behavior" in terms of who was paying off whom from 15-Sept forward...

3. Which cops, translators and other persons of interest were involved with the young Burmese boys in the "Safe House" on Koh Tao? What mobile phone numbers were those cops using on the day that the confessions were "extracted" from the Burmese suspects? The British police should follow the connections from those cops' mobile phones to bigger fish up the food chain. Wouldn't you like to read those Thai cop mobile phone text messages from that day?

It wouldn't take Agent 007 to connect the dots on all of the above, now would it? The media reports that 7 or 8 British cops are here in Thailand looking into the murders. All you need is one computer savvy British cop, and one "honest" Thai translator, and a court order allowing unfettered access to all electronic phone and banking records still stored on local servers.

It ain't rocket science...

JD

Very good point tracing all the phone calls and messages prior to and after the murders on the island and others who have left the island may have some interesting info.

One problem with the scenario as presented.

The UK cops don't have the authority.

The Thai cops don't either w/o a court order.

would it be difficult for either of them to get authorisation ?

Authorisation? Unauthorised and has most likely already happened.

Many people here knock the British Embassy (I knock the Oz Embassy) for their apparent lack of service with passports etc etc.

But I think we are kidding ourselves if we think aren't fluent Thai speaking British nationals in the embassy - call them MI5, MI6 , ASIO or James Bond if you like whose sole purpose is to keep close watch on what is happening in Thailand. Unlike the figurehead Ambassador.

I think the Poms will have a very good idea of what happened on the island, especially as they will be privy to information from the likes of Sean McKenna and others.

Don't get too hung up on DNA testing as a good friend of mine, an ex detective, told me he gets most of his detail from people not "evidence" as such.

I realise most Pommy coppers don't speak fluent Thai...but I bet one or two do...and have Asian features.

They aren't fools.

Which embassy spokesman? BTW I think review could be synonymous with observe as opposed to investigate.

I'll leave it to you to trawl back to the media reports following DC's meeting in Vienna. It's the UK version of the agreement reached.

Ah the one with the unnamed diplomatic source....

Actually, it's factual, and a senior spokesman. This is serious, not playing games, JD. Could have been the FCO. I'm sure someone on here will provide the link.

The only one I saw that stated investigation was an unnamed diplomatic source. No statement of senior etc

Yes they are

 

 

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

 

Then why not try refraining from engaging in irrational discussions with people who have a different opinion or way of looking at things.

 

Oh I wasn't referring to your post.

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Really are they. I thought when they used sources and 'un named' persons it probably wasn't true that's why they don't release a source as if them it's the press office issuing something to look favourable that may not be accurate but helps politically.

Why can't they name the source if it's true I don't understand.

Here's a press release from the F.O as an example, it does not give the source of the press release, ie the author but its clear that its an official statement https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fco-minister-summons-thai-charge-daffaires-to-foreign-office this is the statement the UK issued and that the Thai PM denied

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Really are they. I thought when they used sources and 'un named' persons it probably wasn't true that's why they don't release a source as if them it's the press office issuing something to look favourable that may not be accurate but helps politically.

Why can't they name the source if it's true I don't understand.

Here's a press release from the F.O as an example, it does not give the source of the press release, ie the author but its clear that its an official statement https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fco-minister-summons-thai-charge-daffaires-to-foreign-office this is the statement the UK issued and that the Thai PM denied

Do you believe everything from the press office? Yes it's an official press release but the press office is there to put a good gloss on what the UK is doing particularly for the UK press who will prob be the only ones reading it. Obviously something's got lost in translation across the two countries.

If the Plod were smart they'd have profilers on the team, guys who can read body language as well as crime scenes.

They will only be having a small team, they can only see what they are shown,

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

Then why not try refraining from engaging in irrational discussions with people who have a different opinion or way of looking at things.

Firstly, it's not irrational. Secondly, you are unnecessarily bickering with me for having an opinion. Thirdly, I am firmly in the camp that the B2 have been made scapegoats. Is that rational enough?

Calm down chaps justice will be done have faith in the Thai system of fairness and equality.

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Really are they. I thought when they used sources and 'un named' persons it probably wasn't true that's why they don't release a source as if them it's the press office issuing something to look favourable that may not be accurate but helps politically.

Why can't they name the source if it's true I don't understand.

Here's a press release from the F.O as an example, it does not give the source of the press release, ie the author but its clear that its an official statement https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fco-minister-summons-thai-charge-daffaires-to-foreign-office this is the statement the UK issued and that the Thai PM denied

Do you believe everything from the press office? Yes it's an official press release but the press office is there to put a good gloss on what the UK is doing particularly for the UK press who will prob be the only ones reading it. Obviously something's got lost in translation across the two countries.

Ah well, seeing as this is from the UK, to avoid anything being lost in translation they also issue an official Thai version hope that helps you https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fco-minister-summons-thai-charge-daffaires-to-foreign-office.th nothing lost in translation there i trust

 

 

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

 

Then why not try refraining from engaging in irrational discussions with people who have a different opinion or way of looking at things.

Firstly, it's not irrational. Secondly, you are unnecessarily bickering with me for having an opinion. Thirdly, I am firmly in the camp that the B2 have been made scapegoats. Is that rational enough?

 

See post 260

jomcondo, on 24 Oct 2014 - 05:54, said:

The British police have made their first arrest and it's johnthailand, he is facing 2 years imprisonment under new troll laws.

Apparently the suspect was arrested at his computer wearing only a pair of women's underwear.

That comment just made my day!

FYI in sensitive situations like the one we have now, diplomatic sources are usually unnamed to avoid 'fallout'.

Obviously for diplomatic reasons, does not make it less credible, if it was untrue and a diplomatic source was quoted

the UK government would have issued a press release stating that.

That is SOP, that I KNOW.

Please share with us all even one situation where a news story stated an unnamed source cited in a story lied or was wrong.

The typical response seems to be ignore the story unless it seriously damages diplomatic relations

 

 

 

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering and name calling going on. Try rational discussion. Some of us are interested in the facts of this case. Not wading through your crap

I am also interested in facts. That's why I made the post you're probably referring to.

 

Then why not try refraining from engaging in irrational discussions with people who have a different opinion or way of looking at things.

Firstly, it's not irrational. Secondly, you are unnecessarily bickering with me for having an opinion. Thirdly, I am firmly in the camp that the B2 have been made scapegoats. Is that rational enough?

 

See post 260

 

OK there are many in that camp and some in the other camp. I would think more would be achieved by decent discussions and arguments both ways, some overlooked details may come out or possibly some new information. It is good to keep the discussion going as there doesn't seem to be much coming out from the police these days. Name calling and childish behavior will only turn people off and end the discussions. And it will be forgotten. I think we all want the same thing in the end.