Family of Brits murdered in Thailand say evidence convincing

[catsanddogs]

Slight track change.................wasn't there a football match on the Island the day before the murders................who was wearing the red No 9 shirt..........

Interesting., can you give more information

where do they play?

are they supported by a bar?

Do they have a meeting point?

Do they have a website?

RTP obviously didn't think he was important in any way I would guess. He was probably Thai, so not worth pursuing or questioning.

[boomerangutang]

I'm not shielding anyone, I'm asking you to produce the evidence that you claim exists that places Nomsod at the crime scene and him as the murderer. If anything, by not showing that evidence, it is YOU who is protecting him by not doing so.

ok, I'll take the bait. I should quit writing for awhile, as I've already posted so often on this topic. Re; Nomsod and his buddies who I think were likely at the scene and perpetrators of the crime. You've seen what I think, and I've been quite specific. It's your choice whether you want to go with it or not. You've chosen not to. Ok, so be it.

Let's see what the trial reveals. It's the arm-in-arm force of the military government + RTP + millionaire headman + his cop friends and family, all standing in a monolith ......against two small Burmese guys who, thankfully, have some legal counsel, .....which they didn't have when compelled to sign confessions which they couldn't read.

The prosecution has been amassing 'evidence' (is it contrived? It's mainly up to the judge to decide). Is the judge objective and fair-minded and not beholden to the combined force of the military, politicians & police? Doubtful, but again, it's each individual observers' choice to decide for him or herself. That evidence is kept secret from the defense, until it's sprung upon them. More deception, built in to the justice system.

"I think" it's not evidence, you said there is evidence of Nomsod being being linked to the crime, show the evidence.

Two innocent lives are at stake and a murderer on the loose (according to you), yet you don't produce the evidence that would set things right? What kind of person are you?

When you're completely bereft of intelligent items to add to the discussion, you try picking on grammar. The phrase, "I think" is commonly used within the English language, when discussing ideas. You keep asking the same question, and you get varied/multiple answers. You obviously don't like the answers, and it's just as obvious why: You're shielding the headman's people, as are a couple of other posters on this blog. You don't agree with my reasons why Nomsod and Mon should still be prime suspects. Ok, we get it. To repeatedly ask the same question, is bordering on harassment.

You keep asking about evidence. Evidence doesn't have to be 100% ironclad to be presented within the course of a discussion. That's why I gentlemanly may preface a statement with, "think...." instead of stating something as ironclad fact. The only people who know for sure what happened that night are the perpetrators and perhaps whomever they spoke to about it. The truth was the 3rd victim that night, and every day since.

[Digitalnomade]

so they are going to accuse 2 guys and the defense will show that everything they will present is just laughable.

these 2 guys should be better free before the entire world laugh at Thailand.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Digitalnomade

[jabis]

So thick - re-read the quotes please.

I asked for an explanation, not insults, how does "planting" the victim's own stained pants in his luggage work in framing someone? Honesty, how do you think that would play out in court?

-Your honor, I present Exhibit A, this pants are covered in stains... ketchup, apparently; they belonged to the victim and were found inside his luggage (crooked cop chokes up laughter in the back), I present this as indisputable proof that the accused brutally murdered the victim and his companion!

Judge- The <deleted>*k's wrong with you?

"Police said they also found a pair of Chris’s blood-stained trousers in David’s luggage as well as an iPhone with long blonde hairs snagged on it."

Implying Mr.Ware is guilty of the actions and based on at that time unprocessed pants, believed to be bloody, by the first crew that came "processing" the scene - also who STASHED the "evidence" (only to be dismissed at much later time) RE As for the pair of stained pants found in Miller's luggage, the general admitted that the substance found on the clothing was not blood and that they belonged to Miller and the pair had been put in the victim's luggage by the first group of police officers.

When the gay-jealousy conspiracy was blown out of the water.

EDIT: PS. your epic double facepalm did not imply you wanting any explanations - just you trying to deflect the issues presented at you.

Edited December 10, 2014 by jabis

[BoristheBlade]

That's a very interesting point.

Do the AC bar have a football team?

There was a football tournament on Koh Tao that day, the papers made reference to it. Early in the investigation a team from Koh Samui were under suspicion. I believe they were having drinks in the AC Bar.

Who was/is No9 ? Have the RTP made any effort to identify No9? if not, why not? He shook the hand of David shortly before he was murdered.

No9 has a very distinctive walk, similar to the security cctv video shorty after the murders had been carried out released by the RTP. Are they the same person?

No9 make yourself known!

Slight track change.................wasn't there a football match on the Island the day before the murders................who was wearing the red No 9 shirt..........

Interesting., can you give more information
where do they play?
are they supported by a bar?
Do they have a meeting point?
Do they have a website?

Edited December 10, 2014 by BoristheBlade

[AleG]

I'm not shielding anyone, I'm asking you to produce the evidence that you claim exists that places Nomsod at the crime scene and him as the murderer. If anything, by not showing that evidence, it is YOU who is protecting him by not doing so.

ok, I'll take the bait. I should quit writing for awhile, as I've already posted so often on this topic. Re; Nomsod and his buddies who I think were likely at the scene and perpetrators of the crime. You've seen what I think, and I've been quite specific. It's your choice whether you want to go with it or not. You've chosen not to. Ok, so be it.

