Letter from two accused of Koh Tao murders to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi Myanmar Democracy icon

[BoristheBlade]

Another fantasy dreamed up by the RTP is the belief that there was only 4 people on the beach at the time of the rape/murders.

David, Hannah and the two Burmese....realy? is that the case?

On a beautiful tropical island party island beach there is only 4 people present?....lies

When Hanna was been rapped...one of the "Burmese" held her down whilst the other raped her??...really??....lies

[BoristheBlade]

From the RTP reports, the "re enactment" and your own conspiracy theories

The RTP have said the Burmese raped because they became aroused when they witnessed the British couple been intimate on the beach.

Insulting lies, Hanna and David were never an item, indeed all the evidence shown by the RTP ie cctv and released photo in the AC bar show quite the opposite. At no time were David and Hanna shown to be together.

The truth is David was walking near his accommodation and heard Hanna in distress, because he was a conscientious gentleman he went to her aid and was brutally murdered.

"the truth is.."

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

[stephen terry]

On the topic of the letter. It is naive,with the extreme aim to put political pressure on the Thai authorities. The one indication that the real murderer had left the country should be key to the defence. Who is the B2 referring to? Do they actually 'know' more than has been reported in the media? Did they actually witness something on that beach? Or if they left before the crime occurred, the next day when they went back to work the place must have been buzzing with rumours. What did they hear? Did it tie in with their understanding of the beach scenario?

Questions, questions. Hopefully all will be raised at the trial.

[stephen terry]

Another fantasy dreamed up by the RTP is the belief that there was only 4 people on the beach at the time of the rape/murders.

David, Hannah and the two Burmese....realy? is that the case?

On a beautiful tropical island party island beach there is only 4 people present?....lies

When Hanna was been rapped...one of the "Burmese" held her down whilst the other raped her??...really??....lies

Boris, you might have to consider the unpalatable (and distressing) supposition that she was unconscious or dead before the rape took place. Only the PM would be conclusive. Any info on that?

[AleG]

Another fantasy dreamed up by the RTP is the belief that there was only 4 people on the beach at the time of the rape/murders.

David, Hannah and the two Burmese....realy? is that the case?

On a beautiful tropical island party island beach there is only 4 people present?....lies

When Hanna was been rapped...one of the "Burmese" held her down whilst the other raped her??...really??....lies

Again I ask, were you there as a witness?

[thailandchilli]

deleted

Edited December 16, 2014 by thailandchilli

[BoristheBlade]

I believe that Hanna may have been semi or unconscious , but due to drugs and not self inflicted drugs at that. But due to the pathetic Thai autopsy, no toxicology results were obtained.

If date rape drugs were in her system, where did they come from? did the Burmese have access to date rape drugs? did other persons of interest have access to the same?

May I also add, the Island of Koh Tao has something of a history of the use of date rape drugs. I went with my wife to that island 8 years ago, and we were warned by the tour operator, never to accept drinks or always be aware when ordering drinks.

Another fantasy dreamed up by the RTP is the belief that there was only 4 people on the beach at the time of the rape/murders.

David, Hannah and the two Burmese....realy? is that the case?

On a beautiful tropical island party island beach there is only 4 people present?....lies

When Hanna was been rapped...one of the "Burmese" held her down whilst the other raped her??...really??....lies

Boris, you might have to consider the unpalatable (and distressing) supposition that she was unconscious or dead before the rape took place. Only the PM would be conclusive. Any info on that?

Edited December 16, 2014 by BoristheBlade

[thailandchilli]

No this is the only BIZARRE thing. The Thai Chief of Police making this rather incredible statement:

Police will request help from the United States' Federation Bureau of Investigation to test semen found in the body of a female British backpacker brutally murdered on the resort island of Koh Tao this week.

DNA testing technology in Thailand could only identify whether human secretions came from a male or female, said deputy police chief General Somyot Pumpunmuang, while the FBI had "sophisticated technology".

"We will ask the FBI to help identify the DNA in the semen we found - whether it belonged to an Asian or European," he said yesterday.

So please tell me, what do we now believe, that the technology suddenly became available overnight, the RTP chief was mistaken even though as chief of police and someone who should be well versed in these matters made a mistake and actually has no clue what he's talking about?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Police-seek-help-from-FBI-on-DNA-30243708.html

Well seeing how they said they instead were sending the samples to Singapore and then within a day or two had the results that it was from an Asian, doesn't seem at all bizarre unless one is desperately looking to cling onto fantasy to continue to promote conspiracy theories.

