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

[boomerangutang]

It will be interesting to see whether Thai cops did full body searches of suspects, within days of the crime. I suspect they didn't. Can you imagine cops asking Nomsod or Mon to strip, so they could inspect their bodies for bruises and cuts? Whoops, almost forgot, Nomsod was incognito for a week after the crime, even though he and his family knew cops were looking for him - and his family knew where he was, but they lied about his whereabouts because they're VIP and buddies with the cops. Similarly (to searching bodies for any injuries), would be thorough searches of suspects' rooms/houses and places where they do laundry (or places where they take clothes to get laundered). Does anyone think cops did any of that? I'd say it's very unlikely. Yet another of the dozens of basic things the cops either didn't do, or did and stuffed the findings because it implicated people connected to the Headman.

[CharlieH]

Off topic posts removed.

[IslandLover]

catsanddogs, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:29, said:catsanddogs, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:29, said:catsanddogs, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:29, said:catsanddogs, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:29, said:

IslandLover, on 17 Dec 2014 - 14:43, said:IslandLover, on 17 Dec 2014 - 14:43, said:IslandLover, on 17 Dec 2014 - 14:43, said:IslandLover, on 17 Dec 2014 - 14:43, said:

thailandchilli, on 17 Dec 2014 - 09:28, said:thailandchilli, on 17 Dec 2014 - 09:28, said:thailandchilli, on 17 Dec 2014 - 09:28, said:thailandchilli, on 17 Dec 2014 - 09:28, said:thailandchilli, on 17 Dec 2014 - 09:28, said:

Here's some witnesses

A better image of potential witnesses would be this one.

Only 3 seconds apart then.

I had a partner once that used to walk ahead of me when holding my hand sometimes. This always happened when he had something on his mind or was in a hurry, and he seemed to forget that I was attached to him. This does not look like a couple taking a relaxing stroll to me.

In one of the images posted by thailandchilli, the girl has detached from her partner and appears to be turning round to look at something behind her. To my knowledge, this couple has never been publicly identified or at the very least acknowledged, apart from the mistaken belief at the beginning of the investigation that they might be David and Hannah. Why not? Surely they must have seen the running man?

Edited December 17, 2014 by IslandLover

[StealthEnergiser]

Just my opinion I mentioned this before but there is a possibility Prayuth knows the B2 are innocent maybe Scotland Yard had a quiet word and did say things are not right.

The court case may be the only way to expose the corrupt cops and others involved in this horrendous crime. There would be undercover work going on and a blind man can see there something seriously wrong with this case. I would also suggest any persons covering up for these families should speak up now or they may end up changing places with the B2.

Edited December 17, 2014 by StealthEnergiser

[catsanddogs]

I see on a certain fb there is a witness to nomsod being on the island. That would be a great witness.

And since the defense is calling foreign witnesses. The best one would be the British coroner.

If true, that would piss-off some people on this thread. You can bet if such a witness comes forth, the gang of 4 will do and say all they can herein to trash the "FB" person. I can already hear shouts of 'conspiracy theorist!' echoing through upcoming posts. .....anything to shield the Headman's people, particularly his precious son.

greenchair - I can't see anything about it on that certain FB. Can you say what date I should be looking at or give any clues as to how to find it please? Ta.

[catsanddogs]

It will be interesting to see whether Thai cops did full body searches of suspects, within days of the crime. I suspect they didn't. Can you imagine cops asking Nomsod or Mon to strip, so they could inspect their bodies for bruises and cuts? Whoops, almost forgot, Nomsod was incognito for a week after the crime, even though he and his family knew cops were looking for him - and his family knew where he was, but they lied about his whereabouts because they're VIP and buddies with the cops. Similarly (to searching bodies for any injuries), would be thorough searches of suspects' rooms/houses and places where they do laundry (or places where they take clothes to get laundered). Does anyone think cops did any of that? I'd say it's very unlikely. Yet another of the dozens of basic things the cops either didn't do, or did and stuffed the findings because it implicated people connected to the Headman.