Let's see what the trial reveals. It's the arm-in-arm force of the military government + RTP + millionaire headman + his cop friends and family, all standing in a monolith ......against two small Burmese guys who, thankfully, have some legal counsel, .....which they didn't have when compelled to sign confessions which they couldn't read.

The prosecution has been amassing 'evidence' (is it contrived? It's mainly up to the judge to decide). Is the judge objective and fair-minded and not beholden to the combined force of the military, politicians & police? Doubtful, but again, it's each individual observers' choice to decide for him or herself. That evidence is kept secret from the defense, until it's sprung upon them. More deception, built in to the justice system.

"I think" it's not evidence, you said there is evidence of Nomsod being being linked to the crime, show the evidence.

Two innocent lives are at stake and a murderer on the loose (according to you), yet you don't produce the evidence that would set things right? What kind of person are you?

When you're completely bereft of intelligent items to add to the discussion, you try picking on grammar. The phrase, "I think" is commonly used within the English language, when discussing ideas. You keep asking the same question, and you get varied/multiple answers. You obviously don't like the answers, and it's just as obvious why: You're shielding the headman's people, as are a couple of other posters on this blog. You don't agree with my reasons why Nomsod and Mon should still be prime suspects. Ok, we get it. To repeatedly ask the same question, is bordering on harassment.

You keep asking about evidence. Evidence doesn't have to be 100% ironclad to be presented within the course of a discussion. That's why I gentlemanly may preface a statement with, "think...." instead of stating something as ironclad fact. The only people who know for sure what happened that night are the perpetrators and perhaps whomever they spoke to about it. The truth was the 3rd victim that night, and every day since.

"There is a lot of evidence that there are others involved in the crime."

Do you recognize that?

No "I think there is a lot"... "There is.."

I asked you, repeatedly, to show me that evidence, not speculation, not "some people believe", absence of evidence presented as evidence, actual evidence. You failed, repeatedly.

"To repeatedly ask the same question, is bordering on harassment."

To repeatedly accuse someone of murder with no evidence to back it up is something a bit worse than harassment, so don't pontificate.

In any case, you want to shut me up, show the evidence you say you think there is.

"You're shielding the headman's people, as are a couple of other posters on this blog."

You think I'm shielding the headman's people, you are wrong on this, and what happened with your gentlemanly attitude to make that accusation?

[Exsexyman]

I'll let others judge your behaviour after the post in question. It is clear that you are still promoting conspiracy theories, to me at least.

Strangely, I don't care at all about my credibility in your eyes

Yes I have friends on the island. Most divers who have lived in Thailand as long as I have also have friends there.

A few posts ago another conspiracy theorist also mentioned having friends on the island.

I think it is a bit rich thailandchilli going on about his integrity. Wasn't it him who posted a link to a story in the Daily Telegraph about two girls who were allegedly mugged on Koh Tao by a motorcycle gang a few days before the killings? Didn't he breathlessly inform us all that the two girls had been "Raped" and left on the beach? Even though the word "Raped" was never used in the article, there was no rape, it was an 'Alleged mugging'. Reading his posts he is clearly not dyslexic so he wouldn't have read the words 'Allegedly Mugged' as 'Raped'. It was clearly a lie, in an attempt to give some credence to his theories, and agitate the rest of the conspiracy theorists. An eagle eyed mod was on the ball and pointed out his 'Mistake' He ended the post by saying, "keep away from murder island' Very dramatic! Of course the Daily Telegraph is a pay per view site, i suspect he was banking on few, if any, posters reading it.

[AleG]

So thick - re-read the quotes please.

I asked for an explanation, not insults, how does "planting" the victim's own stained pants in his luggage work in framing someone? Honesty, how do you think that would play out in court?

-Your honor, I present Exhibit A, this pants are covered in stains... ketchup, apparently; they belonged to the victim and were found inside his luggage (crooked cop chokes up laughter in the back), I present this as indisputable proof that the accused brutally murdered the victim and his companion!

Judge- The <deleted>*k's wrong with you?

"Police said they also found a pair of Chris’s blood-stained trousers in David’s luggage as well as an iPhone with long blonde hairs snagged on it."

Implying Mr.Ware is guilty of the actions and based on at that time unprocessed pants, believed to be bloody, by the first crew that came "processing" the scene - also who STASHED the "evidence" (only to be dismissed at much later time) RE As for the pair of stained pants found in Miller's luggage, the general admitted that the substance found on the clothing was not blood and that they belonged to Miller and the pair had been put in the victim's luggage by the first group of police officers.

When the gay-jealousy conspiracy was blown out of the water.

EDIT: PS. your epic double facepalm did not imply you wanting any explanations - just you trying to deflect the issues presented at you.

OK, once more... how does "planting" the victim's own stained pants in his luggage work in framing someone?

Because if that is the standard of evidence to convict someone of murder they could have used the victim's dirty underwear as a proof, or his toothbrush, or anything else. The pants are not connected to the alleged suspect, they are not connected to the crime scene, they are nothing else than a pair of stained pants in the victims luggage, how would that "planted evidence" point at the suspect's involvement??? They may just as well planted a coconut in the luggage and called it the smoking gun for the case.