There is always the risk of making yourself look foolish or worse dishonest by quoting old news when many updated news items on the topic are available. Seems either very deceptive or just plain ignorant of the information about the case. I really can't see any other alternative to why you and others do this when NOBODY hasn't accepted reporting has been bad on this and there has been much information reported and incorrect or premature statements that were later updated.

You either fail to comprehend my post or are having another go at a poor deflection by not actually responding to any of the questions I asked or any of the content of the post.

My post was primarily aimed at discrediting your fantasy fact that you claimed:

"Again we must go to fairly tale land to continue with conspiracies -- never was it said that they could only tell male or female, what they said was they didn't have the ability to tell race and that is why they said they would be sending samples to Singapore"

Unless you have a source for that fact then its fantasy and the only one in fairy tale land is you. Because this is the actual true and factual statement : "DNA testing technology in Thailand could only identify whether human secretions came from a male or female" General Somyot Pumpunmuang

Not some lowly rank local plod on Koh Tao, the top of the chain in Thailand's RTP. This statement is timeless, does not matter if it was said a day after the crime or 2 weeks after, the statement is clear in its message. You would think that Thailands top cop would have the basic knowledge of the DNA capabilities within Thailand and if not then it shows the very poor lack of knowledge from the top and one can reasonably assume for many of the other RTP involved in the case.

The following day he stated the DNA it would now go to Singapore for testing, how do we know that to be true? In light of the fact that there are also many reports that they were waiting for the testing to come back from Bangkok.

It actually does not matter where the DNA got tested, could be by the FBI, Singapore, Bangkok, or the HEADMANS FRIDGE! The fact is if we cannot distinguish what are true, false, mistakes or simply misinformed statements even from the top of the RTP chain, sad state of affairs for such a high profile case and the up and coming trial with the evidence collected by these same people.

[jdinasia]

From the RTP reports, the "re enactment" and your own conspiracy theories

The RTP have said the Burmese raped because they became aroused when they witnessed the British couple been intimate on the beach.

Insulting lies, Hanna and David were never an item, indeed all the evidence shown by the RTP ie cctv and released photo in the AC bar show quite the opposite. At no time were David and Hanna shown to be together.

The truth is David was walking near his accommodation and heard Hanna in distress, because he was a conscientious gentleman he went to her aid and was brutally murdered.

"the truth is.."

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

That doesn't match your statement I was asking about.

I have no conspiracy theories.

[stephen terry]

Another fantasy dreamed up by the RTP is the belief that there was only 4 people on the beach at the time of the rape/murders.

David, Hannah and the two Burmese....realy? is that the case?

On a beautiful tropical island party island beach there is only 4 people present?....lies

When Hanna was been rapped...one of the "Burmese" held her down whilst the other raped her??...really??....lies

Again I ask, were you there as a witness?

It's more a matter of establishing a 'truth' with insufficient or missing/misleading information - a typical audit investigation into a fraud would aim to fill in gaps to present a plausible case. Whether an absolute could be achieved is questionable.

To begin with a surmise that there was only 4 people at the crime scene (or on the beach) could be challenged if it is known that constant partying occurred every night - as an example. That there are many people who sleep on the beach or on moored boats, or are drifters etc. From that the defence could surmise that the RTP conclusion is implausible.

On the other supposition, if Hannah was incapacitated and unable to defend herself, The RTP's assertion that the B2 were able to carry out a rape is plausible, and that would be more difficult to defend. A reasonable person would challenge the first and accept the second that two persons could have committed the rape crime.

So to answer your question, one does not have to be a witness to construct a plausible scenario or to challenge the RTP's assertions.

[aimbc]

Is this The Truth, yes or no?

"The truth is David was walking near his accommodation and heard Hanna in distress, because he was a conscientious gentleman he went to her aid and was brutally murdered."

I fully expect you to dodge the question.

I didn't write that sentence you quoted, but it's not far from the truth. The scenario I picture is as follows:

David and Hannah were walking along the beach. Some of AC bar punks were with them (one or more of the following: Nomsod, Mon, the Stingray man, the cop who threatened Sean). David was probably not walking directly alongside Hannah. (Note: men bent on rape will want to separate their target from anyone who may want to defend her). I think one of the culprits, probably the Stingray man, diverted David's attention and tried to gently steer him away from Hannah. Meanwhile the gaggle of horny drunk men globbed around Hannah. They initially tried to get her to comply (it's probable she was plied with date-rape drug earlier). When she didn't comply, they used force. David heard her cries, started to go to her aid, and was attacked (possibly from behind) and punctured in the neck several times with a sharp shallow blade. There's more I could add, but that addresses AleG's Q to Boris.

