DNA results from Ko Tao village head’s son don't match traces on slain British tourists

[jdinasia]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

Edited November 28, 2014 by jdinasia

[Bleacher Bum East]

"Cherry picking" seems to be the term of the day in the debate over what information/news reports/statements are valid to use in an argument regarding the investigation into the rape and murder of Hannah and murder of David.

"Cherry picking" means the selective use of information that tends to support your argument while ignoring information which tends to go against your argument.

"Cherry picking" does not mean using earlier information after more information on the same topic becomes available.

Whether the earlier information remains valid to use depends on all of the circumstances, particularly on the credibility of both sets of information.

If I go to the doctor and he tells me I have all the signs and symptoms of dengue fever and so his expert diagnosis is dengue fever, but then I go to a different doctor three weeks later and he says my body is inhabited by a demon and that is why i am sick, it is not cherry picking to cite the first doctor as my best source of information.

So when immediately after the forensic autopsy the chief of forensics says that the evidence indicates that David fought with his attackers, the police say they believe there were more than two perpetrators, both say there was more than one murder weapon, etc. etc. then it is not cherry picking to cite these reports---a good defense attorney would certainly do so.

It is of course also best to cite and acknowledge the later conflicting reports and allow the two to be analyzed side-by-side for credibility and investigative value.

But in many cases, later information does not negate earlier information, and later information does not mean better information.

To state otherwise by indiscriminately using the term "cherry picking" to argue that you can never cite earlier information if more information later becomes available, suggests either a total misunderstanding or intentional misuse of the term for misleading purposes.

[Bleacher Bum East]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

So then I assume you also accept the current position of the two accused Burmese men that they are innocent and were coerced into confessing.

To cite their earlier confession would be cherry picking (by your definition), correct?

Edited November 28, 2014 by Bleacher Bum East

[thailandchilli]

They said many things before and after. What was the other evidence?

You cherry pick which statements from the police to believe and which to reject.

It appears that your new found term ‘cherry picking’ has now been imbedded in your list of at least half a dozen phrases and terms you use in your one liner replies, it is a shame you are unable to debate issues, it appears this must be a little challenging for you.

Cherry picking is used in all debates be that on a forum, court of law or even general discussion with your friends. It’s a persons way of getting his point of view across, he has a vested interest in that point of view for whatever reason.

We all know on this forum how you like to use legal terms in your one liners, so as an example of cherry picking in a legal frame work, prosecuting and defense lawyers act for their clients to win the case. In doing so they will cherry pick statements and arguments to suit their purpose.

The judge or jury will then as an independent (hopefully) body sift through those statements and evidence (cherry pick) to find what is the most credible to come to a conclusion. When sifting through the evidence it does not matter how old or how recent it happens to be, it’s the credibility they are looking for.

So next time you throw an accusation at somebody for cherry picking which may indeed be a correct one. Please expand on that as to exactly why you are doing so. Because it’s the credibility of that statement that is important not the fact that its cherry picked. Otherwise your accusation can be thrown straight back at you, particularly because your vested interest in this case is not only the fact that you think the B2 were the killers but also that you believe in the Thai Judicial system and trust that the court case will be a fair one. There is an added hurdle for you also in your separate ‘conflict of interest’ because of the friends and business owners that you know there. This can lead people to question your credibility and that is why its more important for you to explain yourself fully rather than throw out one liners.

My vested interest in the case is wanting justice as I currently believe the RTP investigation and the up and coming court case, if it happens to be fatally flawed and a complete sham that is in my opinion perpetrated and lead by a sinister cover up of the truth and I have no problem cherry picking statements that in my opinion are credible to back up those claims.

Edited November 28, 2014 by thailandchilli

[jdinasia]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

So then I assume you also accept the current position of the two accused Burmese men that they are innocent and were coerced into confessing.

To cite their earlier confession would be cherry picking (by your definition), correct?

I accept that the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have recanted the confessions. I also accept that they confessed more than one time and once was to an HRC commissioner.