The press conference tomorrow should prove interesting too.

[IslandLover]

catsanddogs, on 17 Dec 2014 - 16:25, said:catsanddogs, on 17 Dec 2014 - 16:25, said:catsanddogs, on 17 Dec 2014 - 16:25, said:catsanddogs, on 17 Dec 2014 - 16:25, said:

boomerangutang, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:39, said:boomerangutang, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:39, said:boomerangutang, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:39, said:boomerangutang, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:39, said:

greenchair, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:04, said:greenchair, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:04, said:greenchair, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:04, said:greenchair, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:04, said:

I see on a certain fb there is a witness to nomsod being on the island. That would be a great witness.

And since the defense is calling foreign witnesses. The best one would be the British coroner.

If true, that would piss-off some people on this thread. You can bet if such a witness comes forth, the gang of 4 will do and say all they can herein to trash the "FB" person. I can already hear shouts of 'conspiracy theorist!' echoing through upcoming posts. .....anything to shield the Headman's people, particularly his precious son.

greenchair - I can't see anything about it on that certain FB. Can you say what date I should be looking at or give any clues as to how to find it please? Ta.

Apparently Hannah was an accomplished guitar player and singer according to her school profile. Also there is a link to a BBC radio interview with a former Uni flatmate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02785zq

Edited December 18, 2014 by CharlieH

[Gweiloman]

@jdinaisa, AleG, JTJ

I've asked once before, don't recall getting a reply so I'll ask again.

Why are you guys defending the RTP / prosecution case so, so, so very much against practically every poster on the board? It goes beyond natural instinct and reaction for impartial observers with non-vested interests. Pretty much every one of your posts the last couple of days have been on related threads (according to TV search function).

Are you so incensed by conspiracy theories that you have taken it upon yourselves to crusade against it?

Any logical and sane thinking person can see that the amount of arguments that you guys are putting up are completely beyond normal reason. Not only that but it has become extremely annoying (though sadly within TV rules). I will wager that never in the history of TV have the same posters been put on ignore lists by so many other posters is so short a time.

Whatever your reasons or intentions may be, I fear that they will only have the opposite reaction to that you desire.

[IslandLover]

catsanddogs, on 17 Dec 2014 - 16:25, said:

boomerangutang, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:39, said:

greenchair, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:04, said:

I see on a certain fb there is a witness to nomsod being on the island. That would be a great witness.

And since the defense is calling foreign witnesses. The best one would be the British coroner.

If true, that would piss-off some people on this thread. You can bet if such a witness comes forth, the gang of 4 will do and say all they can herein to trash the "FB" person. I can already hear shouts of 'conspiracy theorist!' echoing through upcoming posts. .....anything to shield the Headman's people, particularly his precious son.

greenchair - I can't see anything about it on that certain FB. Can you say what date I should be looking at or give any clues as to how to find it please? Ta.

Try looking on the left-hand side of the page under "Posts to page". I have not seen it myself but it may be there.

[AleG]

@jdinaisa, AleG, JTJ

I've asked once before, don't recall getting a reply so I'll ask again.

Why are you guys defending the RTP / prosecution case so, so, so very much against practically every poster on the board? It goes beyond natural instinct and reaction for impartial observers with non-vested interests. Pretty much every one of your posts the last couple of days have been on related threads (according to TV search function).

Are you so incensed by conspiracy theories that you have taken it upon yourselves to crusade against it?

Any logical and sane thinking person can see that the amount of arguments that you guys are putting up are completely beyond normal reason. Not only that but it has become extremely annoying (though sadly within TV rules). I will wager that never in the history of TV have the same posters been put on ignore lists by so many other posters is so short a time.

Whatever your reasons or intentions may be, I fear that they will only have the opposite reaction to that you desire.

Are you so incensed by conspiracy theories that you have taken it upon yourselves to crusade against it?

Yes, yes I am; the kind of behaviour and groupthinking displayed by the people advancing this conspiracies is a bane on humanity, in case you missed there have already been calls for vigilante "justice".