Surprise surprise, you dodged the question... and then run back into your fantasy world.

yes even yours is a so call fantasy. Because your fantasy is never hear the testimony from the defendant rather only listen from one source. Call it what ever you like. Without considering both sides, your fantasy of the police being 100% correct it's really a fantasy. That a police fantasy hoping to fool everyone. And it worked, but just to few.

Everyone here is trying to examine all possible scenarios, from both sides. That is not a fantasy. There is always a motive. And my take on the motive of two horny drunk guys killing two adults, with out a single scratch, is quite far fetch. But who knows. Probability is low.

Also their willingness to face the death penalty is their own conviction that they did not murder the two. Even if they took the route to admit their guilt, it would not provide a means for them to take care of their parents as they will be on prison any way. So what is the use of staying in jail and ruin the honor of the family. One thing that people who do not have much, is honor and pride.

These two deserves a fair trial. And by talking about it, we are giving them that chance. Everything about this case has been one sided. But I am hopeful, yes that is a fantasy. Hopeful that there is enough humanity left in this world for someone to speak the truth and cat some light on the case. That i can admit is a fantasy.

[boomerangutang]

Is this The Truth, yes or no?

"The truth is David was walking near his accommodation and heard Hanna in distress, because he was a conscientious gentleman he went to her aid and was brutally murdered."

I fully expect you to dodge the question.

I didn't write that sentence you quoted, but it's not far from the truth. The scenario I picture is as follows:

David and Hannah were walking along the beach. Some of AC bar punks were with them (one or more of the following: Nomsod, Mon, the Stingray man, the cop who threatened Sean). David was probably not walking directly alongside Hannah. (Note: men bent on rape will want to separate their target from anyone who may want to defend her). I think one of the culprits, probably the Stingray man, diverted David's attention and tried to gently steer him away from Hannah. Meanwhile the gaggle of horny drunk men globbed around Hannah. They initially tried to get her to comply (it's probable she was plied with date-rape drug earlier). When she didn't comply, they used force. David heard her cries, started to go to her aid, and was attacked (possibly from behind) and punctured in the neck several times with a sharp shallow blade. There's more I could add, but that addresses AleG's Q to Boris.

Surprise surprise, you dodged the question... and then run back into your fantasy world.

First off, the question wasn't addressed to me, it was addressed to someone else who you quoted from. Secondly, I could ask you 50 questions, and you wouldn't answer any of them. Thirdly, I did answer the question. The answer didn't fit with your frantic determination to shield the Headman's people, so you dismissed it. Who is surprised by your response?

Here's the pattern we've been seeing for weeks from people who are echoing the RTP and shielding the Headman's people:

A poster might post several items surmised from the reports we hear from RTP and other sources. The Headman protectors

don't respond to any of the items, because they don't have strong counter-arguments. So instead, they pick one item and go off on a tangent. One poster can't stop writing the phrase; 'conspiracy theorists.' Another poster can't stop asking for increasing proofs of evidence, as if we're all in a court of law. Even when that poster gets answers, he keeps asking the same question ad nauseum. When that doesn't work, he tries picking on semantics.

What we don't get from them, are any useful additions to the discussion. It's understandable why they're continually on the defensive, as they don't have a proverbial leg to stand on, from the perspective of what we've been hearing from RTP and other sources. They hate social media, even though we're all participating in social media. They hate any perceived scenarios (other than the ridiculous scenario the RTP fed us in the reenactment), because all viable scenarios of the crime include the Headman's people. They, like the RTP, don't want any mention of the scenario in the bar prior to the crime, for the same reasons. They also don't want any investigation in to phone histories. If it quacks, walks, and shits like a duck, it must be a duck, except for people who don't want to even hear the word 'duck' mentioned.

[BoristheBlade]

Good points Stephen....it's called critical thinking......The RTP should be impartial during an investigation,,,always looking and thinking if they are on the right track...It's safe to say they have failed completely when it comes to critical thinking.

This is particularly correct when addressing persons of interest earlier in the investigation. Why was a member of the public inside a crime scene? Was the headmans son on Koh Tao? Where is the missing 3 minutes of the CCTV footage? Who is No9, why have the victims friends not been called as witnesses?

It is correct when the RTP claim David was killed by the same hoe as Hannah but the hoe does not have any sign of Davids DNA....really? Can the RTP seriously think the hoe was David's murder weapon...critical thinking would make than implausible.

Another fantasy dreamed up by the RTP is the belief that there was only 4 people on the beach at the time of the rape/murders.

David, Hannah and the two Burmese....realy? is that the case?