That leaves the merits of the confessions in the judges' hands

Edited November 28, 2014 by jdinasia

[CharlieH]

Discuss the TOPIC not the poster, this is becoming tiresome, if it persists then posting holidays will be issued.

Stay on topic.

[Bleacher Bum East]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

So then I assume you also accept the current position of the two accused Burmese men that they are innocent and were coerced into confessing.

To cite their earlier confession would be cherry picking (by your definition), correct?

I accept that the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have recanted the confessions. I also accept that they confessed more than one time and once was to an HRC commissioner.

That leaves the merits of the confessions in the judges' hands

That is cherry picking (as you define it) ... they later explained/recanted their confessions and this by your definition must be accepted as the real truth of the matter, i.e. the later retraction negates the earlier confession (by your definition of cherry picking).

Why do you not accept the Burmese men's current position as true the same way you accept Sean's explanation/current position as true?

What's the distinction in your apparent clear double standard?

Anyways, it's been a delightful few minutes "debating" with you JD.

Have a good day.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Bleacher Bum East

[jdinasia]

No double standard.

[thailandchilli]

So if this goes the distance for the B2, once they are formally indicted, then how soon would the trial start, days or months, anybody have an opinion on this?

I would guess they would try to hang it out until after the inquest inquest on 6th January 2015 for Hannah in the UK. They must be very concerned about the statements that will be revealed from the witness's, police, the verdict and narrative that will be given from the coroner. So to cover their backs perhaps they will wait till its completed?

Edited November 28, 2014 by thailandchilli

[Mooner]

I was thinking DNA, presence on the same beach at the same time, etc

Same beach at the same time. Such overwhelming evidence.

If their DNA isn't the DNA on Hannah it's irrelevant

[Mooner]

If u were there on the beach and smoked a cigarette near the scene would you be guilty?

[thailandchilli]

If u were there on the beach and smoked a cigarette near the scene would you be guilty?

Now that really just depends on what nationality you happen to be......

[mcm991]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

So then I assume you also accept the current position of the two accused Burmese men that they are innocent and were coerced into confessing.

To cite their earlier confession would be cherry picking (by your definition), correct?

I accept that the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have recanted the confessions. I also accept that they confessed more than one time and once was to an HRC commissioner.

That leaves the merits of the confessions in the judges' hands

@JD....

A couple of quick details..... you base your confidence that the cops have their men largely on their confessions. You are entitled to that opinion.

I'll have to paraphrase a bit because I don't have time to dig up all the exact articles and reports.

They confessed to being on the beach and quite drunk. They saw the 2 kids being intimate and wanted a bit so they beat David to death with a hoe and raped the girl and then also killed her. (my apologies for not quoting word for word.... )

Your confidence that these are the guilty perps based on the confessions is concerning because there is no evidence that David and Hannah were 'involved romantically' at any time during their stay on the island.

Worryingy, no DNA of David was found anywhere on Hannah's body. The police stated this early on and to my my knowledge have never changed that report. Even a kiss and a cuddle would have left DNA on her to be found. Yet none was.

The boys stated they beat David with the hoe and yet to my knowledge, no DNA of David was found on the hoe. The police also stated this and again, to my knowlegde never changed that report.

(If I'm incorrect and you know of any updated reports on the hoe and David's DNA on Hannah, please share the links.)

To me this makes their confessions hard to believe. They confessed to a crime that was most unlilely to have been committed as told.

Are you comfortable with their confessions if the above is accurate? (please correct me if any of my points above are not correct)

[Fat Haggis]

Whatever happened to the PMs statement that he was deploying the Army to the Island to get rid of the mafias involved?

[thailandchilli]

This is the RTP's version of events, Hannah and David embracing while walking on the beach, David then taking off his clothes and the couple then on the sand making love or in the act of intimate relations.

Nice of them to make up yet any theory with no evidence to back up their claims.

[mcm991]

This is the RTP's version of events, Hannah and David embracing while walking on the beach, David then taking off his clothes and the couple then on the sand making love or in the act of intimate relations.

