Family of Brits murdered in Thailand say evidence convincing

[boomerangutang]

"Nothing to link (Nomsod) him to the crime" Correction: many things linking him to the crime.

Such as?

Come on, put up or shut up, what is the evidence linking him to the crime?

AleG, have you been reading posts? I know it's a lot of reading, and there are several threads. I have. You don't have to agree with me, but I and others have posted many things which address your Q. If a person doesn't want to agree, then so be it. It's easy to clench one's eyes closed and keep saying "No, No, a thousand times, No!"

Probably the #1 item which links Nomsod is the CCTV taken moments after the crime, which shows a tall, thin, man cradling his left arm, which many observers believe is Nomsod. There is the worse-than-soggy alibi. The change in his haircut (to try and distance himself from the video), the fact that he evaded police for a week while he knew he was wanted for questioning. He refused to get his DNA tested for weeks. The police named him as prime suspect up until the moment the replacement head cop was instated. There are a dozen large gaping gaps in leads that should have been pursued by cops but weren't for the following reasons:

>>> cops are inept and/or didn't think of it

>>> cops did take a glance, but decided it would implicate Nomsod, so they trashed it.

>>> cops were lied to, and decided, 'what the heck, mai pen rai. People are going to lie to save their skin, wadaryagonnadu?'

reason for edit: had to fix quotes, because software automatically screws up quotes

Edited December 9, 2014 by boomerangutang

[AleG]

"Nothing to link (Nomsod) him to the crime" Correction: many things linking him to the crime.

Such as?

Come on, put up or shut up, what is the evidence linking him to the crime?

AleG, have you been reading posts? I know it's a lot of reading, and there are several threads. I have. You don't have to agree with me, but I and others have posted many things which address your Q. If a person doesn't want to agree, then so be it. It's easy to clench one's eyes closed and keep saying "No, No, a thousand times, No!"

Probably the #1 item which links Nomsod is the CCTV taken moments after the crime, which shows a tall, thin, man cradling his left arm, which many observers believe is Nomsod. There is the worse-than-soggy alibi. The change in his haircut (to try and distance himself from the video), the fact that he evaded police for a week while he knew he was wanted for questioning. He refused to get his DNA tested for weeks. The police named him as prime suspect up until the moment the replacement head cop was instated. There are a dozen large gaping gaps in leads that should have been pursued by cops but weren't for the following reasons:

>>> cops are inept and/or didn't think of it

>>> cops did take a glance, but decided it would implicate Nomsod, so they trashed it.

>>> cops were lied to, and decided, 'what the heck, mai pen rai. People are going to lie to save their skin, wadryagonnadu?'

I said evidence that he committed the crime, do you know what evidence means?

You say there is evidence, you show none; opinion is not evidence, supposition is not evidence, allegations are not evidence, absence of evidence is not evidence.

And that video, I had to edit out my assessment of the mental capacity of the people that would take that video, this video, as proof of identity.

[berybert]

I agree with AleG with regard his last post, there is about as much evidence linking Nom to the crime as there is to the Burmese guys.

Sorry I have trouble saying the B2 because I find it a disgusting term.

[JohnThailandJohn]

And do not forget he (Nomsod) only gave the DNA sample after his father met privately with Pol Gen Somyot at the RTP office on the Tuesday at the Police chiefs invitation.....

Of course there had to be a meeting since Police were not requesting his DNA and this was done because of the social media detectives who were damaging his life without a shred of evidence or dignity to support there nonsense. Police did not want his DNA because they knew he was not on the island.

It's obvious that the Headman, his son, and Thai officials all knew 101% beforehand that the DNA would not match.

Of course they did. He knew cause he didn't do it, Thai officials knew because he wasn't on the island why they didn't check it before and only checked it at the families request to help with the damage the conspiracy folks were doing to his life regardless of any shred of evidence he was involved.

[JohnThailandJohn]

"Nothing to link (Nomsod) him to the crime" Correction: many things linking him to the crime.

Such as?

Come on, put up or shut up, what is the evidence linking him to the crime?

AleG, have you been reading posts? I know it's a lot of reading, and there are several threads. I have. You don't have to agree with me, but I and others have posted many things which address your Q. If a person doesn't want to agree, then so be it. It's easy to clench one's eyes closed and keep saying "No, No, a thousand times, No!"

Probably the #1 item which links Nomsod is the CCTV taken moments after the crime, which shows a tall, thin, man cradling his left arm, which many observers believe is Nomsod. There is the worse-than-soggy alibi. The change in his haircut (to try and distance himself from the video), the fact that he evaded police for a week while he knew he was wanted for questioning. He refused to get his DNA tested for weeks. The police named him as prime suspect up until the moment the replacement head cop was instated. There are a dozen large gaping gaps in leads that should have been pursued by cops but weren't for the following reasons:

>>> cops are inept and/or didn't think of it

>>> cops did take a glance, but decided it would implicate Nomsod, so they trashed it.

>>> cops were lied to, and decided, 'what the heck, mai pen rai. People are going to lie to save their skin, wadaryagonnadu?'

reason for edit: had to fix quotes, because software automatically screws up quotes

As stated NOTHING to link him to the crime and has been reported to you many times, the transfer was announced before the murders took place and happened exactly when it was announced it would before the murders ... also your time line is off. He was cleared before the transfer. He was only a prime suspect until they interviewed him as were there many prime suspects early on that were later cleared.