If people take offense at me insisting in rationality and objectivity, they can try and argue against that, or continue to make the issue about people and their motives; as the quote goes: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

[AleG]

There are some interesting recent posts, particularly from Sondhi and Lyn T. Apparently Hannah was an accomplished guitar player and singer according to her school profile. Also there is a link to a BBC radio interview with a former Uni flatmate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02785zq

Oh, and according to someone calling himself the "Burmese Guy", the wearer of the No. 9 shirt will never be found as he's already been "disposed of" (my euphemism here). Can this case really get any more sordid?

Oh what a tangled web we weave .......

Can this case rumors really get any more sordid?

It's a race to the bottom, apparently.

[Vejo]

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

@jdinaisa, AleG, JTJ

I've asked once before, don't recall getting a reply so I'll ask again.

Why are you guys defending the RTP / prosecution case so, so, so very much against practically every poster on the board? It goes beyond natural instinct and reaction for impartial observers with non-vested interests. Pretty much every one of your posts the last couple of days have been on related threads (according to TV search function).

Are you so incensed by conspiracy theories that you have taken it upon yourselves to crusade against it?

Any logical and sane thinking person can see that the amount of arguments that you guys are putting up are completely beyond normal reason. Not only that but it has become extremely annoying (though sadly within TV rules). I will wager that never in the history of TV have the same posters been put on ignore lists by so many other posters is so short a time.

Whatever your reasons or intentions may be, I fear that they will only have the opposite reaction to that you desire.

Most of the posters backing the prosecution are just factually cherry picking news reports to support their arguments in the same way B2 supporters do to claim injustice. Unfortunately not everybody has the ability to display empathy and sympathy and that may not always be their fault, but it leads to an apparent air of arrogance and dispassion that easily upsets others. I find with the application of a little thought and common sense you can work out who is who, no need for anger or ignoring, just apply a bit of understanding and mentally insert the words "In my opinion" to the start of any poster who niggles you. Ask yourself, would you be happy if the only way you could get attention in life is to play the pantomine villain on an internet forum every night ? I would personally find it exhausting and very unhealthy.

[catsanddogs]

catsanddogs, on 17 Dec 2014 - 16:25, said:

boomerangutang, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:39, said:

greenchair, on 17 Dec 2014 - 15:04, said:

I see on a certain fb there is a witness to nomsod being on the island. That would be a great witness.

And since the defense is calling foreign witnesses. The best one would be the British coroner.

If true, that would piss-off some people on this thread. You can bet if such a witness comes forth, the gang of 4 will do and say all they can herein to trash the "FB" person. I can already hear shouts of 'conspiracy theorist!' echoing through upcoming posts. .....anything to shield the Headman's people, particularly his precious son.

greenchair - I can't see anything about it on that certain FB. Can you say what date I should be looking at or give any clues as to how to find it please? Ta.

Try looking on the left-hand side of the page under "Posts to page". I have not seen it myself but it may be there.

Thanks IL.

[jdinasia]

So with the clue

Or quite simply the probability, in my opinion, is that the murderers are in custody and facing trial starting a week from this Friday.

I'm going to take offence at your statement JD. You are a <deleted>.

I would assert that any reasonable person would not assume that the B2 are murderers.

I would assert any reasonable person wouldn't have to resort to name calling and would listen to the families statements.

[jdinasia]

So with the clue you have now of "Koh Tao Bar Crawl" put that in google search

Yes, another unsourced image. But it is good to see that the TVF CT boycott is working so well! ( sarcasm intended).

Good to see? Really, even when we have an unresolved case and a probability of killers being on the loose? I think is sad and potentially very dangerous. But either you don't think of that or you have already convicted the B2 before the trial

Or quite simply the probability, in my opinion, is that the murderers are in custody and facing trial starting a week from this Friday.

I'm going to take offence at your statement JD. You are a <deleted>.

So, aside from resorting to name calling ; you are offended that I think the 2 Burmese men charged, are guilty?