Nice of them to make up yet any theory with no evidence to back up their claims.

Other than the RTP's active imagination, I have never seen any evidence that these 2 were romantically involved in any way.

But, I have an open mind if anyone can provide evidence to the contrary.

[Mooner]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

So then I assume you also accept the current position of the two accused Burmese men that they are innocent and were coerced into confessing.

To cite their earlier confession would be cherry picking (by your definition), correct?

I accept that the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have recanted the confessions. I also accept that they confessed more than one time and once was to an HRC commissioner.

That leaves the merits of the confessions in the judges' hands

@JD....

A couple of quick details..... you base your confidence that the cops have their men largely on their confessions. You are entitled to that opinion.

I'll have to paraphrase a bit because I don't have time to dig up all the exact articles and reports.

They confessed to being on the beach and quite drunk. They saw the 2 kids being intimate and wanted a bit so they beat David to death with a hoe and raped the girl and then also killed her. (my apologies for not quoting word for word.... )

Your confidence that these are the guilty perps based on the confessions is concerning because there is no evidence that David and Hannah were 'involved romantically' at any time during their stay on the island.

Worryingy, no DNA of David was found anywhere on Hannah's body. The police stated this early on and to my my knowledge have never changed that report. Even a kiss and a cuddle would have left DNA on her to be found. Yet none was.

The boys stated they beat David with the hoe and yet to my knowledge, no DNA of David was found on the hoe. The police also stated this and again, to my knowlegde never changed that report.

(If I'm incorrect and you know of any updated reports on the hoe and David's DNA on Hannah, please share the links.)

To me this makes their confessions hard to believe. They confessed to a crime that was most unlilely to have been committed as told.

Are you comfortable with their confessions if the above is accurate? (please correct me if any of my points above are not correct)

Excellent post. I look forward to you know who's reply.

[AGareth2]

I refer you to a reply I gave x number of posts ago

[thailandchilli]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

So then I assume you also accept the current position of the two accused Burmese men that they are innocent and were coerced into confessing.

To cite their earlier confession would be cherry picking (by your definition), correct?

I accept that the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have recanted the confessions. I also accept that they confessed more than one time and once was to an HRC commissioner.

That leaves the merits of the confessions in the judges' hands

@JD....

A couple of quick details..... you base your confidence that the cops have their men largely on their confessions. You are entitled to that opinion.

I'll have to paraphrase a bit because I don't have time to dig up all the exact articles and reports.

They confessed to being on the beach and quite drunk. They saw the 2 kids being intimate and wanted a bit so they beat David to death with a hoe and raped the girl and then also killed her. (my apologies for not quoting word for word.... )

Your confidence that these are the guilty perps based on the confessions is concerning because there is no evidence that David and Hannah were 'involved romantically' at any time during their stay on the island.

Worryingy, no DNA of David was found anywhere on Hannah's body. The police stated this early on and to my my knowledge have never changed that report. Even a kiss and a cuddle would have left DNA on her to be found. Yet none was.

The boys stated they beat David with the hoe and yet to my knowledge, no DNA of David was found on the hoe. The police also stated this and again, to my knowlegde never changed that report.

(If I'm incorrect and you know of any updated reports on the hoe and David's DNA on Hannah, please share the links.)

To me this makes their confessions hard to believe. They confessed to a crime that was most unlilely to have been committed as told.