He was not captured on any video on the island at the time but was captured on video in Bangkok at the time as well as police investigating and determining he was in Bangkok at the time. DNA doesn't change in weeks so that is a mute point and complete speculation on your part that police ever asked him for DNA evidence but again even if they did and his lawyer advised him against it (as would be normal) his DNA was still checked (he volunteered) and submitted to three labs.

It is sad to see what your case is based on especially considering there are two people in custody whose DNA matches and two families who are confident about the evidence against them after speaking to UK Investigators who examined the evidence and case and looked into if there was a cover-up going on.

[JohnThailandJohn]

I agree with AleG with regard his last post, there is about as much evidence linking Nom to the crime as there is to the Burmese guys.

Sorry I have trouble saying the B2 because I find it a disgusting term.

Semen found in the victim fits only the Burmese - witness and video that puts them at the scene only fits Burmese. Acknowledging being at the scene only firs the Burmese.

There is NO EVIDENCE at all to link the university kid to the crime except speculation while ignore the evidence and statements which indicate he wasn't even on the island at the time.

[Jaiyen2]

I think I will wait until the British police release there finding, don't trust anything the thai police say or do.

[berybert]

I agree with AleG with regard his last post, there is about as much evidence linking Nom to the crime as there is to the Burmese guys.

Sorry I have trouble saying the B2 because I find it a disgusting term.

Semen found in the victim fits only the Burmese - witness and video that puts them at the scene only fits Burmese. Acknowledging being at the scene only firs the Burmese.

There is NO EVIDENCE at all to link the university kid to the crime except speculation while ignore the evidence and statements which indicate he wasn't even on the island at the time.

You ask people not to speculate then mention cctv of Burmese at the scene. Really ? I have seen cctv of the Burmese in a shop buying some booze, other than that nothing.

Witnesses of them at the scene ? Really. Do tell more.

As for this totally disgusting use of 'semem found in the victim' that you continue to use, total respect goes to you there with regards to not trying to upset the family. I bet they love hearing you use that term.

There is no prof anyone's semen was found in/on the victim. Which you will deny. then you will forget there was 3 sets of DNA found on the victim. Yet 1 lot is forgotten about. So for me that means forget one, the whole lot is a cop out.

Bit like the condom with DNA on the outside and none on the inside. If I was going to rape and then kill someone I'd want to have first bash rather than let my two minions have first go.

[JohnThailandJohn]

I agree with AleG with regard his last post, there is about as much evidence linking Nom to the crime as there is to the Burmese guys.

Sorry I have trouble saying the B2 because I find it a disgusting term.

Semen found in the victim fits only the Burmese - witness and video that puts them at the scene only fits Burmese. Acknowledging being at the scene only firs the Burmese.

There is NO EVIDENCE at all to link the university kid to the crime except speculation while ignore the evidence and statements which indicate he wasn't even on the island at the time.

You ask people not to speculate then mention cctv of Burmese at the scene. Really ? I have seen cctv of the Burmese in a shop buying some booze, other than that nothing.

Witnesses of them at the scene ? Really. Do tell more.

As for this totally disgusting use of 'semem found in the victim' that you continue to use, total respect goes to you there with regards to not trying to upset the family. I bet they love hearing you use that term.

There is no prof anyone's semen was found in/on the victim. Which you will deny. then you will forget there was 3 sets of DNA found on the victim. Yet 1 lot is forgotten about. So for me that means forget one, the whole lot is a cop out.

Bit like the condom with DNA on the outside and none on the inside. If I was going to rape and then kill someone I'd want to have first bash rather than let my two minions have first go.

My apologies, missuse of words. Should have said "around" the scene.

Never 3 sets of unidentified DNA in the victim -- was early reports of 3 people's DNA on the cigarettes near the scene that ended up also matching the Burmese. There was also a 3rd Burmese suspect who was with them prior to the rape, who is now a witness, and believe it is a safe bet to assume that he is the 3rd DNA.

What you would do in a gang rape, unless you are an expert on the matter, is irrelevant and speculative.

The two Burmese suspects Semen was found in the victim, if you don't believe this then you should not believe anything the police have said including 3 DNA being found instead of selectively believing things that have been clarified to speculate on completely unfounded theories.

[berybert]

I agree with AleG with regard his last post, there is about as much evidence linking Nom to the crime as there is to the Burmese guys.

Sorry I have trouble saying the B2 because I find it a disgusting term.

Semen found in the victim fits only the Burmese - witness and video that puts them at the scene only fits Burmese. Acknowledging being at the scene only firs the Burmese.

There is NO EVIDENCE at all to link the university kid to the crime except speculation while ignore the evidence and statements which indicate he wasn't even on the island at the time.

You ask people not to speculate then mention cctv of Burmese at the scene. Really ? I have seen cctv of the Burmese in a shop buying some booze, other than that nothing.

Witnesses of them at the scene ? Really. Do tell more.

