greenchair Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Sometimes I say to my son. In multiple choice, you can often find the answer by eliminating the answers that you know cannot be correct.just like you can show people to be innocent by eliminating them from crime pictures and scenes. Here are the times that I can see of walking man. One of them is 11.14. But the boys were on the bike at that time. so can we state fact that walking man could not be any of the boys. post-223227-0-74164500-1419216100.png post-223227-0-23285100-1420519434.jpg post-221615-0-07103400-1420580913 (1).jpg bikeboys(1).jpg Does anyone have the full video of walking man that these pictures were taken from? ?? Where is the 11:14 one?The first one. The one he is walking. The time is on the left. Different cameras have the time in different places. I am told the one on the left is the time to look at.
phusingpete Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Do not worry boys. We know you are innocent. We are all a little distracted at the minute but will get back to our investigations into your innocence in a bit. ?☺?? You don't know they are innocent, you want to believe they are innocent, if you knew they were innocent you would be able to demonstrate it factually. Usually according to normal Justice systems the accused is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. the burden of proving guilt rests with the prosecution. Normally! 1
greenchair Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Do not worry boys. We know you are innocent. We are all a little distracted at the minute but will get back to our investigations into your innocence in a bit. ?☺?? You don't know they are innocent, you want to believe they are innocent, if you knew they were innocent you would be able to demonstrate it factually. We on here who search everyday for a little bit of truth, hour after hour. will treat the b2 as innocent until proven guilty. I think we certainly have found many interesting facts by looking at the factual pictures. and looking at the factual time lines that some have tried to distract us from. ?? 2
AleG Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Do not worry boys. We know you are innocent. We are all a little distracted at the minute but will get back to our investigations into your innocence in a bit. ?☺?? You don't know they are innocent, you want to believe they are innocent, if you knew they were innocent you would be able to demonstrate it factually. We on here who search everyday for a little bit of truth, hour after hour. will treat the b2 as innocent until proven guilty. I think we certainly have found many interesting facts by looking at the factual pictures. and looking at the factual time lines that some have tried to distract us from. ?? If you start from the position that you already know something you are not looking for the truth, or anything else; why would you look for something you already have or know? "I think we certainly have found many interesting facts by looking at the factual pictures" Really? What interesting facts?
catsanddogs Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Sometimes I say to my son. In multiple choice, you can often find the answer by eliminating the answers that you know cannot be correct.just like you can show people to be innocent by eliminating them from crime pictures and scenes. Here are the times that I can see of walking man. One of them is 11.14. But the boys were on the bike at that time. so can we state fact that walking man could not be any of the boys. post-223227-0-74164500-1419216100.png post-223227-0-23285100-1420519434.jpg post-221615-0-07103400-1420580913 (1).jpg bikeboys(1).jpg Does anyone have the full video of walking man that these pictures were taken from? ?? Where is the 11:14 one?The first one. The one he is walking. The time is on the left. Different cameras have the time in different places. I am told the one on the left is the time to look at. Sorry GC I see where you mean now. I don't agree though that this is the correct time because if we are going to have any consistency with the times then I think we have to go with the time that is to the right of the date on the right of the still. Maybe someone can put us right on this?
greenchair Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Contempt prior to investigation will yield you nothing. I am willing to keep searching for a gem that may or may not turn up. Leave no stone unturned. We have found interesting things that might mean nothing or might be important. Such as the naked man in the street. Such as mon trampling all over the crime scene. Such as walking man cannot be moa moa. Such as stingray man in the pub near David. And many more that we are thinking about. How many pictures have you produced to show they are guilty. ? 1
greenchair Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 One hates to how it would be to sit in a prison day after day for a crime you did not commit. ??
AleG Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 Contempt prior to investigation will yield you nothing. I am willing to keep searching for a gem that may or may not turn up. Leave no stone unturned. We have found interesting things that might mean nothing or might be important. Such as the naked man in the street. Such as mon trampling all over the crime scene. Such as walking man cannot be moa moa. Such as stingray man in the pub near David. And many more that we are thinking about. How many pictures have you produced to show they are guilty. ? The prosecution has to produce proof of their guilt, not me; in my opinion (and I lost count how many times I've said it) the weight of the evidence is what will decide guilt or innocence, as it stands now the prosecution claims against the two suspects, if they stand up to scrutiny, are damning. So what would a man that appears to be naked on one frame of one CCTV video going to do to disprove DNA evidence or the victim's belongings linked to the suspects for example? What good does claiming that all the evidence is fake, part of a conspiracy to protect the real killers if nobody can substantiate those claims? Or should we accept any theories as having the same weight, even when they contradict each other? If you take it upon yourself to prove their innocence, claim they are innocent, but can't show anything that proves how can you say you know they are innocent? To quote Confucius: "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance". I don't know they are guilty, I suspect so based on the available evidence, but if that evidence ends up being disproved I will stop suspecting their guilt. By the same token you should be ready and willing to examine the source of your belief in their innocence and be open to the possibility that you may be wrong.