[aimbc]

@jdinaisa, AleG, JTJ

I've asked once before, don't recall getting a reply so I'll ask again.

Why are you guys defending the RTP / prosecution case so, so, so very much against practically every poster on the board? It goes beyond natural instinct and reaction for impartial observers with non-vested interests. Pretty much every one of your posts the last couple of days have been on related threads (according to TV search function).

Are you so incensed by conspiracy theories that you have taken it upon yourselves to crusade against it?

Any logical and sane thinking person can see that the amount of arguments that you guys are putting up are completely beyond normal reason. Not only that but it has become extremely annoying (though sadly within TV rules). I will wager that never in the history of TV have the same posters been put on ignore lists by so many other posters is so short a time.

Whatever your reasons or intentions may be, I fear that they will only have the opposite reaction to that you desire.

Are you so incensed by conspiracy theories that you have taken it upon yourselves to crusade against it?

Yes, yes I am; the kind of behaviour and groupthinking displayed by the people advancing this conspiracies is a bane on humanity, in case you missed there have already been calls for vigilante "justice".

If people take offense at me insisting in rationality and objectivity, they can try and argue against that, or continue to make the issue about people and their motives; as the quote goes: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

I think many people argue against the police statement. What makes you think the police statement is true? Have you seen the report, if you have not, then you can't say it's true. That is not rational thinking. Please do not make that mistake.

Therefore you can't make a statement that any of it is conspiracy theory especially without weighing all the evidence. And if you have, please provide the proof.

The bottom line is that not even you know the truth. So you and your pals need stop accusing others of posting conspiracy theories. In affect you are guilty of spreading false rumour that the police report are true. They maybe true as posted in the news, but so are the two suspect making the statement that they are innocent. Is it true that both of these statements appear in the news? No one is issuing any claim that these two suspect are innocent, just that things don't logically fit. But you on the other hand blindly believe that the police statement is true. If that is the case, then you must blindly believe that the two defendant statement is true. I think most of the world sees this.

To debunk any conspiracy, you need to have solid evidence. Do you have it to do that? If you don't, then it's not a conspiracy.

By your many flaws in your logic, please do not start posting quotes to try to defend yourself, because great ideas are being shared here. But thank you for sharing that with us.

Edited December 18, 2014 by aimbc

[aimbc]

After reading the article about the bloody weapon, why would the murderers leave the weapon near the body and opt to take the phone and sunglasses instead?

Kind of a weak evidence plant. I mean, who would need sunglasses at night, other than that 80's song.

I think the weapon left at the scene was to throw the police off track? Things just don't fit.

[AleG]

Are you so incensed by conspiracy theories that you have taken it upon yourselves to crusade against it?

Yes, yes I am; the kind of behaviour and groupthinking displayed by the people advancing this conspiracies is a bane on humanity, in case you missed there have already been calls for vigilante "justice".

If people take offense at me insisting in rationality and objectivity, they can try and argue against that, or continue to make the issue about people and their motives; as the quote goes: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

I think many people argue against the police statement. What makes you think the police statement is true? Have you seen the report, if you have not, then you can't say it's true. That is not rational thinking. Please do not make that mistake.

Therefore you can't make a statement that any of it is conspiracy theory especially without weighing all the evidence. And if you have, please provide the proof.

The bottom line is that not even you know the truth. So you and your pals need stop accusing others of posting conspiracy theories. In affect you are guilty of spreading false rumour that the police report are true. They maybe true as posted in the news, but so are the two suspect making the statement that they are innocent. Is it true that both of these statements appear in the news? No one is issuing any claim that these two suspect are innocent, just that things don't logically fit. But you on the other hand blindly believe that the police statement is true. If that is the case, then you must blindly believe that the two defendant statement is true. I think most of the world sees this.

To debunk any conspiracy, you need to have solid evidence. Do you have it to do that? If you don't, then it's not a conspiracy.

By your many flaws in your logic, please do not start posting quotes to try to defend yourself, because great ideas are being shared here. But thank you for sharing that with us.