As for this totally disgusting use of 'semem found in the victim' that you continue to use, total respect goes to you there with regards to not trying to upset the family. I bet they love hearing you use that term.

There is no prof anyone's semen was found in/on the victim. Which you will deny. then you will forget there was 3 sets of DNA found on the victim. Yet 1 lot is forgotten about. So for me that means forget one, the whole lot is a cop out.

Bit like the condom with DNA on the outside and none on the inside. If I was going to rape and then kill someone I'd want to have first bash rather than let my two minions have first go.

My apologies, missuse of words. Should have said "around" the scene.

Never 3 sets of unidentified DNA in the victim -- was early reports of 3 people's DNA on the cigarettes near the scene that ended up also matching the Burmese. There was also a 3rd Burmese suspect who was with them prior to the rape, who is now a witness, and believe it is a safe bet to assume that he is the 3rd DNA.

What you would do in a gang rape, unless you are an expert on the matter, is irrelevant and speculative.

The two Burmese suspects Semen was found in the victim, if you don't believe this then you should not believe anything the police have said including 3 DNA being found instead of selectively believing things that have been clarified to speculate on completely unfounded theories.

Ah ok,Yes you are right, I don't believe anything the police have said about this crime. And not sure if you are aware but the 3rd Burmese who DNA was on the cigarette butt is in fact favoring the Burmese as opposed the police. He is the guy who said he got home at 4am ish and found both guys in bed asleep which would have been about a minute after the crime was committed.

Not really sure there are any safe bets on this one. And best not to suggest it, your mate jd would call that a CT.

P.S. Nice side step on the condom.

[berybert]

Just out of interest, I have no knowledge of this crime other than what I have read. And I very much doubt you know anything more than I do.

So you like me like everybody else are just speculating. You have read there was sperm in the victim but you don't know. That is what you are choosing to believe.

I have read the only DNA was on a fag butt. I have read 1 hoe was used to kill both people yet only one of the dead peoples DNA was on the hoe.

I saw people being measured up against a foot print.. A foot print in the sand after the tide had ebbed and flowed.

Please tell me why I should believe all the police have written and forsake my soul and give my brain away ?

Hey just thought, also there where no finger prints on the hoe. You reckon maybe they put the condom over the handle to stop the finger prints ?

Edited December 9, 2014 by berybert

[berybert]

One last thing what do you think the chances are of the courts getting strangled up in BS then having to call their star witness .. Step forward Nomsod. who will say he was there and saw the whole thing happen.

TIT, it could well happen.

Edited December 9, 2014 by berybert

[JohnThailandJohn]

Just out of interest, I have no knowledge of this crime other than what I have read. And I very much doubt you know anything more than I do.

So you like me like everybody else are just speculating. You have read there was sperm in the victim but you don't know. That is what you are choosing to believe.

I have read the only DNA was on a fag butt. I have read 1 hoe was used to kill both people yet only one of the dead peoples DNA was on the hoe.

I saw people being measured up against a foot print.. A foot print in the sand after the tide had ebbed and flowed.

Please tell me why I should believe all the police have written and forsake my soul and give my brain away ?

Hey just thought, also there where no finger prints on the hoe. You reckon maybe they put the condom over the handle to stop the finger prints ?

Have you read the family statements? They have no ulterior motives and a GREAT deal more insight into the evidence and the validity of the case. Also, do you think if the UK police suspected a cover-up or the semen of the two suspects did't match that the families would have made such a statement?

[bruceybonus]

Just out of interest, I have no knowledge of this crime other than what I have read. And I very much doubt you know anything more than I do.

So you like me like everybody else are just speculating. You have read there was sperm in the victim but you don't know. That is what you are choosing to believe.

I have read the only DNA was on a fag butt. I have read 1 hoe was used to kill both people yet only one of the dead peoples DNA was on the hoe.

I saw people being measured up against a foot print.. A foot print in the sand after the tide had ebbed and flowed.

Please tell me why I should believe all the police have written and forsake my soul and give my brain away ?

Hey just thought, also there where no finger prints on the hoe. You reckon maybe they put the condom over the handle to stop the finger prints ?

Have you read the family statements? They have no ulterior motives and a GREAT deal more insight into the evidence and the validity of the case. Also, do you think if the UK police suspected a cover-up or the semen of the two suspects did't match that the families would have made such a statement?

GREAT deal more insight into the evidence and the validity of the case - SOURCE??????

[jimmybkk]

"Nothing to link (Nomsod) him to the crime" Correction: many things linking him to the crime.

Such as?

Come on, put up or shut up, what is the evidence linking him to the crime?

AleG, have you been reading posts? I know it's a lot of reading, and there are several threads. I have. You don't have to agree with me, but I and others have posted many things which address your Q. If a person doesn't want to agree, then so be it. It's easy to clench one's eyes closed and keep saying "No, No, a thousand times, No!"

Probably the #1 item which links Nomsod is the CCTV taken moments after the crime, which shows a tall, thin, man cradling his left arm, which many observers believe is Nomsod. There is the worse-than-soggy alibi. The change in his haircut (to try and distance himself from the video), the fact that he evaded police for a week while he knew he was wanted for questioning. He refused to get his DNA tested for weeks. The police named him as prime suspect up until the moment the replacement head cop was instated. There are a dozen large gaping gaps in leads that should have been pursued by cops but weren't for the following reasons:

>>> cops are inept and/or didn't think of it

>>> cops did take a glance, but decided it would implicate Nomsod, so they trashed it.