On a beautiful tropical island party island beach there is only 4 people present?....lies

When Hanna was been rapped...one of the "Burmese" held her down whilst the other raped her??...really??....lies

Again I ask, were you there as a witness?

It's more a matter of establishing a 'truth' with insufficient or missing/misleading information - a typical audit investigation into a fraud would aim to fill in gaps to present a plausible case. Whether an absolute could be achieved is questionable.

To begin with a surmise that there was only 4 people at the crime scene (or on the beach) could be challenged if it is known that constant partying occurred every night - as an example. That there are many people who sleep on the beach or on moored boats, or are drifters etc. From that the defence could surmise that the RTP conclusion is implausible.

On the other supposition, if Hannah was incapacitated and unable to defend herself, The RTP's assertion that the B2 were able to carry out a rape is plausible, and that would be more difficult to defend. A reasonable person would challenge the first and accept the second that two persons could have committed the rape crime.

So to answer your question, one does not have to be a witness to construct a plausible scenario or to challenge the RTP's assertions.

[stephen terry]

It actually does not matter where the DNA got tested, could be by the FBI, Singapore, Bangkok, or the HEADMANS FRIDGE! The fact is if we cannot distinguish what are true, false, mistakes or simply misinformed statements even from the top of the RTP chain, sad state of affairs for such a high profile case and the up and coming trial with the evidence collected by these same people.

Actually, it does matter because it establishes how it was feasible to process the first round of 100+ tests so quickly. The samples were sent to BKK and they distributed a proportion to 5 hospitals in Chiang Mai. God knows what technology they used or what was established, is unknown. But it was certainly reported by the lead cop in charge that no matches were found and the contributors cleared.

Makes you wonder if any of the top cops are singing off the same song sheet?

[Krenjai]

The RTP have said the Burmese raped because they became aroused when they witnessed the British couple been intimate on the beach.

Insulting lies, Hanna and David were never an item, indeed all the evidence shown by the RTP ie cctv and released photo in the AC bar show quite the opposite. At no time were David and Hanna shown to be together.

The truth is David was walking near his accommodation and heard Hanna in distress, because he was a conscientious gentleman he went to her aid and was brutally murdered.

I fully agree with everything in your post and I think exactly the same! You are correct: at NO time they were seen together. If CCTV coverage of that exists you can bet your a*** you would have seen that by now as it backs-up the RTP's case. It simply does not exist. Therefore it would be interesting to see the CCTV footage of the AC bar, unfortunately Captain Eureka and the AC-boys can't find it? I think it would show some interesting observations....

I believe she was targeted the minute she walked in, was harassed and possibly date rape drugged. As she walked back (on her own or escorted) to her apartment/crime scene (very close by) David must have seen/heard something as the events unfolded. That is why David has puncture wounds and his knuckles show he must have fought his attacker(s) (as per RTP early days). He had no chance, but must have given one hell of fight as he has multiple puncture wounds. (Sean knows he was a hero trying to save her).

They drowned him to be sure he is dead, stripped him of his clothes (forgot one sock) and made it look like a couple having sex on the beach (dropped a (unused) condom).The position how they did find Hannah with her knees up in 45 degree angle is enough proof for me this was a Thai Picasso at work.

As I said IMHO, but much more credible than two small B2 guys attacking a 6ft+ Goliath, rape & kill them and then steal his sunglasses & an iphone.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Krenjai

[AleG]

Again I ask, were you there as a witness?

It's more a matter of establishing a 'truth' with insufficient or missing/misleading information - a typical audit investigation into a fraud would aim to fill in gaps to present a plausible case. Whether an absolute could be achieved is questionable.

To begin with a surmise that there was only 4 people at the crime scene (or on the beach) could be challenged if it is known that constant partying occurred every night - as an example. That there are many people who sleep on the beach or on moored boats, or are drifters etc. From that the defence could surmise that the RTP conclusion is implausible.

On the other supposition, if Hannah was incapacitated and unable to defend herself, The RTP's assertion that the B2 were able to carry out a rape is plausible, and that would be more difficult to defend. A reasonable person would challenge the first and accept the second that two persons could have committed the rape crime.

So to answer your question, one does not have to be a witness to construct a plausible scenario or to challenge the RTP's assertions.

Constructing a scenario is not "the truth", that's how BoristheBlade presented his views; even more so when that scenario is based on nothing but speculation.

[Krenjai]

The RTP have said the Burmese raped because they became aroused when they witnessed the British couple been intimate on the beach.

Insulting lies, Hanna and David were never an item, indeed all the evidence shown by the RTP ie cctv and released photo in the AC bar show quite the opposite. At no time were David and Hanna shown to be together.