You logic is flawed, "you don't know if it's not true" is a fallacy. I don't know that you are not, let's say, a bank robber, should I then assume that you are as the default position? Of course not, it's a ridiculous line of reasoning.

The people claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth and stitch up the Burmese have the onus of supporting their claim, it's extremely easy to make things up and then ask people "prove me wrong", but the only thing that proves is that they can't prove their case using actual evidence and facts.

[stephen terry]

Are you so incensed by conspiracy theories that you have taken it upon yourselves to crusade against it?

Yes, yes I am; the kind of behaviour and groupthinking displayed by the people advancing this conspiracies is a bane on humanity, in case you missed there have already been calls for vigilante "justice".

If people take offense at me insisting in rationality and objectivity, they can try and argue against that, or continue to make the issue about people and their motives; as the quote goes: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

I think many people argue against the police statement. What makes you think the police statement is true? Have you seen the report, if you have not, then you can't say it's true. That is not rational thinking. Please do not make that mistake.

Therefore you can't make a statement that any of it is conspiracy theory especially without weighing all the evidence. And if you have, please provide the proof.

The bottom line is that not even you know the truth. So you and your pals need stop accusing others of posting conspiracy theories. In affect you are guilty of spreading false rumour that the police report are true. They maybe true as posted in the news, but so are the two suspect making the statement that they are innocent. Is it true that both of these statements appear in the news? No one is issuing any claim that these two suspect are innocent, just that things don't logically fit. But you on the other hand blindly believe that the police statement is true. If that is the case, then you must blindly believe that the two defendant statement is true. I think most of the world sees this.

To debunk any conspiracy, you need to have solid evidence. Do you have it to do that? If you don't, then it's not a conspiracy.

By your many flaws in your logic, please do not start posting quotes to try to defend yourself, because great ideas are being shared here. But thank you for sharing that with us.

You logic is flawed, "you don't know if it's not true" is a fallacy. I don't know that you are not, let's say, a bank robber, should I then assume that you are as the default position? Of course not, it's a ridiculous line of reasoning.

The people claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth and stitch up the Burmese have the onus of supporting their claim, it's extremely easy to make things up and then ask people "prove me wrong", but the only thing that proves is that they can't prove their case using actual evidence and facts.

Okay, start with viewing the re-enactment scene (video posted on the LA site) which was unlawfully directed by the RTP. (You're probably aware that the RTP are not permitted to engage with the suspects during a re-enactment). Unless the B2 are very good actors, there is enough visual evidence to conclude that they knew nothing about how they were supposed to have committed the murders. for example, striking the David actor with a dustpan hoe is a fallacy as the actual hoe didn't have any of David's DNA on it, as admitted by the RTP.

I would suggest any reasonable person watching this would start to question the integrity of the RTP. On the balance of probability, two scapegoats were found to carry the can, and wrap up the investigation.

Edited December 18, 2014 by stephen terry

[aimbc]

Are you so incensed by conspiracy theories that you have taken it upon yourselves to crusade against it?

Yes, yes I am; the kind of behaviour and groupthinking displayed by the people advancing this conspiracies is a bane on humanity, in case you missed there have already been calls for vigilante "justice".

If people take offense at me insisting in rationality and objectivity, they can try and argue against that, or continue to make the issue about people and their motives; as the quote goes: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

I think many people argue against the police statement. What makes you think the police statement is true? Have you seen the report, if you have not, then you can't say it's true. That is not rational thinking. Please do not make that mistake.

Therefore you can't make a statement that any of it is conspiracy theory especially without weighing all the evidence. And if you have, please provide the proof.

The bottom line is that not even you know the truth. So you and your pals need stop accusing others of posting conspiracy theories. In affect you are guilty of spreading false rumour that the police report are true. They maybe true as posted in the news, but so are the two suspect making the statement that they are innocent. Is it true that both of these statements appear in the news? No one is issuing any claim that these two suspect are innocent, just that things don't logically fit. But you on the other hand blindly believe that the police statement is true. If that is the case, then you must blindly believe that the two defendant statement is true. I think most of the world sees this.