Popular Post Gweiloman Posted January 24, 2015 Popular Post Posted January 24, 2015 It would not surprise me if there are a couple of RTP shills frequenting these threads, trying to see if any posters have unearthed interesting facts that support the defence, so that the prosecution can take the necessary steps to counter and rebut them during the trial. One possible shill in particular continuously asks others to show him their "facts". I wonder why ............ 4
greenchair Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 Now that is an important question. What does the naked man have to do with the case ? Well the b2 apparently had their clothes stolen from the beach. Could it be that the naked mans clothes were stolen also. This would a good witness as it would validate the boys story of missing clothes. Those clothes apparently turned up at the court. If the clothes were stolen. Where did the police get them from ? In fact where did the police get them from anyway? As they were not at the crime scene.
AleG Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 It would not surprise me if there are a couple of RTP shills frequenting these threads, trying to see if any posters have unearthed interesting facts that support the defence, so that the prosecution can take the necessary steps to counter and rebut them during the trial. One possible shill in particular continuously asks others to show him their "facts". I wonder why ............ Paranoia?
greenchair Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 It would not surprise me if there are a couple of RTP shills frequenting these threads, trying to see if any posters have unearthed interesting facts that support the defence, so that the prosecution can take the necessary steps to counter and rebut them during the trial. One possible shill in particular continuously asks others to show him their "facts". I wonder why ............ You certainly could be right about that. Trust no one Everyones a suspect.
Gweiloman Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 It would not surprise me if there are a couple of RTP shills frequenting these threads, trying to see if any posters have unearthed interesting facts that support the defence, so that the prosecution can take the necessary steps to counter and rebut them during the trial. One possible shill in particular continuously asks others to show him their "facts". I wonder why ............ Paranoia? No, just occam's razor
Popular Post boomerangutang Posted January 24, 2015 Popular Post Posted January 24, 2015 What good does claiming that all the evidence is fake, part of a conspiracy to protect the real killers if nobody can substantiate those claims?Somewhat good question. None of us are on the defense team. Yet, it's fair to say some of us have hopes of aiding the defense. In doing so, some of us are looking at interesting facets of the case (such things that the RTP or Headman have not trashed/hidden). Most things discussed herein may have zero bearing on the case. Yet, if just one or two items turn out to be useful to shedding light on what really happened that night (even if it incriminates the Burmese), then so much the better. Just because RTP or defense team appear to be professionals (that's a stretch, when referring to RTP), they may still benefit from observations of tens of thousands of concerned 'outsiders.' Again, probably 98% of what outsiders present/notice is moot, but it's the 2% we're shooting for. Pardon us, RTP-echoers, if some of what we put forth may not be airtight in regards to revealing what truly happened that horrible night. It's a process. It's like a sculpture. We're cutting away, and slowly getting to a presentable form representing truth. If we relied solely upon the RTP or Headman's close people to reveal what really happened, we'd wind up with 2 or 3 migrants (young, poor, no social status, scared, threatened, incarcerated) .....oh, wait a cottonpickinminute, .....that's what we've got now. 4
greenchair Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 Sometimes I say to my son. In multiple choice, you can often find the answer by eliminating the answers that you know cannot be correct.just like you can show people to be innocent by eliminating them from crime pictures and scenes. Here are the times that I can see of walking man. One of them is 11.14. But the boys were on the bike at that time. so can we state fact that walking man could not be any of the boys. post-223227-0-74164500-1419216100.png post-223227-0-23285100-1420519434.jpg post-221615-0-07103400-1420580913 (1).jpg bikeboys(1).jpg Does anyone have the full video of walking man that these pictures were taken from? ?? Where is the 11:14 one?The first one. The one he is walking. The time is on the left. Different cameras have the time in different places. I am told the one on the left is the time to look at. Sorry GC I see where you mean now. I don't agree though that this is the correct time because if we are going to have any consistency with the times then I think we have to go with the time that is to the right of the date on the right of the still. Maybe someone can put us right on this? Yeah, I asked a while ago. The guy said the number on the right is from the computer time of the video running and the left is the time. Why do you think it not the right time?
greenchair Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 Bad luck seems from 2014, seems to be following these people. Right into 2015.