The truth is David was walking near his accommodation and heard Hanna in distress, because he was a conscientious gentleman he went to her aid and was brutally murdered.

Double post

Edited December 16, 2014 by Krenjai

[AleG]

Is this The Truth, yes or no?

"The truth is David was walking near his accommodation and heard Hanna in distress, because he was a conscientious gentleman he went to her aid and was brutally murdered."

I fully expect you to dodge the question.

I didn't write that sentence you quoted, but it's not far from the truth. The scenario I picture is as follows:

David and Hannah were walking along the beach. Some of AC bar punks were with them (one or more of the following: Nomsod, Mon, the Stingray man, the cop who threatened Sean). David was probably not walking directly alongside Hannah. (Note: men bent on rape will want to separate their target from anyone who may want to defend her). I think one of the culprits, probably the Stingray man, diverted David's attention and tried to gently steer him away from Hannah. Meanwhile the gaggle of horny drunk men globbed around Hannah. They initially tried to get her to comply (it's probable she was plied with date-rape drug earlier). When she didn't comply, they used force. David heard her cries, started to go to her aid, and was attacked (possibly from behind) and punctured in the neck several times with a sharp shallow blade. There's more I could add, but that addresses AleG's Q to Boris.

Surprise surprise, you dodged the question... and then run back into your fantasy world.

First off, the question wasn't addressed to me, it was addressed to someone else who you quoted from. Secondly, I could ask you 50 questions, and you wouldn't answer any of them. Thirdly, I did answer the question. The answer didn't fit with your frantic determination to shield the Headman's people, so you dismissed it. Who is surprised by your response?

Here's the pattern we've been seeing for weeks from people who are echoing the RTP and shielding the Headman's people:

A poster might post several items surmised from the reports we hear from RTP and other sources. The Headman protectors

don't respond to any of the items, because they don't have strong counter-arguments. So instead, they pick one item and go off on a tangent. One poster can't stop writing the phrase; 'conspiracy theorists.' Another poster can't stop asking for increasing proofs of evidence, as if we're all in a court of law. Even when that poster gets answers, he keeps asking the same question ad nauseum. When that doesn't work, he tries picking on semantics.

What we don't get from them, are any useful additions to the discussion. It's understandable why they're continually on the defensive, as they don't have a proverbial leg to stand on, from the perspective of what we've been hearing from RTP and other sources. They hate social media, even though we're all participating in social media. They hate any perceived scenarios (other than the ridiculous scenario the RTP fed us in the reenactment), because all viable scenarios of the crime include the Headman's people. They, like the RTP, don't want any mention of the scenario in the bar prior to the crime, for the same reasons. They also don't want any investigation in to phone histories. If it quacks, walks, and shits like a duck, it must be a duck, except for people who don't want to even hear the word 'duck' mentioned.

Yes, the question was addressed to you; if you can't figure that out, what hope do you have of figuring out a crime?

As for the rest of your post it's the usual conspiracists babble, not worth addressing.

[lildragon]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/15/thailand-murders-burmese-defence-foreign-office-fair-trial - linking this is allowed right?

[sambum]

On Tuesday Thai junta chief and prime minister Prayut Chan-Ocha appeared to call into question the victims' conduct in addition to the perpetrators of the attack.

'We have to look into the behaviour of the other party too because this kind of incident should not happen to anybody and it has affected our image,' he told reporters, referring to the two tourists.

Police earlier said the pair had been seen partying at a local bar just hours before they died.

Sky News 16th Sept.

This statement was made the day after the murders by the prime minister. When I first head it it seemed an outrageous and insensitive statement to make. But now after all that has passed in the investigation, I am left wondering whether this was not just a stupid passing remark founded on nothing, but that the 'victims' conduct'/'behaviour' could be related to an argument that took place in the bar. If Mon was allowed all over the crime scene with the police, no doubt he also had plenty to tell them about his side of the story which may have painted a bleak picture of the victims behaviour before they were murdered. Pure speculation on my part of course. Anything for justice.

How does "pure speculation" benefit justice?

Facts benefit justice, pure speculation detracts from justice.

Pure speculation may warrant investigation, possibly leading to facts being discovered, which in turn may affect the outcome/justice of the case .

[StealthEnergiser]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/15/thailand-murders-burmese-defence-foreign-office-fair-trial - linking this is allowed right?

Lawyers representing Burmese migrant workers accused of killing two young British tourists in Thailand have accused the Foreign Office of being complicit in ensuring the men will not receive a fair trial after officials in London refused to share any information about the prosecution case.