To debunk any conspiracy, you need to have solid evidence. Do you have it to do that? If you don't, then it's not a conspiracy.

By your many flaws in your logic, please do not start posting quotes to try to defend yourself, because great ideas are being shared here. But thank you for sharing that with us.

You logic is flawed, "you don't know if it's not true" is a fallacy. I don't know that you are not, let's say, a bank robber, should I then assume that you are as the default position? Of course not, it's a ridiculous line of reasoning.

The people claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth and stitch up the Burmese have the onus of supporting their claim, it's extremely easy to make things up and then ask people "prove me wrong", but the only thing that proves is that they can't prove their case using actual evidence and facts.

First, you just made a huge mistake by misquoting me. I said no such thing. So please retract the statement. Read before you let your ego get the better of you.

It is clear that what i wrote was that no one can prove any statement by the police or the suspect is true. And that your argument always centers around the police statement for all your rebuttal. Which tells me that you believe beyond a doubt that the police statement is true.

But have you debunked what you claimed to be conspiracy? You haven't, because you can't. Then you needed to spreading rumour that it's a conspiracy. You understand your fallacy?

Bottom line, do you know the real killer. If you do, then there is no need to post further, accept to help validate your conclusion. If posting because you want to point out that they are wrong, then provide the proof to counter their claims.

I know it's fun to make people get frustrated at you. You are doing a great job at it.

Edited December 18, 2014 by aimbc

[thailandchilli]

AleG #700 "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Which of the above do you discuss? Of course the quote is completely irrelevant in this thread when we are discussing a human situation where it is impossible not to refer to the people or events.

"Rounded minds are able to discuss, idea's, events, people and not be afraid to question an investigation that has brought word wide attention for the alleged corruption and human rights violations": thailandchilli 2014

Edited December 18, 2014 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

You logic is flawed, "you don't know if it's not true" is a fallacy. I don't know that you are not, let's say, a bank robber, should I then assume that you are as the default position? Of course not, it's a ridiculous line of reasoning.

The people claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth and stitch up the Burmese have the onus of supporting their claim, it's extremely easy to make things up and then ask people "prove me wrong", but the only thing that proves is that they can't prove their case using actual evidence and facts.

First, you just made a huge mistake by misquoting me. I said no such thing. So please retract the statement. Read before you let your ego get the better of you.

It is clear that what i wrote was that no one can prove any statement by the police or the suspect is true. And that your argument always centers around the police statement for all your rebuttal. Which tells me that you believe beyond a doubt that the police statement is true.

But have you debunked what you claimed to be conspiracy? You haven't, because you can't. Then you needed to spreading rumour that it's a conspiracy. You understand your fallacy?

Bottom line, do you know the real killer. If you do, then there is no need to post further, accept to help validate your conclusion. If posting because you want to point out that they are wrong, then provide the proof to counter their claims.

I know it's fun to make people get frustrated at you. You are doing a great job at it.

I was not quoting you, I was rephrasing your argument "I think many people argue against the police statement. What makes you think the police statement is true? Have you seen the report, if you have not, then you can't say it's true" in defense of people pushing conspiracies, so yes, your argument boils down to a negative proof fallacy:

A negative proof (known classically as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity.

The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claims, if their argument is "you don't know if my claim is not true" then they have proven nothing.

Moving on... "And that your argument always centers around the police statement for all your rebuttal"

My argument always centers on waiting for the evidence to be presented in court to be examined, so really, do try to pay attention.

"But have you debunked what you claimed to be conspiracy? You haven't, because you can't."

Again, a negative proof fallacy, if I can't prove a scenario that offers no actual evidence to support it (and therefore no evidence to be contested) then the scenario is true.

"Bottom line, do you know the real killer. If you do, then there is no need to post further, accept to help validate your conclusion."

Right, you tell me that and not the people that claim know the real killer is not the men standing trial, citing bugger all evidence and facts to support their argument?