boomerangutang Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 Bad luck seems from 2014, seems to be following these people. Right into 2015. post-69687-0-23933700-1422136958_thumb.jpg post-223227-0-61832600-1419852197.jpg One of the first questions I would ask RTP, if they held a press conference on this crime and its investigation, would be whether they scrutinized the mobile phones of all 'persons of interest' and those they called/texted in the 48 hours from the crime. Of course, there are many other basic things the RTP didn't pursue, but phone histories and texts could prove to be v. important. I was reminded of that, when seeing a photo of Nomsod's mother, above. The Headman himself, surely has at least one mobile phone. Just as revealing, would be phone activity between Mon and Nomsod. If cops didn't do that basic action, they all should be docked a year's salary and demoted. It's almost criminal, how badly the police have acted, in their faux-investigation. Actually, it could indeed be criminal, if it's shown they intentionally didn't do their jobs and/or framed up scapegoats. It's not possible for any such discipline to be enforced within the RTP, but it sure would be useful to clean up their sordid ranks. Similarly, if it's true that one or two of the beach bars withheld or destroyed CCTV evidence (from that night), the folks who did that should be charged with hampering a crime investigation. Ooops, sorry (almost forgot), there are no such laws here. In Thailand, it's ok to lie to cops, and mai pen rai if a person harbors a criminal or withholds/destroys evidence. 1
greenchair Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 So thank you to rockin? He pm me the article from a well known news. It clearly states that mon is this guy running. Apparently he was woken by the maid. Leaped out of bed and raced down to the beach half dressed to assess the situation. This run to me, Seems a run of panic. He really wants to get somewhere and fast. I don't believe his story at all.
greenchair Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 The first pic is 4:49 The 2nd pic is 5:41. So almost an hour. Could it be the maid discovered the commotion at the beach. Ran and woke him up to get help. Then when he went to the beach, found his own mates/family fighting,so helped to cover it up. What was Mon doing at the beach for so long before calling the police 2
loonodingle Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 Bad luck seems from 2014, seems to be following these people. Right into 2015. post-69687-0-23933700-1422136958_thumb.jpg post-223227-0-61832600-1419852197.jpg One of the first questions I would ask RTP, if they held a press conference on this crime and its investigation, would be whether they scrutinized the mobile phones of all 'persons of interest' and those they called/texted in the 48 hours from the crime. Of course, there are many other basic things the RTP didn't pursue, but phone histories and texts could prove to be v. important. I was reminded of that, when seeing a photo of Nomsod's mother, above. The Headman himself, surely has at least one mobile phone. Just as revealing, would be phone activity between Mon and Nomsod. If cops didn't do that basic action, they all should be docked a year's salary and demoted. It's almost criminal, how badly the police have acted, in their faux-investigation. Actually, it could indeed be criminal, if it's shown they intentionally didn't do their jobs and/or framed up scapegoats. It's not possible for any such discipline to be enforced within the RTP, but it sure would be useful to clean up their sordid ranks. Similarly, if it's true that one or two of the beach bars withheld or destroyed CCTV evidence (from that night), the folks who did that should be charged with hampering a crime investigation. Ooops, sorry (almost forgot), there are no such laws here. In Thailand, it's ok to lie to cops, and mai pen rai if a person harbors a criminal or withholds/destroys evidence. The problem that you have here is if it is the case that the boys are being setup, then this has come from very high up the food chain. Its not an island issue. At one point it was, they had leads and cctv that implicated 2 people who then fled to the mainland. Both relating to the Headman. Someone put their size 12 boot on that idea and flew in a spokesperson who declared a Thai couldn't commit such crimes. The focus was switched to easy prey. and here we are now. Just because they have footage of 3 guys going in a shop it doesn't mean a thing. Nothing. lots more people we haven't seen went in the very same shop. The RTP are feeding us the information they hope will form an opinion of guilt against the B2/3.. What they should do is release the whole video's but they will not. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. 2
loonodingle Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 The first pic is 4:49 The 2nd pic is 5:41. So almost an hour. Could it be the maid discovered the commotion at the beach. Ran and woke him up to get help. Then when he went to the beach, found his own mates/family fighting,so helped to cover it up. What was Mon doing at the beach for so long before calling the police where is the maid running..???