The legal team representing Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo, who will stand trial later this month for the murders of Hannah Witheridge and David Miller on the holiday island of Koh Tao in September, say information held by the Foreign Office is the only way to access the prosecution case ahead of the court case. The defence lawyers must submit their case within the next 10 days, but are not being allowed by the Thai court to see any of the prosecution evidence in advance.

The Foreign Office had “not been helpful or proactive in any way”, said Nakhon Chomphuchat, the human rights lawyer who is leading the defence case. “The defendants cannot fairly fight the case against them until their lawyers are able to know the case against them. The prosecution has not even provided witness lists, so it’s impossible to plan the defence strategy.”

The issue is a complex one given the British government has no formal legal duties over the case, beyond representing the interests of the families of Witheridge, 23, from Norfolk and Miller, 24, from Jersey. However, when the Burmese men retracted initial confessions soon after their arrest, saying they had been tortured by their interrogators, Britain expressed public worries about the investigation, even calling in a senior Thai diplomat to express concern. Later, Metropolitan police detectives were sent to Thailand to look over the Thai case, and report back to officials and the families.

In the wake of the Met police report, which has not been made public, the Foreign Office released statements from the Witheridge and Miller families in which they expressed confidence in the Thai investigation and criticised the media for widespread reports into concerns Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo might have been used as scapegoats. The Millers’ statement said: “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.”

Advertisement

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/15/thailand-murders-burmese-defence-foreign-office-fair-trial

[Krenjai]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/15/thailand-murders-burmese-defence-foreign-office-fair-trial - linking this is allowed right?

Excellent read and thanks for the link, it shows once again this will not be a fair process. It also shows Sherlock & Co. ONLY observed the apparently powerful & convincing RTP's evidence. This charade is a disgrace.

"The Met police team in Thailand had only reviewed the investigation “to provide reassurance” to the victims’ families, the FCO email explained, meaning the primary evidence “remains in the possession of the Thai police and prosecutor”. The only possible information could come from the Jersey and Norfolk coroners, who hold copies of UK autopsy reports on Witheridge and Miller, it added, saying it is up to the coroners to decide whether they can share this."

So coroners release your findings NOW and end this charade!

Edited December 16, 2014 by Krenjai

[lildragon]

If these two get the death penalty...what a travesty. 4 innocent lives lost to the hands of greed .

[aimbc]

Again I ask, were you there as a witness?

It's more a matter of establishing a 'truth' with insufficient or missing/misleading information - a typical audit investigation into a fraud would aim to fill in gaps to present a plausible case. Whether an absolute could be achieved is questionable.

To begin with a surmise that there was only 4 people at the crime scene (or on the beach) could be challenged if it is known that constant partying occurred every night - as an example. That there are many people who sleep on the beach or on moored boats, or are drifters etc. From that the defence could surmise that the RTP conclusion is implausible.

On the other supposition, if Hannah was incapacitated and unable to defend herself, The RTP's assertion that the B2 were able to carry out a rape is plausible, and that would be more difficult to defend. A reasonable person would challenge the first and accept the second that two persons could have committed the rape crime.

So to answer your question, one does not have to be a witness to construct a plausible scenario or to challenge the RTP's assertions.

Constructing a scenario is not "the truth", that's how BoristheBlade presented his views; even more so when that scenario is based on nothing but speculation.

There you go with selective using the word 'truth', you don't know if it's the truth or not until you have examine everything. If it's not the truth, can you tell me what is not true about it?

And don't tell me the police statement says so. You haven't seen or read or cross examine the police report to make such an assertion that some how you know the truth. The only truth is that the police made a one sided statement. Give some rebuttal instead of running in the corner and saying the same thing. So don't accuse others of not telling the truth. Because you You are guilty of not telling the truth either.

Part of reconstructing a crime scene takes a lot of critical thinking. Things have to make logical sense. Once you have that, then you can follow the evidence. And so far most thing the police did, hasn't made any logical sense.

[sambum]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/15/thailand-murders-burmese-defence-foreign-office-fair-trial - linking this is allowed right?

Excellent read and thanks for the link, it shows once again this will not be a fair process. It also shows Sherlock & Co. ONLY observed the apparently powerful & convincing RTP's evidence. This charade is a disgrace.

"The Met police team in Thailand had only reviewed the investigation “to provide reassurance” to the victims’ families, the FCO email explained, meaning the primary evidence “remains in the possession of the Thai police and prosecutor”. The only possible information could come from the Jersey and Norfolk coroners, who hold copies of UK autopsy reports on Witheridge and Miller, it added, saying it is up to the coroners to decide whether they can share this."

So coroners release your findings NOW and end this charade!