That some police officer spun some ridiculous theory early in the investigation doesn't change a thing, if you are going to plant damning evidence it's not going to be a pair of dirty pants with no connection whatsoever between the victim, the crime scene and the suspect.

[Willy Eckerslike]

That's a very interesting point.

Do the AC bar have a football team?

There was a football tournament on Koh Tao that day, the papers made reference to it. Early in the investigation a team from Koh Samui were under suspicion. I believe they were having drinks in the AC Bar.

Who was/is No9 ? Have the RTP made any effort to identify No9? if not, why not? He shook the hand of David shortly before he was murdered.

No9 has a very distinctive walk, similar to the security cctv video shorty after the murders had been carried out released by the RTP. Are they the same person?

No9 make yourself known!

Slight track change.................wasn't there a football match on the Island the day before the murders................who was wearing the red No 9 shirt..........

Interesting., can you give more information

where do they play?

are they supported by a bar?

Do they have a meeting point?

Do they have a website?

Koh Tao murders: Influential island figure vows to clear his son's name

Video of No 9 https://www.youtube....h?v=H-JlmE4GjaM

EDIT, first link is the thread second is the video

Edited December 10, 2014 by Willy Eckerslike

[uty6543]

That's a very interesting point.

Do the AC bar have a football team?

There was a football tournament on Koh Tao that day, the papers made reference to it. Early in the investigation a team from Koh Samui were under suspicion. I believe they were having drinks in the AC Bar.

Who was/is No9 ? Have the RTP made any effort to identify No9? if not, why not? He shook the hand of David shortly before he was murdered.

No9 has a very distinctive walk, similar to the security cctv video shorty after the murders had been carried out released by the RTP. Are they the same person?

No9 make yourself known!

Slight track change.................wasn't there a football match on the Island the day before the murders................who was wearing the red No 9 shirt..........

Interesting., can you give more information

where do they play?

are they supported by a bar?

Do they have a meeting point?

Do they have a website?

heres a link I find interesting from the telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11122966/Police-quiz-Thai-footballers-over-murder-of-British-backpackers.html

This line would seem to suggest that the police are trying to hide something especially if it turns out that Nomsod wore the No9 shirt Sept 14th

Many locals have been perplexed by the police's apparent failure to investigate the players' party or even mention this line of inquiry, the source added.

[thailandchilli]

I'll let others judge your behaviour after the post in question. It is clear that you are still promoting conspiracy theories, to me at least.

Strangely, I don't care at all about my credibility in your eyes

Yes I have friends on the island. Most divers who have lived in Thailand as long as I have also have friends there.

A few posts ago another conspiracy theorist also mentioned having friends on the island.

I think it is a bit rich thailandchilli going on about his integrity. Wasn't it him who posted a link to a story in the Daily Telegraph about two girls who were allegedly mugged on Koh Tao by a motorcycle gang a few days before the killings? Didn't he breathlessly inform us all that the two girls had been "Raped" and left on the beach? Even though the word "Raped" was never used in the article, there was no rape, it was an 'Alleged mugging'. Reading his posts he is clearly not dyslexic so he wouldn't have read the words 'Allegedly Mugged' as 'Raped'. It was clearly a lie, in an attempt to give some credence to his theories, and agitate the rest of the conspiracy theorists. An eagle eyed mod was on the ball and pointed out his 'Mistake' He ended the post by saying, "keep away from murder island' Very dramatic! Of course the Daily Telegraph is a pay per view site, i suspect he was banking on few, if any, posters reading it.

Didn't I also apologize for making that mistake in my next post...........mistakes obviously affect integrity for you do they? Hope you don't make too many more then. Perhaps you should have read my apology just a couple of posts down

> EDIT but thank you for reminding me of the fact that on the night before the horrific murders of Hannah and David at the same spot on the beach, 2 girls from the UK were mugged by a motor bike gang of 4, I sincerely hope they have been questioned about these murders http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11112016/British-girls-mugged-by-Thai-motorbike-gang-in-the-same-spot-backpackers-were-murdered.html very coincidental

Edited December 10, 2014 by thailandchilli

[Fat Haggis]

How could he have been playing football in Koh Tao if Athos, porthos and Aramis all said he was in Bangkok walking through empty halls?

[jabis]

So thick - re-read the quotes please.

I asked for an explanation, not insults, how does "planting" the victim's own stained pants in his luggage work in framing someone? Honesty, how do you think that would play out in court?

-Your honor, I present Exhibit A, this pants are covered in stains... ketchup, apparently; they belonged to the victim and were found inside his luggage (crooked cop chokes up laughter in the back), I present this as indisputable proof that the accused brutally murdered the victim and his companion!

Judge- The <deleted>*k's wrong with you?

"Police said they also found a pair of Chris’s blood-stained trousers in David’s luggage as well as an iPhone with long blonde hairs snagged on it."

Implying Mr.Ware is guilty of the actions and based on at that time unprocessed pants, believed to be bloody, by the first crew that came "processing" the scene - also who STASHED the "evidence" (only to be dismissed at much later time) RE As for the pair of stained pants found in Miller's luggage, the general admitted that the substance found on the clothing was not blood and that they belonged to Miller and the pair had been put in the victim's luggage by the first group of police officers.