Are you comfortable with their confessions if the above is accurate? (please correct me if any of my points above are not correct)

Of course your unlikely to get a reply to this its far to challenging, but I may be wrong, a simple off the cuff one liner may be waiting in the wings from you know who

[thailandchilli]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

"Koh Phangan police station chief Pol Col Prachum Ruangthong confirmed that a Scottish man who posted pictures of Mr Montriwat and another person of interest on his Facebook page has left Koh Tao in protective custody'"

Edited November 28, 2014 by thailandchilli

[jabis]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

"Koh Phangan police station chief Pol Col Prachum Ruangthong confirmed that a Scottish man who posted pictures of Mr Montriwat and another person of interest on his Facebook page has left Koh Tao in protective custody'"

He actually left the island with a horde of newspaper reporters escorting him, can't see a single BIB in the video of him boarding the Lomprayah ferry - except of course if they were civilian clothed at the time. While he was about to embark, was when he stated he'll be happy to get out alive but the next 24 hours (until his flight out) will show. In any case he's one lucky chap, should everything he said be the 100% truth

[thailandchilli]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

"Koh Phangan police station chief Pol Col Prachum Ruangthong confirmed that a Scottish man who posted pictures of Mr Montriwat and another person of interest on his Facebook page has left Koh Tao in protective custody'"

He actually left the island with a horde of newspaper reporters escorting him, can't see a single BIB in the video of him boarding the Lomprayah ferry - except of course if they were civilian clothed at the time. While he was about to embark, was when he stated he'll be happy to get out alive but the next 24 hours (until his flight out) will show. In any case he's one lucky chap, should everything he said be the 100% truth

More confirmation of the B.S. that the RTP comes out with. Guess could be plain clothes there but who knows. Complete wild card Sean, I have no clue about him accept I reckon he would sell his soul to the devil for a few quid, hope I'm wrong! I think its that aweful excuse for singing and guitar playing that puts me off him!

Edited November 28, 2014 by thailandchilli

[jdinasia]

Where is that quote from?

[Islandlife]

One suspect was arrested and the second suspect fled. There was solid evidence, including CCTV.

Turns out, the suspects are the brother and son of the Island Headman so they were let go.

Headmen and their brothers/sons don't go to jail in Thailand so they framed some poor Burmese kids.

Or as noted so many times, people have been suspects, and then been eliminated as suspects.

That is true, yes. But it is essential to remember that one of the suspects was seen at the murder scene following the discovery of the victims. Why would he be there? Why was he allowed on to the crime scene?

It reminds me of the tragic Soham murders in Cambridgeshire in 2002. Two girls aged 10 - Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were murdered by their school caretaker - Ian Huntley - after enticing him into their home. Huntley appeared in TV interviews on Sky news and the BBC following the discovery of their bodies to speak of the shock in the local community:

One reporter suggested to Huntley that he may have been the last person to speak to the girls before they disappeared, to which Huntley replied: "Yeah, that's what it seems like."^[1] Huntley said their disappearance was "absolutely" a mystery and that "while there's no news there's still that glimmer of hope, and that's basically what we're all hanging on to."

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders)

Huntley was convicted in 2003. 40 years minimum.

Thats becase he lives hundred meters away and hes resort next to it and got waken up by burmese cleaner . Would you take time and walk relaxed if u would wake up something like that or run to your phone or where ever to contact police wich i believe he did . This aint big city when something like this happens daily and id say 95% of police ,locals had no idea how to act . Again just me thinking not a fact.

You say you believe Mon contacted the police? Could you expand on this please?

Wild quess ,but thats where id call if would be waken up just to find 2 people dead next to my busines & property.

Pure logig i tryed use there.

A wild guess and 'pure logic' in this context are totally different and both are subjective. Wild guesses from anyone commenting on this tragedy are in insult to the victims and their families.

well that true 100% but with these smart <deleted> with their conspiracy theories. Inpossible answear when some one asks why something might have happened,

I wish nothing more then justice and peace for these families and friends find one day ,way or another.

Dont comment here to make my day more interesting or spread rumours as truths.

[mcm991]

@JD,

You have been online without a break for 2 months now bashing anyone who questions whether the 2 Burmese boys are the murderers.

You have stated repeatedly that you are of the belief that they are the guilty ones.

From what you have said, you believe this mainly because they have confessed to the crimes.

I have asked you several times ..... however, you plainly could not be bothered to explain why you believe this so fervently. You have invested a great deal of your life to this cause yet you don't really seem very interested in the Burmese boys at all.