Agree completely! The defence team can not see the evidence, the UK police were only "observing" and reviewing the investigation "to provide reassurance to the victims' families", only being shown what the RTP wanted to show them - no wonder the families think that the B2 have a very difficult case to answer!

I know it's all been said before, but there is no way this can be a "fair and transparent' trial, especially as it seems that any evidence that the Met may have found/uncovered unbeknown to the Thai police and prosecutor can not be used by the defence as it is the "property of the Thai police and prosecutor"!!!

And what's the bets that the UK coroners will not release their findings on the autopsy reports until after the farce trial is completed, or when no further evidence may be admitted (I may be wrong on the last point, but maybe JD could put me right on that, having been married to a lawyer for 30 (?) years and knowing a bit about Thai law!)

[Krenjai]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/15/thailand-murders-burmese-defence-foreign-office-fair-trial - linking this is allowed right?

Excellent read and thanks for the link, it shows once again this will not be a fair process. It also shows Sherlock & Co. ONLY observed the apparently powerful & convincing RTP's evidence. This charade is a disgrace.

"The Met police team in Thailand had only reviewed the investigation “to provide reassurance” to the victims’ families, the FCO email explained, meaning the primary evidence “remains in the possession of the Thai police and prosecutor”. The only possible information could come from the Jersey and Norfolk coroners, who hold copies of UK autopsy reports on Witheridge and Miller, it added, saying it is up to the coroners to decide whether they can share this."

So coroners release your findings NOW and end this charade!

Agree completely! The defence team can not see the evidence, the UK police were only "observing" and reviewing the investigation "to provide reassurance to the victims' families", only being shown what the RTP wanted to show them - no wonder the families think that the B2 have a very difficult case to answer!

I know it's all been said before, but there is no way this can be a "fair and transparent' trial, especially as it seems that any evidence that the Met may have found/uncovered unbeknown to the Thai police and prosecutor can not be used by the defence as it is the "property of the Thai police and prosecutor"!!!

And what's the bets that the UK coroners will not release their findings on the autopsy reports until after the farce trial is completed, or when no further evidence may be admitted (I may be wrong on the last point, but maybe JD could put me right on that, having been married to a lawyer for 30 (?) years and knowing a bit about Thai law!)

At some point the UK coroners report will be known, I don't understand why they would wait until after the trial but ......we 'll see, I want to know:

1) What does Hannah's toxicology report show, can they still trace date rape drugs?

2) What does the DNA show, what kind of DNA and was it still possible to extract non-contaminated DNA?

3) What about that gunshot wound theory? Did they find bullet fragments?

But most of all, did they test this DNA against fresh samples of the B2, and if yes what was the result, and if no, WHY THE HELL NOT?

[boomerangutang]

First off, the question wasn't addressed to me, it was addressed to someone else who you quoted from. Secondly, I could ask you 50 questions, and you wouldn't answer any of them. Thirdly, I did answer the question. The answer didn't fit with your frantic determination to shield the Headman's people, so you dismissed it. Who is surprised by your response?

Here's the pattern we've been seeing for weeks from people who are echoing the RTP and shielding the Headman's people:

A poster might post several items surmised from the reports we hear from RTP and other sources. The Headman protectors

don't respond to any of the items, because they don't have strong counter-arguments. So instead, they pick one item and go off on a tangent. One poster can't stop writing the phrase; 'conspiracy theorists.' Another poster can't stop asking for increasing proofs of evidence, as if we're all in a court of law. Even when that poster gets answers, he keeps asking the same question ad nauseum. When that doesn't work, he tries picking on semantics.

What we don't get from them, are any useful additions to the discussion. It's understandable why they're continually on the defensive, as they don't have a proverbial leg to stand on, from the perspective of what we've been hearing from RTP and other sources. They hate social media, even though we're all participating in social media. They hate any perceived scenarios (other than the ridiculous scenario the RTP fed us in the reenactment), because all viable scenarios of the crime include the Headman's people. They, like the RTP, don't want any mention of the scenario in the bar prior to the crime, for the same reasons. They also don't want any investigation in to phone histories. If it quacks, walks, and shits like a duck, it must be a duck, except for people who don't want to even hear the word 'duck' mentioned.

Yes, the question was addressed to you; if you can't figure that out, what hope do you have of figuring out a crime?

As for the rest of your post it's the usual conspiracists babble, not worth addressing.