When the gay-jealousy conspiracy was blown out of the water.

EDIT: PS. your epic double facepalm did not imply you wanting any explanations - just you trying to deflect the issues presented at you.

OK, once more... how does "planting" the victim's own stained pants in his luggage work in framing someone?

Because if that is the standard of evidence to convict someone of murder they could have used the victim's dirty underwear as a proof, or his toothbrush, or anything else. The pants are not connected to the alleged suspect, they are not connected to the crime scene, they are nothing else than a pair of stained pants in the victims luggage, how would that "planted evidence" point at the suspect's involvement??? They may just as well planted a coconut in the luggage and called it the smoking gun for the case.

That some police officer spun some ridiculous theory early in the investigation doesn't change a thing, if you are going to plant damning evidence it's not going to be a pair of dirty pants with no connection whatsoever between the victim, the crime scene and the suspect.

So you're intentiously being thick now, duly noted. The initial accusation was the bloody pants were Mr.Ware's: fact -> got planted as evidence to support the allegation: fact ->got dismissed:fact - WHY: because a) WRONG owner, NO blood, c) ASIaN DNA, d) Met Pol to take over investigation. Clinging to the word victim word doesn't help much in this context, as the victim would've been Mr.Ware, should no outcry for justice happened originally. It would've been over really soon, with a clause of gay jealousy, should people from social media have not picked the flaws up really fast, starting with the RTP guy posting the obscene photos to internet. Oh well - you go on living in your bubble, this is the last post I'l address to you, because it seems to be totally pointless.

[Exsexyman]

I'll let others judge your behaviour after the post in question. It is clear that you are still promoting conspiracy theories, to me at least.

Strangely, I don't care at all about my credibility in your eyes

Yes I have friends on the island. Most divers who have lived in Thailand as long as I have also have friends there.

A few posts ago another conspiracy theorist also mentioned having friends on the island.

I think it is a bit rich thailandchilli going on about his integrity. Wasn't it him who posted a link to a story in the Daily Telegraph about two girls who were allegedly mugged on Koh Tao by a motorcycle gang a few days before the killings? Didn't he breathlessly inform us all that the two girls had been "Raped" and left on the beach? Even though the word "Raped" was never used in the article, there was no rape, it was an 'Alleged mugging'. Reading his posts he is clearly not dyslexic so he wouldn't have read the words 'Allegedly Mugged' as 'Raped'. It was clearly a lie, in an attempt to give some credence to his theories, and agitate the rest of the conspiracy theorists. An eagle eyed mod was on the ball and pointed out his 'Mistake' He ended the post by saying, "keep away from murder island' Very dramatic! Of course the Daily Telegraph is a pay per view site, i suspect he was banking on few, if any, posters reading it.

Didn't I also apologize for making that mistake in my next post...........mistakes obviously affect integrity for you do they? Hope you don't make too many more then. Perhaps you should have read my apology just a couple of posts down

Yes i did read your apology, after getting caught out by the moderator you clearly had no choice. But it still doesn't explain how you made such a mistake does it. Are you dyslexic? If not how could anyone possibly read the words 'Allegedly mugged' as 'Raped'. Obviously just a coincidence that the 'mistake' of posting the falsehood that two girls were raped when they weren't, conveniently gave credence to your 'theories'! Presumably you read the Telegraph link before posting it? Yet you chose to use the word 'Raped' when the word never appeared in the article. People are not stupid, just admit you tried it on and got caught out.

[uty6543]

How could he have been playing football in Koh Tao if Athos, porthos and Aramis all said he was in Bangkok walking through empty halls?

Your not keeping up with the current news

Ebola cure developed in Thailand

Tour de france will be held in Thailand 2015

And the first time machine used in Thailand sept 15th

[AleG]

OK, once more... how does "planting" the victim's own stained pants in his luggage work in framing someone?

Because if that is the standard of evidence to convict someone of murder they could have used the victim's dirty underwear as a proof, or his toothbrush, or anything else. The pants are not connected to the alleged suspect, they are not connected to the crime scene, they are nothing else than a pair of stained pants in the victims luggage, how would that "planted evidence" point at the suspect's involvement??? They may just as well planted a coconut in the luggage and called it the smoking gun for the case.

That some police officer spun some ridiculous theory early in the investigation doesn't change a thing, if you are going to plant damning evidence it's not going to be a pair of dirty pants with no connection whatsoever between the victim, the crime scene and the suspect.

So you're intentiously being thick now, duly noted. The initial accusation was the bloody pants were Mr.Ware's: fact -> got planted as evidence to support the allegation: fact ->got dismissed:fact - WHY: because a) WRONG owner, NO blood, c) ASIaN DNA, d) Met Pol to take over investigation. Clinging to the word victim word doesn't help much in this context, as the victim would've been Mr.Ware, should no outcry for justice happened originally. It would've been over really soon, with a clause of gay jealousy, should people from social media have not picked the flaws up really fast, starting with the RTP guy posting the obscene photos to internet. Oh well - you go on living in your bubble, this is the last post I'l address to you, because it seems to be totally pointless.

Sweet mother of mercy...