>>> cops were lied to, and decided, 'what the heck, mai pen rai. People are going to lie to save their skin, wadaryagonnadu?'

reason for edit: had to fix quotes, because software automatically screws up quotes

As stated NOTHING to link him to the crime and has been reported to you many times, the transfer was announced before the murders took place and happened exactly when it was announced it would before the murders ... also your time line is off. He was cleared before the transfer. He was only a prime suspect until they interviewed him as were there many prime suspects early on that were later cleared.

He was not captured on any video on the island at the time but was captured on video in Bangkok at the time as well as police investigating and determining he was in Bangkok at the time. DNA doesn't change in weeks so that is a mute point and complete speculation on your part that police ever asked him for DNA evidence but again even if they did and his lawyer advised him against it (as would be normal) his DNA was still checked (he volunteered) and submitted to three labs.

It is sad to see what your case is based on especially considering there are two people in custody whose DNA matches and two families who are confident about the evidence against them after speaking to UK Investigators who examined the evidence and case and looked into if there was a cover-up going on.

So let me get this straight.... you're saying that the police came to the conclusion that the prime suspect was someone who was not even on the island at the time of the murders? You're saying that there was never any evidence of his being on the island but still somehow the police decided he was a prime suspect? That strikes me as being kind of odd.

Oh, and please don't revert back to your usual defense of: "Social media's to blame...", because if that were the case and the police were so easily influenced by the voices on social media the B2 would have been released a long time ago.

By the way, were there any more of the "many prime suspects" you refer to who were also not on the island at the time of the murders?

[englishoak]

Just out of interest, I have no knowledge of this crime other than what I have read. And I very much doubt you know anything more than I do.

So you like me like everybody else are just speculating. You have read there was sperm in the victim but you don't know. That is what you are choosing to believe.

I have read the only DNA was on a fag butt. I have read 1 hoe was used to kill both people yet only one of the dead peoples DNA was on the hoe.

I saw people being measured up against a foot print.. A foot print in the sand after the tide had ebbed and flowed.

Please tell me why I should believe all the police have written and forsake my soul and give my brain away ?

Hey just thought, also there where no finger prints on the hoe. You reckon maybe they put the condom over the handle to stop the finger prints ?

Have you read the family statements? They have no ulterior motives and a GREAT deal more insight into the evidence and the validity of the case. Also, do you think if the UK police suspected a cover-up or the semen of the two suspects did't match that the families would have made such a statement?

still i see

[boomerangutang]

"Nothing to link (Nomsod) him to the crime" Correction: many things linking him to the crime.

Such as?

Come on, put up or shut up, what is the evidence linking him to the crime?

AleG, have you been reading posts? I know it's a lot of reading, and there are several threads. I have. You don't have to agree with me, but I and others have posted many things which address your Q. If a person doesn't want to agree, then so be it. It's easy to clench one's eyes closed and keep saying "No, No, a thousand times, No!"

Probably the #1 item which links Nomsod is the CCTV taken moments after the crime, which shows a tall, thin, man cradling his left arm, which many observers believe is Nomsod. There is the worse-than-soggy alibi. The change in his haircut (to try and distance himself from the video), the fact that he evaded police for a week while he knew he was wanted for questioning. He refused to get his DNA tested for weeks. The police named him as prime suspect up until the moment the replacement head cop was instated. There are a dozen large gaping gaps in leads that should have been pursued by cops but weren't for the following reasons:

>>> cops are inept and/or didn't think of it

>>> cops did take a glance, but decided it would implicate Nomsod, so they trashed it.

>>> cops were lied to, and decided, 'what the heck, mai pen rai. People are going to lie to save their skin, wadryagonnadu?'

I said evidence that he committed the crime, do you know what evidence means?

You say there is evidence, you show none; opinion is not evidence, supposition is not evidence, allegations are not evidence, absence of evidence is not evidence.

And that video, I had to edit out my assessment of the mental capacity of the people that would take that video, this video, as proof of identity.

Evidence can be many things. If wounds from an altercation fall on the right side of a victim, it can be surmised that the attacker was left handed. That sort of evidence, along with a million other types have been used to help solve crimes. There is hard evidence and there are all sorts other types. It's like putting a large puzzle together. The CCTV footage would be considered 'evidence' if enough and/or certain people (most importantly, the judge) acknowledge it shows Nomsod (or Mon) directly after the time of the crime.

There are variations of evidence, including; circumstantial, direct, demonstrative, and proof.

Obviously, if a person does not want to see something as evidence, no amount of dialog is going to convince that person. There were people involved in the OJ case who didn't want to see the bloody gloves, hair on the knit cap (left at the crime scene) as evidence, even though every fair-minded people saw it as just that. Thai authorities are doing all they can to knit together a conspiracy to nail the B2 and shield the Headman's people. Are AleG and a few other posters on ThaiVisa part of that conspiracy?