Your question related to a quote from another poster (Boris). Go backtrack and see I'm right. I'm glad you're not addressing my post, because you're like an LP record with a stuck needle. You knew you wouldn't get the answer you wanted, so you posted the only thing you're capable of posting: frustration. How about adding something useful to the discussion for a change? For example, Do you have any evidence that Nomsod was NOT on the island that night? His father said he was. Ok, we know about the video from the U lobby, which no one except RTP echoers believes has any veracity. Anything else? His g.f. couldn't find him in Bkk that night, and they're usually always together. His classmates and teacher can't vouch that he was in class on Monday morning.

Edited December 16, 2014 by boomerangutang

[jdinasia]

On Tuesday Thai junta chief and prime minister Prayut Chan-Ocha appeared to call into question the victims' conduct in addition to the perpetrators of the attack.

'We have to look into the behaviour of the other party too because this kind of incident should not happen to anybody and it has affected our image,' he told reporters, referring to the two tourists.

Police earlier said the pair had been seen partying at a local bar just hours before they died.

Sky News 16th Sept.

This statement was made the day after the murders by the prime minister. When I first head it it seemed an outrageous and insensitive statement to make. But now after all that has passed in the investigation, I am left wondering whether this was not just a stupid passing remark founded on nothing, but that the 'victims' conduct'/'behaviour' could be related to an argument that took place in the bar. If Mon was allowed all over the crime scene with the police, no doubt he also had plenty to tell them about his side of the story which may have painted a bleak picture of the victims behaviour before they were murdered. Pure speculation on my part of course. Anything for justice.

How does "pure speculation" benefit justice?

Facts benefit justice, pure speculation detracts from justice.

Pure speculation may warrant investigation, possibly leading to facts being discovered, which in turn may affect the outcome/justice of the case .

Ah.... That explains my tax dollars being spent on the pure speculation that the world is flat

...

Despite us knowing that it is not.

[aimbc]

On Tuesday Thai junta chief and prime minister Prayut Chan-Ocha appeared to call into question the victims' conduct in addition to the perpetrators of the attack.

'We have to look into the behaviour of the other party too because this kind of incident should not happen to anybody and it has affected our image,' he told reporters, referring to the two tourists.

Police earlier said the pair had been seen partying at a local bar just hours before they died.

Sky News 16th Sept.

This statement was made the day after the murders by the prime minister. When I first head it it seemed an outrageous and insensitive statement to make. But now after all that has passed in the investigation, I am left wondering whether this was not just a stupid passing remark founded on nothing, but that the 'victims' conduct'/'behaviour' could be related to an argument that took place in the bar. If Mon was allowed all over the crime scene with the police, no doubt he also had plenty to tell them about his side of the story which may have painted a bleak picture of the victims behaviour before they were murdered. Pure speculation on my part of course. Anything for justice.

How does "pure speculation" benefit justice?

Facts benefit justice, pure speculation detracts from justice.

Pure speculation may warrant investigation, possibly leading to facts being discovered, which in turn may affect the outcome/justice of the case .

Ah.... That explains my tax dollars being spent on the pure speculation that the world is flat

...

Despite us knowing that it is not.

Would that be the same speculation that the RTP are not tainted by bribes and money?

As long as that is solidly in people's minds, they will continue to question their findings.

You really have nothing to add to anything except speculating that the police is right. Proof to me that the police are right, before making any more comment about others views.

[jdinasia]

On Tuesday Thai junta chief and prime minister Prayut Chan-Ocha appeared to call into question the victims' conduct in addition to the perpetrators of the attack.

'We have to look into the behaviour of the other party too because this kind of incident should not happen to anybody and it has affected our image,' he told reporters, referring to the two tourists.

Police earlier said the pair had been seen partying at a local bar just hours before they died.

Sky News 16th Sept.

This statement was made the day after the murders by the prime minister. When I first head it it seemed an outrageous and insensitive statement to make. But now after all that has passed in the investigation, I am left wondering whether this was not just a stupid passing remark founded on nothing, but that the 'victims' conduct'/'behaviour' could be related to an argument that took place in the bar. If Mon was allowed all over the crime scene with the police, no doubt he also had plenty to tell them about his side of the story which may have painted a bleak picture of the victims behaviour before they were murdered. Pure speculation on my part of course. Anything for justice.

How does "pure speculation" benefit justice?

Facts benefit justice, pure speculation detracts from justice.

Pure speculation may warrant investigation, possibly leading to facts being discovered, which in turn may affect the outcome/justice of the case .

Ah.... That explains my tax dollars being spent on the pure speculation that the world is flat

...

Despite us knowing that it is not.

Would that be the same speculation that the RTP are not tainted by bribes and money?

As long as that is solidly in people's minds, they will continue to question their findings.

You really have nothing to add to anything except speculating that the police is right. Proof to me that the police are right, before making any more comment about others views.

The trial is where that happens.