The bloody pants were not bloody pants, so scratch that, they were not Ware's pants, so scratch that one too, they were not planted as evidence, that IS NOT A FACT THAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATEMENT THAT THE FIRST INVESTIGATION TEAM PUT THEM IN THE LUGGAGE, they investigated the room, they thought they were Ware's, they weren't they put them back with Miller's belongings is that a less likely scenario than an idiotic, guaranteed to fail framing operation? The "Met Pol" didn't take over the investigation at any point, you are arguing with bogus "facts".

So then what, they dropped the framing operation because the other framing operation was contradicting the first one? They got scared that their cunning plan of planting the victim's own dirty pants in his own luggage (now isn't that suspicious!? His own pants! in his luggage! dirty!!!) because the meddling social media showed up in the Mistery Machine?

[thailandchilli]

I'll let others judge your behaviour after the post in question. It is clear that you are still promoting conspiracy theories, to me at least.

Strangely, I don't care at all about my credibility in your eyes

Yes I have friends on the island. Most divers who have lived in Thailand as long as I have also have friends there.

A few posts ago another conspiracy theorist also mentioned having friends on the island.

I think it is a bit rich thailandchilli going on about his integrity. Wasn't it him who posted a link to a story in the Daily Telegraph about two girls who were allegedly mugged on Koh Tao by a motorcycle gang a few days before the killings? Didn't he breathlessly inform us all that the two girls had been "Raped" and left on the beach? Even though the word "Raped" was never used in the article, there was no rape, it was an 'Alleged mugging'. Reading his posts he is clearly not dyslexic so he wouldn't have read the words 'Allegedly Mugged' as 'Raped'. It was clearly a lie, in an attempt to give some credence to his theories, and agitate the rest of the conspiracy theorists. An eagle eyed mod was on the ball and pointed out his 'Mistake' He ended the post by saying, "keep away from murder island' Very dramatic! Of course the Daily Telegraph is a pay per view site, i suspect he was banking on few, if any, posters reading it.

Didn't I also apologize for making that mistake in my next post...........mistakes obviously affect integrity for you do they? Hope you don't make too many more then. Perhaps you should have read my apology just a couple of posts down

Yes i did read your apology, after getting caught out by the moderator you clearly had no choice. But it still doesn't explain how you made such a mistake does it. Are you dyslexic? If not how could anyone possibly read the words 'Allegedly mugged' as 'Raped'. Obviously just a coincidence that the 'mistake' of posting the falsehood that two girls were raped when they weren't, conveniently gave credence to your 'theories'! Presumably you read the Telegraph link before posting it? Yet you chose to use the word 'Raped' when the word never appeared in the article. People are not stupid, just admit you tried it on and got caught out.

Simple really when you are involved in these threads and the emotions of the rape and murder can take over and this is prevalent in you mind, at least it is in mine..............thats the reason, do you really think I would find a link that has never been seen posted before on TV on such an important issue and then lie direclty about it knowing that people were going to read it immediately? But you believe what you want, anyway unfortunately you missed my EDIT as I did it after you replied, so here it is again just for you: thank you for reminding me of the fact that on the night before the horrific murders of Hannah and David at the same spot on the beach, 2 girls from the UK were mugged by a motor bike gang of 4, I sincerely hope they have been questioned about these murders http://www.telegraph...e-murdered.html very coincidental

British girls mugged by Thai motorbike gang in the same spot backpackers were murdered. Police on Koh Tao investigate reports of mugging the night before the murder as the family of Hannah Witheridge return home to the UK with her body

[Willy Eckerslike]

OK, once more... how does "planting" the victim's own stained pants in his luggage work in framing someone?

Because if that is the standard of evidence to convict someone of murder they could have used the victim's dirty underwear as a proof, or his toothbrush, or anything else. The pants are not connected to the alleged suspect, they are not connected to the crime scene, they are nothing else than a pair of stained pants in the victims luggage, how would that "planted evidence" point at the suspect's involvement??? They may just as well planted a coconut in the luggage and called it the smoking gun for the case.

That some police officer spun some ridiculous theory early in the investigation doesn't change a thing, if you are going to plant damning evidence it's not going to be a pair of dirty pants with no connection whatsoever between the victim, the crime scene and the suspect.

So you're intentiously being thick now, duly noted. The initial accusation was the bloody pants were Mr.Ware's: fact -> got planted as evidence to support the allegation: fact ->got dismissed:fact - WHY: because a) WRONG owner, NO blood, c) ASIaN DNA, d) Met Pol to take over investigation. Clinging to the word victim word doesn't help much in this context, as the victim would've been Mr.Ware, should no outcry for justice happened originally. It would've been over really soon, with a clause of gay jealousy, should people from social media have not picked the flaws up really fast, starting with the RTP guy posting the obscene photos to internet. Oh well - you go on living in your bubble, this is the last post I'l address to you, because it seems to be totally pointless.

Sweet mother of mercy...

The bloody pants were not bloody pants, so scratch that, they were not Ware's pants, so scratch that one too, they were not planted as evidence, that IS NOT A FACT THAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATEMENT THAT THE FIRST INVESTIGATION TEAM PUT THEM IN THE LUGGAGE, they investigated the room, they thought they were Ware's, they weren't they put them back with Miller's belongings is that a less likely scenario than an idiotic, guaranteed to fail framing operation? The "Met Pol" didn't take over the investigation at any point, you are arguing with bogus "facts".