[Fat Haggis]

Wasn't there 3rd DNA found on Hannah nippple ? The same DNA that matches the cigarette butt?

You mis the point JTJ that DNA does not indicate not being at the murder scene it indicates no sexual contact took place.

Now on the other hand there would have been DNA from both victims from the personal belongings of the alleged perpetrators And in their room too

[JohnThailandJohn]

"Nothing to link (Nomsod) him to the crime" Correction: many things linking him to the crime.

Such as?

Come on, put up or shut up, what is the evidence linking him to the crime?

AleG, have you been reading posts? I know it's a lot of reading, and there are several threads. I have. You don't have to agree with me, but I and others have posted many things which address your Q. If a person doesn't want to agree, then so be it. It's easy to clench one's eyes closed and keep saying "No, No, a thousand times, No!"

Probably the #1 item which links Nomsod is the CCTV taken moments after the crime, which shows a tall, thin, man cradling his left arm, which many observers believe is Nomsod. There is the worse-than-soggy alibi. The change in his haircut (to try and distance himself from the video), the fact that he evaded police for a week while he knew he was wanted for questioning. He refused to get his DNA tested for weeks. The police named him as prime suspect up until the moment the replacement head cop was instated. There are a dozen large gaping gaps in leads that should have been pursued by cops but weren't for the following reasons:

>>> cops are inept and/or didn't think of it

>>> cops did take a glance, but decided it would implicate Nomsod, so they trashed it.

>>> cops were lied to, and decided, 'what the heck, mai pen rai. People are going to lie to save their skin, wadryagonnadu?'

I said evidence that he committed the crime, do you know what evidence means?

You say there is evidence, you show none; opinion is not evidence, supposition is not evidence, allegations are not evidence, absence of evidence is not evidence.

And that video, I had to edit out my assessment of the mental capacity of the people that would take that video, this video, as proof of identity.

Evidence can be many things. If wounds from an altercation fall on the right side of a victim, it can be surmised that the attacker was left handed. That sort of evidence, along with a million other types have been used to help solve crimes. There is hard evidence and there are all sorts other types. It's like putting a large puzzle together. The CCTV footage would be considered 'evidence' if enough and/or certain people (most importantly, the judge) acknowledge it shows Nomsod (or Mon) directly after the time of the crime.

Actually what you have here is NOTHING -- nobody in their right mind would acknowledge that is Nomsod -- you need to be using the word imagine not acknowledge. It really is sad that people are so obsessed with this kid for no reason that they see (imagine) what they want to see and disregard the rest. Even if we were to play pretend and there was no actual proof he was in Bangkok and instead he said he was on the island -- there still is nothing to suggest he had anything to do with this but the reality is he wasn't even on the island.

[boomerangutang]

Note, among the hundreds of things Thai cops didn't do: They didn't do a reenactment of the CCTV on the island (taken right after the crime). It would be easy to do, but Thai officials either haven't thought of it (not surprising, knowing they can't think outside of the box) or they didn't do it because it would likely implicate Nomsod or Mon (personally, I think it resembles Nomsod more than Mon, because the man in the video appears quite young. However, Thai cops, when they first saw the video, thought it was Mon).

Here's how it's done. Cordon off the area, so there aren't a thousand onlookers (and 3 dozen police, all quacking away. ,Pick a night which resembles the night of the crime (similar moon phase, weather/cloud cover, etc). Have Nomsod, Mon, and the Burmese suspects, each dressed identical to the mystery man in the CCTV, on hand. Have each walk hurridly/guiltily (same as video) in the same trajectory as the video. Have them do it several times each, to get a good depiction. Use the exact same camera, unaltered. Oh, and don't have any authorities within 8 arms' length from any of the suspects (boy, that would be tough, because authorities are compelled to physically micro-manage every movement of the Burmese). Compare.

[JohnThailandJohn]

"Nothing to link (Nomsod) him to the crime" Correction: many things linking him to the crime.

Such as?

Come on, put up or shut up, what is the evidence linking him to the crime?

AleG, have you been reading posts? I know it's a lot of reading, and there are several threads. I have. You don't have to agree with me, but I and others have posted many things which address your Q. If a person doesn't want to agree, then so be it. It's easy to clench one's eyes closed and keep saying "No, No, a thousand times, No!"

Probably the #1 item which links Nomsod is the CCTV taken moments after the crime, which shows a tall, thin, man cradling his left arm, which many observers believe is Nomsod. There is the worse-than-soggy alibi. The change in his haircut (to try and distance himself from the video), the fact that he evaded police for a week while he knew he was wanted for questioning. He refused to get his DNA tested for weeks. The police named him as prime suspect up until the moment the replacement head cop was instated. There are a dozen large gaping gaps in leads that should have been pursued by cops but weren't for the following reasons:

>>> cops are inept and/or didn't think of it

>>> cops did take a glance, but decided it would implicate Nomsod, so they trashed it.

>>> cops were lied to, and decided, 'what the heck, mai pen rai. People are going to lie to save their skin, wadaryagonnadu?'

reason for edit: had to fix quotes, because software automatically screws up quotes

As stated NOTHING to link him to the crime and has been reported to you many times, the transfer was announced before the murders took place and happened exactly when it was announced it would before the murders ... also your time line is off. He was cleared before the transfer. He was only a prime suspect until they interviewed him as were there many prime suspects early on that were later cleared.