[AleG]

AleG #700 "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Which of the above do you discuss? Of course the quote is completely irrelevant in this tread when we are discussing a human situation where it is impossible not to refer to the people or events.

"Rounded minds are able to discuss, idea's, events, people and not be afraid to question an investigation that has brought word wide attention for the alleged corruption and human rights violations": thailandchilli 2014

Which of the above do you discuss?

Burden of proof, logical argumentation, epistemological responsibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.. Those are all concepts related to the pursuit of knowledge and facts, AKA, ideas.

[thailandchilli]

AleG #700 "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Which of the above do you discuss? Of course the quote is completely irrelevant in this tread when we are discussing a human situation where it is impossible not to refer to the people or events.

"Rounded minds are able to discuss, idea's, events, people and not be afraid to question an investigation that has brought word wide attention for the alleged corruption and human rights violations": thailandchilli 2014

Which of the above do you discuss?

Burden of proof, logical argumentation, epistemological responsibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.. Those are all concepts related to the pursuit of knowledge and facts, AKA, ideas.

Go ahead then, whats your honest opinion on this case, what do you feel you can bring to it, apart from saying we have to wait for the trial

[AleG]

You logic is flawed, "you don't know if it's not true" is a fallacy. I don't know that you are not, let's say, a bank robber, should I then assume that you are as the default position? Of course not, it's a ridiculous line of reasoning.

The people claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth and stitch up the Burmese have the onus of supporting their claim, it's extremely easy to make things up and then ask people "prove me wrong", but the only thing that proves is that they can't prove their case using actual evidence and facts.

Okay, start with viewing the re-enactment scene (video posted on the LA site) which was unlawfully directed by the RTP. (You're probably aware that the RTP are not permitted to engage with the suspects during a re-enactment). Unless the B2 are very good actors, there is enough visual evidence to conclude that they knew nothing about how they were supposed to have committed the murders. for example, striking the David actor with a dustpan hoe is a fallacy as the actual hoe didn't have any of David's DNA on it, as admitted by the RTP.

I would suggest any reasonable person watching this would start to question the integrity of the RTP. On the balance of probability, two scapegoats were found to carry the can, and wrap up the investigation.

So your argument hinges on the accused not playing along with the reconstruction; did it occur to you that they have strong motives to discredit the process by doing so?

In any case, obviously the police thought they have enough evidence to arrest them men before the reconstruction, so the case will be based on that evidence, rather than the reconstruction.

[AleG]

AleG #700 "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Which of the above do you discuss? Of course the quote is completely irrelevant in this tread when we are discussing a human situation where it is impossible not to refer to the people or events.

"Rounded minds are able to discuss, idea's, events, people and not be afraid to question an investigation that has brought word wide attention for the alleged corruption and human rights violations": thailandchilli 2014

Which of the above do you discuss?

Burden of proof, logical argumentation, epistemological responsibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.. Those are all concepts related to the pursuit of knowledge and facts, AKA, ideas.

Go ahead then, whats your honest opinion on this case, what do you feel you can bring to it, apart from saying we have to wait for the trial

Well, I have this crazy idea about waiting until the actual evidence is presented at the trial before passing a judgment... oh wait you don't want to hear that opinion.

[stephen terry]

You logic is flawed, "you don't know if it's not true" is a fallacy. I don't know that you are not, let's say, a bank robber, should I then assume that you are as the default position? Of course not, it's a ridiculous line of reasoning.

The people claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth and stitch up the Burmese have the onus of supporting their claim, it's extremely easy to make things up and then ask people "prove me wrong", but the only thing that proves is that they can't prove their case using actual evidence and facts.

Okay, start with viewing the re-enactment scene (video posted on the LA site) which was unlawfully directed by the RTP. (You're probably aware that the RTP are not permitted to engage with the suspects during a re-enactment). Unless the B2 are very good actors, there is enough visual evidence to conclude that they knew nothing about how they were supposed to have committed the murders. for example, striking the David actor with a dustpan hoe is a fallacy as the actual hoe didn't have any of David's DNA on it, as admitted by the RTP.