So then what, they dropped the framing operation because the other framing operation was contradicting the first one? They got scared that their cunning plan of planting the victim's own dirty pants in his own luggage (now isn't that suspicious!? His own pants! in his luggage! dirty!!!) because the meddling social media showed up in the Mistery Machine?

The theme tune to Frozen comes to mind............

[AleG]

So you're intentiously being thick now, duly noted. The initial accusation was the bloody pants were Mr.Ware's: fact -> got planted as evidence to support the allegation: fact ->got dismissed:fact - WHY: because a) WRONG owner, NO blood, c) ASIaN DNA, d) Met Pol to take over investigation. Clinging to the word victim word doesn't help much in this context, as the victim would've been Mr.Ware, should no outcry for justice happened originally. It would've been over really soon, with a clause of gay jealousy, should people from social media have not picked the flaws up really fast, starting with the RTP guy posting the obscene photos to internet. Oh well - you go on living in your bubble, this is the last post I'l address to you, because it seems to be totally pointless.

Sweet mother of mercy...

The bloody pants were not bloody pants, so scratch that, they were not Ware's pants, so scratch that one too, they were not planted as evidence, that IS NOT A FACT THAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATEMENT THAT THE FIRST INVESTIGATION TEAM PUT THEM IN THE LUGGAGE, they investigated the room, they thought they were Ware's, they weren't they put them back with Miller's belongings is that a less likely scenario than an idiotic, guaranteed to fail framing operation? The "Met Pol" didn't take over the investigation at any point, you are arguing with bogus "facts".

So then what, they dropped the framing operation because the other framing operation was contradicting the first one? They got scared that their cunning plan of planting the victim's own dirty pants in his own luggage (now isn't that suspicious!? His own pants! in his luggage! dirty!!!) because the meddling social media showed up in the Mistery Machine?

The theme tune to Frozen comes to mind............

Paraphrasing Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of bullshit is that good men say nothing

[Willy Eckerslike]

So you're intentiously being thick now, duly noted. The initial accusation was the bloody pants were Mr.Ware's: fact -> got planted as evidence to support the allegation: fact ->got dismissed:fact - WHY: because a) WRONG owner, NO blood, c) ASIaN DNA, d) Met Pol to take over investigation. Clinging to the word victim word doesn't help much in this context, as the victim would've been Mr.Ware, should no outcry for justice happened originally. It would've been over really soon, with a clause of gay jealousy, should people from social media have not picked the flaws up really fast, starting with the RTP guy posting the obscene photos to internet. Oh well - you go on living in your bubble, this is the last post I'l address to you, because it seems to be totally pointless.

Sweet mother of mercy...

The bloody pants were not bloody pants, so scratch that, they were not Ware's pants, so scratch that one too, they were not planted as evidence, that IS NOT A FACT THAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATEMENT THAT THE FIRST INVESTIGATION TEAM PUT THEM IN THE LUGGAGE, they investigated the room, they thought they were Ware's, they weren't they put them back with Miller's belongings is that a less likely scenario than an idiotic, guaranteed to fail framing operation? The "Met Pol" didn't take over the investigation at any point, you are arguing with bogus "facts".

So then what, they dropped the framing operation because the other framing operation was contradicting the first one? They got scared that their cunning plan of planting the victim's own dirty pants in his own luggage (now isn't that suspicious!? His own pants! in his luggage! dirty!!!) because the meddling social media showed up in the Mistery Machine?

The theme tune to Frozen comes to mind............

Paraphrasing Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of bullshit is that good men say nothing

I Prefer the original ..............."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke).

[jabis]

So you're intentiously being thick now, duly noted. The initial accusation was the bloody pants were Mr.Ware's: fact -> got planted as evidence to support the allegation: fact ->got dismissed:fact - WHY: because a) WRONG owner, NO blood, c) ASIaN DNA, d) Met Pol to take over investigation. Clinging to the word victim word doesn't help much in this context, as the victim would've been Mr.Ware, should no outcry for justice happened originally. It would've been over really soon, with a clause of gay jealousy, should people from social media have not picked the flaws up really fast, starting with the RTP guy posting the obscene photos to internet. Oh well - you go on living in your bubble, this is the last post I'l address to you, because it seems to be totally pointless.

Sweet mother of mercy...

The bloody pants were not bloody pants, so scratch that, they were not Ware's pants, so scratch that one too, they were not planted as evidence, that IS NOT A FACT THAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATEMENT THAT THE FIRST INVESTIGATION TEAM PUT THEM IN THE LUGGAGE, they investigated the room, they thought they were Ware's, they weren't they put them back with Miller's belongings is that a less likely scenario than an idiotic, guaranteed to fail framing operation? The "Met Pol" didn't take over the investigation at any point, you are arguing with bogus "facts".

So then what, they dropped the framing operation because the other framing operation was contradicting the first one? They got scared that their cunning plan of planting the victim's own dirty pants in his own luggage (now isn't that suspicious!? His own pants! in his luggage! dirty!!!) because the meddling social media showed up in the Mistery Machine?

The theme tune to Frozen comes to mind............