He was not captured on any video on the island at the time but was captured on video in Bangkok at the time as well as police investigating and determining he was in Bangkok at the time. DNA doesn't change in weeks so that is a mute point and complete speculation on your part that police ever asked him for DNA evidence but again even if they did and his lawyer advised him against it (as would be normal) his DNA was still checked (he volunteered) and submitted to three labs.

It is sad to see what your case is based on especially considering there are two people in custody whose DNA matches and two families who are confident about the evidence against them after speaking to UK Investigators who examined the evidence and case and looked into if there was a cover-up going on.

So let me get this straight.... you're saying that the police came to the conclusion that the prime suspect was someone who was not even on the island at the time of the murders? You're saying that there was never any evidence of his being on the island but still somehow the police decided he was a prime suspect? That strikes me as being kind of odd.

Oh, and please don't revert back to your usual defense of: "Social media's to blame...", because if that were the case and the police were so easily influenced by the voices on social media the B2 would have been released a long time ago.

By the way, were there any more of the "many prime suspects" you refer to who were also not on the island at the time of the murders?

Clearly you know nothing about this case and certainly not even enough to draw simple conclusions. The police had many prime suspects based on what they thought was evidence including people's reports to them and other circumstantial evidence which later proved to be discredited or incorrect or not relevant based on proof showing a person didn't do it. This is normal in an investigation like this but the difference here is police reported or leaked what they believed early on without actually verifying. No different then the prime suspect initially being the farang friend where his cut was reported and bloody pants in his luggage -- also turned out he was not involved just as it turned out the reports of the kid fleeing the island turned out to be BS.

Logic and information explains many things --- while the conspiracy theories in this case are based on fantasy and lack of looking at information available but instead being dishonest by pretending partial information is all the information.

What your doing is the same as me taking your above questions "you're saying that the police came to the conclusion that the prime suspect was someone who was not even on the island at the time of the murders?" and then telling you people...

You said, "the prime suspect was someone who was not even on the island at the time of the murder"

If some people would step back they may see just the kind of fantasy speculative bs they are spewing and why the families have explained is hurtful.

[ubonjoe]

A post containing false info and replies to it has been removed.

[boomerangutang]

AleG, have you been reading posts? I know it's a lot of reading, and there are several threads. I have. You don't have to agree with me, but I and others have posted many things which address your Q. If a person doesn't want to agree, then so be it. It's easy to clench one's eyes closed and keep saying "No, No, a thousand times, No!"

Probably the #1 item which links Nomsod is the CCTV taken moments after the crime, which shows a tall, thin, man cradling his left arm, which many observers believe is Nomsod. There is the worse-than-soggy alibi. The change in his haircut (to try and distance himself from the video), the fact that he evaded police for a week while he knew he was wanted for questioning. He refused to get his DNA tested for weeks. The police named him as prime suspect up until the moment the replacement head cop was instated. There are a dozen large gaping gaps in leads that should have been pursued by cops but weren't for the following reasons:

>>> cops are inept and/or didn't think of it

>>> cops did take a glance, but decided it would implicate Nomsod, so they trashed it.

>>> cops were lied to, and decided, 'what the heck, mai pen rai. People are going to lie to save their skin, wadryagonnadu?'

I said evidence that he committed the crime, do you know what evidence means?

You say there is evidence, you show none; opinion is not evidence, supposition is not evidence, allegations are not evidence, absence of evidence is not evidence.

And that video, I had to edit out my assessment of the mental capacity of the people that would take that video, this video, as proof of identity.

Evidence can be many things. If wounds from an altercation fall on the right side of a victim, it can be surmised that the attacker was left handed. That sort of evidence, along with a million other types have been used to help solve crimes. There is hard evidence and there are all sorts other types. It's like putting a large puzzle together. The CCTV footage would be considered 'evidence' if enough and/or certain people (most importantly, the judge) acknowledge it shows Nomsod (or Mon) directly after the time of the crime.

Actually what you have here is NOTHING -- nobody in their right mind would acknowledge that is Nomsod -- you need to be using the word imagine not acknowledge. It really is sad that people are so obsessed with this kid for no reason that they see (imagine) what they want to see and disregard the rest. Even if we were to play pretend and there was no actual proof he was in Bangkok and instead he said he was on the island -- there still is nothing to suggest he had anything to do with this but the reality is he wasn't even on the island.

We've come to expect that from your posts. You are 100% shielding Nomsod in every way possible. You could have a connection with him (friend, family, biz?), but you wouldn't admit it. Admittedly, I take a diametrically opposing view. I'm seeking true justice and getting the real murderers/rapists put away from interacting with the public.

If the investigation was being conducted in a professional and objective manner, we might find some resolution. I think we passed that stage weeks ago, when the replacement head cop appeared, and the case flipped to focus only on the scapegoats. Right after that, all investigation essentially halted.

Do the RTP echoers recall that, in the first week of the investigation (while Nomsod was hiding from authorities) that Thai authorities had Mon and Nomsod pegged as the PRIME SUSPECTS? A portion of that designation relied upon the CCTV which JTJ now says, "no one in their right mind would acknowledge as Nomsod." The video didn't change in the ensuing weeks. Is JTJ now claiming the RTP were 'out of their minds' when they deduced that?