Over a thousand posts now ..... all in favour of the Burmese guilt ... yet only 2 lines explaining why you feel this so strongly.

May I suggest that you NEED the boys to be guilty for the simple logic that if they are the murderers - then other people can not be?

No.... I'm sure that would be a bad suggestion............

[Islandlife]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

"Koh Phangan police station chief Pol Col Prachum Ruangthong confirmed that a Scottish man who posted pictures of Mr Montriwat and another person of interest on his Facebook page has left Koh Tao in protective custody'"

yeah with tuk tuk and news paper man wit raving hungover and sudden memory loss and need to vipe all hes internet accounts.

[boomerangutang]

So if this goes the distance for the B2, once they are formally indicted, then how soon would the trial start, days or months, anybody have an opinion on this?

I would guess they would try to hang it out until after the inquest inquest on 6th January 2015 for Hannah in the UK. They must be very concerned about the statements that will be revealed from the witness's, police, the verdict and narrative that will be given from the coroner. So to cover their backs perhaps they will wait till its completed?

I think Thai officialdom has wanted to railroad the B2 toward conviction all along. Remember when the 2nd head cop investigator was appointed, how quick things happened. Within hours, the B3 (B2 + 1) were questioned in the 'safe house,' guilty verdicts were signed, DNA matched, and the reenactment took place. If it hadn't been for pesky social media, the B2 (one of the B was put aside) would probably be sitting on death row now. To wait for the UK inquest will enable that can of worms to be opened: namely: findings from objective detectives with miles more professionalism in crime scenes than any Thais, except perhaps Ms Porntip. BTW, every time JD sees Porntip's name mentioned, he immediately mentions her not-so-wise call on the faux bomb detectors. The real reason JD and authorities don't want Ms Porntip on the case is she's the best forensic expert in Thailand, and she's not afraid to counter what authorities dictate.

[boomerangutang]

If u were there on the beach and smoked a cigarette near the scene would you be guilty?

I've said all along, the cig butt is not important, even if it had Colonel Sanders DNA on it.

Whatever happened to the PMs statement that he was deploying the Army to the Island to get rid of the mafias involved?

Yes, I recall the PM declaring that 100 army troops would be sent, as if that's supposed to reassure the general public that a decent investigation would then take place.

[boomerangutang]

And again, wrong.

Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.

As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.

"Koh Phangan police station chief Pol Col Prachum Ruangthong confirmed that a Scottish man who posted pictures of Mr Montriwat and another person of interest on his Facebook page has left Koh Tao in protective custody'"

yeah with tuk tuk and news paper man wit raving hungover and sudden memory loss and need to vipe all hes internet accounts.

There you go again: you spell most of the big words correctly, and misspell the itty bitty little words. If you want people to give any credence to your posts, you've got to try and drop the baby language. What is the verb 'vipe'? Is that something a viper snake does?

[StealthEnergiser]

@JD,

You have been online without a break for 2 months now bashing anyone who questions whether the 2 Burmese boys are the murderers.

You have stated repeatedly that you are of the belief that they are the guilty ones.

From what you have said, you believe this mainly because they have confessed to the crimes.

I have asked you several times ..... however, you plainly could not be bothered to explain why you believe this so fervently. You have invested a great deal of your life to this cause yet you don't really seem very interested in the Burmese boys at all.

Over a thousand posts now ..... all in favour of the Burmese guilt ... yet only 2 lines explaining why you feel this so strongly.

May I suggest that you NEED the boys to be guilty for the simple logic that if they are the murderers - then other people can not be?

No.... I'm sure that would be a bad suggestion............

With that many posts and a one eyed attitude it looks very very suspicious that he may be covering for someone or protecting something like his visa almost 24 hours a day on this topic i think he needs to have a good hard look to himself at try to realise these victims parents are suffering and want the truth when people like him seem to be very obstructing things to stop the real truth from coming out maybe they need investigating also.

Edited November 28, 2014 by StealthEnergiser