Paraphrasing Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of bullshit is that good men say nothing

Ok, one round more, as you seem so adamant to pursue this 'flawless' investigation;

Why would one 'scratch' any bit of the whole investigation leading up to this moment, especially one that was deemed flawed by the superiors who were investigating it in the first place?

The Bangkok metropolitan police (Met Pol) came to lead the investigation, sorry for their buddies in Koh Tao at that point, under the command of (at the time) Pol Lt-Gen. Panya Mamen.

How can you contest that fact? Or that the HEAD OF INVESTIGATION stated that the gay jealousy drama was bullshit even when they tried to pin the shit on Mr.Ware twice? Both the shorts and the cell phone with white hair was buried as evidence, as well as the linear 'only farang to blame'-mentality, just upon the Metropolitan coppers arrived to head the investigation - it was bye bye the 8th region police commander with his local coppers and in with the met pol - and that line of inquiry lasted for a whole of 2 weeks, before the major reshuffle of police posts, which included Panya Mamen's promotion to Pol Assistant Commissioner General...

Do you think the local dept were awaiting for a shitstorm that would include the head of state, when they thought it would be good to pin 'a gay farang' to get it over and done with? I guess not. So in that light what happened a day or two days after the crime, when it could've been manageable to pin Mr.Ware up for the shit for easy (were there not the same dillwits to post images of a contaminated crime scene), gives the shit to fan ratio quite a high score, but sure - no reason to doubt such an obvious move would have been played, especially when 'no Thai could do this', and 5000 illegal immigrants + several thousand farangs on the island to pin the blame without flinching an eyelid.

Hope you sleep your nights well.

[AleG]

Paraphrasing Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of bullshit is that good men say nothing

Ok, one round more, as you seem so adamant to pursue this 'flawless' investigation;

Why would one 'scratch' any bit of the whole investigation leading up to this moment, especially one that was deemed flawed by the superiors who were investigating it in the first place?

The Bangkok metropolitan police (Met Pol) came to lead the investigation, sorry for their buddies in Koh Tao at that point, under the command of (at the time) Pol Lt-Gen. Panya Mamen.

How can you contest that fact? Or that the HEAD OF INVESTIGATION stated that the gay jealousy drama was bullshit even when they tried to pin the shit on Mr.Ware twice? Both the shorts and the cell phone with white hair was buried as evidence, as well as the linear 'only farang to blame'-mentality, just upon the Metropolitan coppers arrived to head the investigation - it was bye bye the 8th region police commander with his local coppers and in with the met pol - and that line of inquiry lasted for a whole of 2 weeks, before the major reshuffle of police posts, which included Panya Mamen's promotion to Pol Assistant Commissioner General...

Do you think the local dept were awaiting for a shitstorm that would include the head of state, when they thought it would be good to pin 'a gay farang' to get it over and done with? I guess not. So in that light what happened a day or two days after the crime, when it could've been manageable to pin Mr.Ware up for the shit for easy (were there not the same dillwits to post images of a contaminated crime scene), gives the shit to fan ratio quite a high score, but sure - no reason to doubt such an obvious move would have been played, especially when 'no Thai could do this', and 5000 illegal immigrants + several thousand farangs on the island to pin the blame without flinching an eyelid.

Hope you sleep your nights well.

Oh, you meant the Bangkok Metropolitan Police... sorry, my bad, I thought you meant something else; is difficult to keep track off all the stuff thrown around here.

Nevertheless, your pants scenario is a no sale, as far as you went in your rationalization exercise, it depends on pure speculation and carries even less weight than the initial accusation against Ware, who was Miller's roommate and had injuries that gave rise to suspicions. if you are going to (rightly so) criticize the public* speculation from a police officer it hardly does you favour to engage in the same beheaviour yourself.

* That doesn't mean that Investigators should refrain from speculating, they must exhaust all leads until they find the good one, in private for the sake of the case.

[bander]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Any links to this FO statement?

No just the usual Thai propaganda to get tourist number rising again.

[berybert]

OK, once more... how does "planting" the victim's own stained pants in his luggage work in framing someone?

Because if that is the standard of evidence to convict someone of murder they could have used the victim's dirty underwear as a proof, or his toothbrush, or anything else. The pants are not connected to the alleged suspect, they are not connected to the crime scene, they are nothing else than a pair of stained pants in the victims luggage, how would that "planted evidence" point at the suspect's involvement??? They may just as well planted a coconut in the luggage and called it the smoking gun for the case.

That some police officer spun some ridiculous theory early in the investigation doesn't change a thing, if you are going to plant damning evidence it's not going to be a pair of dirty pants with no connection whatsoever between the victim, the crime scene and the suspect.

So you're intentiously being thick now, duly noted. The initial accusation was the bloody pants were Mr.Ware's: fact -> got planted as evidence to support the allegation: fact ->got dismissed:fact - WHY: because a) WRONG owner, NO blood, c) ASIaN DNA, d) Met Pol to take over investigation. Clinging to the word victim word doesn't help much in this context, as the victim would've been Mr.Ware, should no outcry for justice happened originally. It would've been over really soon, with a clause of gay jealousy, should people from social media have not picked the flaws up really fast, starting with the RTP guy posting the obscene photos to internet. Oh well - you go on living in your bubble, this is the last post I'l address to you, because it seems to be totally pointless.