[JohnThailandJohn]

Wasn't there 3rd DNA found on Hannah nippple ? The same DNA that matches the cigarette butt?

You mis the point JTJ that DNA does not indicate not being at the murder scene it indicates no sexual contact took place.

Now on the other hand there would have been DNA from both victims from the personal belongings of the alleged perpetrators And in their room too

How do you know what DNA was found in the room? How do you know whose finger prints were found on the phone? Do you recall the families saying there is a lot more evidence we don't know about? By the way, a simple swim on the ocean after the attack would have removed any DNA and there bodies would have been washed by the time police arrested them and would not contain DNA but could contain blood stains if they had not discarded their cloths.

THEIR SEMEN WAS FOUND IN THE VICTIM never heard of a 3rd DNA found on her nipple that didn't match the semen but we are talking early reports when lots of stuff was being said and leaked.

If you want to believe their semen is in the girl but they didn't murder the two go right ahead. They may have had consensual sex, raped her then somebody else came along and murdered her or they raped her corpse --- all HIGHLY implausible but possible and kind of sick to the extent this goes to suggest their innocents but that is why the police have other evidence against them. Some we are aware and much we don't know as the families have stated.

[JohnThailandJohn]

Much respect to those who have stated they will stop the BS conspiracy theory talk after reading the victim's statements and instead wait for the trial ... shame on those who continue with nonsense.

[AleG]

I said evidence that he committed the crime, do you know what evidence means?

You say there is evidence, you show none; opinion is not evidence, supposition is not evidence, allegations are not evidence, absence of evidence is not evidence.

And that video, I had to edit out my assessment of the mental capacity of the people that would take that video, this video, as proof of identity.

Evidence can be many things. If wounds from an altercation fall on the right side of a victim, it can be surmised that the attacker was left handed. That sort of evidence, along with a million other types have been used to help solve crimes. There is hard evidence and there are all sorts other types. It's like putting a large puzzle together. The CCTV footage would be considered 'evidence' if enough and/or certain people (most importantly, the judge) acknowledge it shows Nomsod (or Mon) directly after the time of the crime.

There are variations of evidence, including; circumstantial, direct, demonstrative, and proof.

Obviously, if a person does not want to see something as evidence, no amount of dialog is going to convince that person. There were people involved in the OJ case who didn't want to see the bloody gloves, hair on the knit cap (left at the crime scene) as evidence, even though every fair-minded people saw it as just that. Thai authorities are doing all they can to knit together a conspiracy to nail the B2 and shield the Headman's people. Are AleG and a few other posters on ThaiVisa part of that conspiracy?

And.... the evidence you said exists? What keeps you from showing it here? What keeps you from talking with the suspects lawyers to absolve their clients?

You have nothing but assertions that demonstrate poor critical thinking skills.

[DM07]

Much respect to those who have stated they will stop the BS conspiracy theory talk after reading the victim's statements and instead wait for the trial ... shame on those who continue with nonsense.

...which would include you!

[Fat Haggis]

"Nothing to link (Nomsod) him to the crime" Correction: many things linking him to the crime.

Such as?

Come on, put up or shut up, what is the evidence linking him to the crime?

AleG, have you been reading posts? I know it's a lot of reading, and there are several threads. I have. You don't have to agree with me, but I and others have posted many things which address your Q. If a person doesn't want to agree, then so be it. It's easy to clench one's eyes closed and keep saying "No, No, a thousand times, No!"

Probably the #1 item which links Nomsod is the CCTV taken moments after the crime, which shows a tall, thin, man cradling his left arm, which many observers believe is Nomsod. There is the worse-than-soggy alibi. The change in his haircut (to try and distance himself from the video), the fact that he evaded police for a week while he knew he was wanted for questioning. He refused to get his DNA tested for weeks. The police named him as prime suspect up until the moment the replacement head cop was instated. There are a dozen large gaping gaps in leads that should have been pursued by cops but weren't for the following reasons:

>>> cops are inept and/or didn't think of it

>>> cops did take a glance, but decided it would implicate Nomsod, so they trashed it.

>>> cops were lied to, and decided, 'what the heck, mai pen rai. People are going to lie to save their skin, wadryagonnadu?'

I said evidence that he committed the crime, do you know what evidence means?

You say there is evidence, you show none; opinion is not evidence, supposition is not evidence, allegations are not evidence, absence of evidence is not evidence.

And that video, I had to edit out my assessment of the mental capacity of the people that would take that video, this video, as proof of identity.

Evidence can be many things. If wounds from an altercation fall on the right side of a victim, it can be surmised that the attacker was left handed. That sort of evidence, along with a million other types have been used to help solve crimes. There is hard evidence and there are all sorts other types. It's like putting a large puzzle together. The CCTV footage would be considered 'evidence' if enough and/or certain people (most importantly, the judge) acknowledge it shows Nomsod (or Mon) directly after the time of the crime.