I would suggest any reasonable person watching this would start to question the integrity of the RTP. On the balance of probability, two scapegoats were found to carry the can, and wrap up the investigation.

So your argument hinges on the accused not playing along with the reconstruction; did it occur to you that they have strong motives to discredit the process by doing so?

In any case, obviously the police thought they have enough evidence to arrest them men before the reconstruction, so the case will be based on that evidence, rather than the reconstruction.

i suggest you watch the video before surmising their motivation. However, I agree that the RTP have constructed enough evidence to indict them. That would be normal whether true or false.

[thailandchilli]

AleG #700 "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Which of the above do you discuss? Of course the quote is completely irrelevant in this tread when we are discussing a human situation where it is impossible not to refer to the people or events.

"Rounded minds are able to discuss, idea's, events, people and not be afraid to question an investigation that has brought word wide attention for the alleged corruption and human rights violations": thailandchilli 2014

Which of the above do you discuss?

Burden of proof, logical argumentation, epistemological responsibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.. Those are all concepts related to the pursuit of knowledge and facts, AKA, ideas.

Go ahead then, whats your honest opinion on this case, what do you feel you can bring to it, apart from saying we have to wait for the trial

Well, I have this crazy idea about waiting until the actual evidence is presented at the trial before passing a judgment... oh wait you don't want to hear that opinion.

And if this case was being conducted in the west, where the high majority of criminal cases are fair and transparent then I would agree with you 100% That is not the case here, that is where we have to agree to disagree

Edited December 18, 2014 by thailandchilli

[Mooner]

You logic is flawed, "you don't know if it's not true" is a fallacy. I don't know that you are not, let's say, a bank robber, should I then assume that you are as the default position? Of course not, it's a ridiculous line of reasoning.

The people claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth and stitch up the Burmese have the onus of supporting their claim, it's extremely easy to make things up and then ask people "prove me wrong", but the only thing that proves is that they can't prove their case using actual evidence and facts.

Okay, start with viewing the re-enactment scene (video posted on the LA site) which was unlawfully directed by the RTP. (You're probably aware that the RTP are not permitted to engage with the suspects during a re-enactment). Unless the B2 are very good actors, there is enough visual evidence to conclude that they knew nothing about how they were supposed to have committed the murders. for example, striking the David actor with a dustpan hoe is a fallacy as the actual hoe didn't have any of David's DNA on it, as admitted by the RTP.

I would suggest any reasonable person watching this would start to question the integrity of the RTP. On the balance of probability, two scapegoats were found to carry the can, and wrap up the investigation.

So your argument hinges on the accused not playing along with the reconstruction; did it occur to you that they have strong motives to discredit the process by doing so?

In any case, obviously the police thought they have enough evidence to arrest them men before the reconstruction, so the case will be based on that evidence, rather than the reconstruction.

I was thinking his point was that in the re construction they claimed to hit him with a hoe but the hoe had none of his DNA on it.

Before I hear it wasn't a hoe it was another hard object. Where is this weapon? Take it home with them? or the police to inept to find a bloodied weapon lying around the scene but obviously they could find a smashed phone behind the B2's house.

Are we still waiting to find David's murder weapon? Or do the police still claim its a hoe?

[AleG]

So your argument hinges on the accused not playing along with the reconstruction; did it occur to you that they have strong motives to discredit the process by doing so?

In any case, obviously the police thought they have enough evidence to arrest them men before the reconstruction, so the case will be based on that evidence, rather than the reconstruction.

I was thinking his point was that in the re construction they claimed to hit him with a hoe but the hoe had none of his DNA on it.

Before I hear it wasn't a hoe it was another hard object. Where is this weapon? Take it home with them? or the police to inept to find a bloodied weapon lying around the scene but obviously they could find a smashed phone behind the B2's house.

Are we still waiting to find David's murder weapon? Or do the police still claim its a hoe?

As far as I know, the other "weapon" was a bottle, according to the confession of the defendants.