Sweet mother of mercy...

The bloody pants were not bloody pants, so scratch that, they were not Ware's pants, so scratch that one too, they were not planted as evidence, that IS NOT A FACT THAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATEMENT THAT THE FIRST INVESTIGATION TEAM PUT THEM IN THE LUGGAGE, they investigated the room, they thought they were Ware's, they weren't they put them back with Miller's belongings is that a less likely scenario than an idiotic, guaranteed to fail framing operation? The "Met Pol" didn't take over the investigation at any point, you are arguing with bogus "facts".

So then what, they dropped the framing operation because the other framing operation was contradicting the first one? They got scared that their cunning plan of planting the victim's own dirty pants in his own luggage (now isn't that suspicious!? His own pants! in his luggage! dirty!!!) because the meddling social media showed up in the Mistery Machine?

Read this post 4 times now. Can anyone translate it into readable English.

Many thanks.

[berybert]

JTJ, JD and Ale bloke......................If this was your daughter and son taken out, would you be happy with stuff, would you tell UK police to mind their own business, would you be happy that stuff don't add up but be happy SOMEONE takes the can...???

'Ale' bloke. I like that. Maybe too much of it and that's why he/she has such seemingly unthinking opinions.

Very thoughtful commentary , unfortunately I don't drink alcohol so that makes you wrong too.

If anyone ever had a need to start drinking, you have provided it.

[berybert]

So thick - re-read the quotes please.

I asked for an explanation, not insults, how does "planting" the victim's own stained pants in his luggage work in framing someone? Honesty, how do you think that would play out in court?

-Your honor, I present Exhibit A, this pants are covered in stains... ketchup, apparently; they belonged to the victim and were found inside his luggage (crooked cop chokes up laughter in the back), I present this as indisputable proof that the accused brutally murdered the victim and his companion!

Judge- The <deleted>*k's wrong with you?

You asked for an explanation , not insults. Dear lord.

[AleG]

JTJ, JD and Ale bloke......................If this was your daughter and son taken out, would you be happy with stuff, would you tell UK police to mind their own business, would you be happy that stuff don't add up but be happy SOMEONE takes the can...???

'Ale' bloke. I like that. Maybe too much of it and that's why he/she has such seemingly unthinking opinions.

Very thoughtful commentary , unfortunately I don't drink alcohol so that makes you wrong too.

If anyone ever had a need to start drinking, you have provided it.

You know, if you are going write nonsense, keep it in one post, don't spread it into three.

Or maybe you are just looking to pad your posting numbers without actually going into the trouble of contributing anything to show for it?

In any case how about nipping at my ankles you square up and actually show you can contribute with anything of value?

[tingtongtourist]

Interesting how so many people jump to conclusions,

"Appears to be convincing" has a completely different connotation from "we are convinced"...

I would suggest that many posters study up on the subtleties of language...

This statement was written by professionals.

I agree about the subtleties of language

Quote:

"The evidence collected by the Royal Thai police will be presented at court and we hope the suspects are granted a fair and transparent trial. We are thankful of the over-sight of pressure groups such as Reprieve and Amnesty".

Quote:

"From what we have seen, the suspects have a difficult case to answer. The evidence against them appears to be powerful and convincing. They must respond to these charges, and their arguments must be considered with the same scrutiny as those of the prosecution.

I believe reading these two statements that the Millers might be under the impression that the suspects are innocent.................

im not great with English but yes i agree it does sound a bit of light language if it was to talk about someone guilty of killing your kid.

These poor people are probably still shocked with grief they dont know what to think anymore.

IMO, language that would fit the crime is along the lines of "hope they are proecuted to the full extent of the law" or such.

it doesnt sound like a shining endorsement of innocence either. I just think they worded it very well as not to go one way or other.

In any case they must be some very awesome people to be able to hold back hate for whatever animals did this.

[berybert]

If anyone ever had a need to start drinking, you have provided it.

Very thoughtful commentary , unfortunately I don't drink alcohol so that makes you wrong too.

You know, if you are going write nonsense, keep it in one post, don't spread it into three.

Or maybe you are just looking to pad your posting numbers without actually going into the trouble of contributing anything to show for it?

In any case how about nipping at my ankles you square up and actually show you can contribute with anything of value?

How about a deal ?. Once you stop following Mork and Mindy, I start trying to follow any of your nonsense in order.

Or else I could write over and over again 'wrong pants wrong bag' a la you to get my posting up.

[tingtongtourist]

@ JD and JTJ.

Before you get started today, please stop patronizing your fellow posters.

It is way too easy to dismiss us as "conspiracy theorists" or stupid children.

Yes a lot of theories have been aired here, some brilliant and some outright crazy, but I am sure within some of those posts, we will find the truth.

And we "on the other side" at least try to have an open mind. Illustrated by the fact, that we use words like maybe an if !

IMO the real conspiracy theorists here are the RTP apologists, who from day one have locked themselves into defend-RTP-mode. And no matter how good arguments against their POV have refused to move one millimeter.

That in my book is a true conspiracy theorist!!

Good point. At least some of the alleged CT'ists have given their ego a rest for long enough to consider the valid point of both sides.

But one side of argument, will not for a moment consider anything other than..well, what surely must be in their own interests.