Actually what you have here is NOTHING -- nobody in their right mind would acknowledge that is Nomsod -- you need to be using the word imagine not acknowledge. It really is sad that people are so obsessed with this kid for no reason that they see (imagine) what they want to see and disregard the rest. Even if we were to play pretend and there was no actual proof he was in Bangkok and instead he said he was on the island -- there still is nothing to suggest he had anything to do with this but the reality is he wasn't even on the island.

No, the reality is that unless you were personal with him not on Koh Tao everything else is a possibility.

I could post pictures of me all over the globe at times and dates I want to, it doesn't mean I have been there.

It's funny how one set if CCTV is relieved upon as evidence and yet another's is dismissed ?

[Fat Haggis]

"Nothing to link (Nomsod) him to the crime" Correction: many things linking him to the crime.

Such as?

Come on, put up or shut up, what is the evidence linking him to the crime?

AleG, have you been reading posts? I know it's a lot of reading, and there are several threads. I have. You don't have to agree with me, but I and others have posted many things which address your Q. If a person doesn't want to agree, then so be it. It's easy to clench one's eyes closed and keep saying "No, No, a thousand times, No!"

Probably the #1 item which links Nomsod is the CCTV taken moments after the crime, which shows a tall, thin, man cradling his left arm, which many observers believe is Nomsod. There is the worse-than-soggy alibi. The change in his haircut (to try and distance himself from the video), the fact that he evaded police for a week while he knew he was wanted for questioning. He refused to get his DNA tested for weeks. The police named him as prime suspect up until the moment the replacement head cop was instated. There are a dozen large gaping gaps in leads that should have been pursued by cops but weren't for the following reasons:

>>> cops are inept and/or didn't think of it

>>> cops did take a glance, but decided it would implicate Nomsod, so they trashed it.

>>> cops were lied to, and decided, 'what the heck, mai pen rai. People are going to lie to save their skin, wadaryagonnadu?'

reason for edit: had to fix quotes, because software automatically screws up quotes

As stated NOTHING to link him to the crime and has been reported to you many times, the transfer was announced before the murders took place and happened exactly when it was announced it would before the murders ... also your time line is off. He was cleared before the transfer. He was only a prime suspect until they interviewed him as were there many prime suspects early on that were later cleared.

He was not captured on any video on the island at the time but was captured on video in Bangkok at the time as well as police investigating and determining he was in Bangkok at the time. DNA doesn't change in weeks so that is a mute point and complete speculation on your part that police ever asked him for DNA evidence but again even if they did and his lawyer advised him against it (as would be normal) his DNA was still checked (he volunteered) and submitted to three labs.

It is sad to see what your case is based on especially considering there are two people in custody whose DNA matches and two families who are confident about the evidence against them after speaking to UK Investigators who examined the evidence and case and looked into if there was a cover-up going on.

So let me get this straight.... you're saying that the police came to the conclusion that the prime suspect was someone who was not even on the island at the time of the murders? You're saying that there was never any evidence of his being on the island but still somehow the police decided he was a prime suspect? That strikes me as being kind of odd.

Oh, and please don't revert back to your usual defense of: "Social media's to blame...", because if that were the case and the police were so easily influenced by the voices on social media the B2 would have been released a long time ago.

By the way, were there any more of the "many prime suspects" you refer to who were also not on the island at the time of the murders?

Clearly you know nothing about this case and certainly not even enough to draw simple conclusions. The police had many prime suspects based on what they thought was evidence including people's reports to them and other circumstantial evidence which later proved to be discredited or incorrect or not relevant based on proof showing a person didn't do it. This is normal in an investigation like this but the difference here is police reported or leaked what they believed early on without actually verifying. No different then the prime suspect initially being the farang friend where his cut was reported and bloody pants in his luggage -- also turned out he was not involved just as it turned out the reports of the kid fleeing the island turned out to be BS.

Logic and information explains many things --- while the conspiracy theories in this case are based on fantasy and lack of looking at information available but instead being dishonest by pretending partial information is all the information.

What your doing is the same as me taking your above questions "you're saying that the police came to the conclusion that the prime suspect was someone who was not even on the island at the time of the murders?" and then telling you people...

You said, "the prime suspect was someone who was not even on the island at the time of the murder"

If some people would step back they may see just the kind of fantasy speculative bs they are spewing and why the families have explained is hurtful.

I see you mention about the friend being a suspect but failed to mention that the "evidence" was planted in his belongings and that was professional eh? This we even admitted by the RTP that another cop put it there, and you wonder why people are sceptical?

It's not Thai bashing, it's bashing a system that's flawed and fraught with corruption up to the highest level in its ranks!!!

[boomerangutang]

Much respect to those who have stated they will stop the BS conspiracy theory talk after reading the victim's statements and instead wait for the trial ... shame on those who continue with nonsense.

We can respect the victims' families while concurrently discussing things. If you want to see nonsense, look at the reenactment.

You have nothing but assertions that demonstrate poor critical thinking skills.

Shield the Headman's people if you so choose. To continue to do that, you are required to dismiss any evidence which might implicate the Headman's people.

It's funny how one set if CCTV is relieved upon as evidence and yet another's is dismissed ?

Not so funny. One CCTV was v. likely tampered with, the other, from the island, was probably not tampered with.