greenchair Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 The first pic is 4:49 The 2nd pic is 5:41. So almost an hour. Could it be the maid discovered the commotion at the beach. Ran and woke him up to get help. Then when he went to the beach, found his own mates/family fighting,so helped to cover it up. What was Mon doing at the beach for so long before calling the police where is the maid running..??? Well that is just it. There is no picture of the maid running to wake up mon. This was his story that he relayed to the police. We were discussing it on the other thread, but the ? has been so active I moved here. Mon explained to the police that he was running down the beach half naked, because the maid woke him up. She told him there were dead bodies down at the beach so he ran down to investigate. I don't understand why this story has been let slide. ???? 1
boomerangutang Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) So thank you to rockin? He pm me the article from a well known news. It clearly states that mon is this guy running. Apparently he was woken by the maid. Leaped out of bed and raced down to the beach half dressed to assess the situation. This run to me, Seems a run of panic. He really wants to get somewhere and fast. I don't believe his story at all. Mon and Nomsod (uncle and nephew) look similar, and they both have same haircuts. However, from the photos, the man in white shorts looks to me more like Nomsod than Mon, and here's why: Mon is a man, and Nomsod is a kid and skinnier. The still photos show, particularly the top one, a skinny kid. I'm not in a campaign against Nomsod. Instead, I'm following what clues we (the general public) have been shown (and read/heard) and drawing conclusions. The first pic is 4:49 The 2nd pic is 5:41. So almost an hour. Could it be the maid discovered the commotion at the beach. Ran and woke him up to get help. Then when he went to the beach, found his own mates/family fighting,so helped to cover it up. What was Mon doing at the beach for so long before calling the police where is the maid running..???Well that is just it. There is no picture of the maid running to wake up mon. This was his story that he relayed to the police. We were discussing it on the other thread, but the ? has been so active I moved here. Mon explained to the police that he was running down the beach half naked, because the maid woke him up. She told him there were dead bodies down at the beach so he ran down to investigate. I don't understand why this story has been let slide. ????Mon claiming he was the 'running man' is, in my view, a ruse (or, a canard). If it's true (that he said that), here's the probable reason: He's covering for his nephew. He must have known, early Monday morning, that his nephew would be a prime suspect so, being a good uncle, he did all he could to cover for (and put up a smokescreen) for the kid. It's possible Mon also tampered with the crime scene, but we'll never know. It would be interesting if a witness piped up and claimed to have seen Mon doing odd things at the crime scene, at first light after the crime, but if there is/are such witnesses, we'll never hear from them, for reasons we're all familiar with. note, the images I had hoped would load with my post, don't. The software running this blog inserts thousands of code weirdnesses (much of it relating to Google / analytics, etc) Edited January 25, 2015 by boomerangutang
boomerangutang Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 as an addendum to my post above: The story attributed to Mon, of a maid waking him up, and he jumping out of bed and running through a public thoroughfare with just boxer shorts, is not believable for at least three reasons. Some of the reasons have been mentioned earlier by other posters, but let me just reiterate: >>> No Thai runs out the door - in to a public space without getting dressed. It just doesn't happen. >>> Yes, there's zero footage of a maid anywhere, going any direction. If the mystery woman saw something and went to report to the pu yai (Big Man Mon) about it, she would have been shown in one of the CCTV's. >>> As mentioned in my post (above) it's more believable that the man in the white shorts is Nomsod. So, if Mon claims it was him, then it's likely a cover for his nephew. Plus, Mon is buddies with cops, so he's teflon coated - he can venture forth with a story to shield his nephew, without fear of being seriously implicated. 2
greenchair Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 I have not seen any evidence that nomsod was involved other than the fact that video was altered and he found need to lie for some reason. Mon is a much stronger suspect in my mind. Simply because everywhere you turn. There he is. Staring right out of the pictures. With feeble excuses about why he was in all of those places that he shouldn't have been. The police were sure it was him and another migrant worker. Then he walks into the police station with his brother. ?suddenly it isn't him.
rockingrobin Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 There is a report somewhere where Mon denies being the guy in the cctv, However Initially I would have these questions Widely reported and accepted the murders discovered by beach cleaners 6:20 -6:30 , if the explanation of Mon in cctv is correct , why did henot report it, and what was he doing Why did he not volunteer himself to the police On a side issue the anybody check if the beach cleaners had inadvertently picked up evidence during their work , e.g shoes, items that may have been discarded during the crime 2
thailandchilli Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) There is a report somewhere where Mon denies being the guy in the cctv, However Initially I would have these questions Widely reported and accepted the murders discovered by beach cleaners 6:20 -6:30 , if the explanation of Mon in cctv is correct , why did henot report it, and what was he doing Why did he not volunteer himself to the police On a side issue the anybody check if the beach cleaners had inadvertently picked up evidence during their work , e.g shoes, items that may have been discarded during the crime If Mon was the first on the scene after the cleaners which according to those reports and Islandlife it seems to be, then we would need to establish where he actually lived, if he was staying in the resort he owns 'In touch' then thats located directly on the beach yes? If so he would have run on the beach to the scene not the soi. The cleaners picking up items around where the B2 were alleged to have been is an important point. Who knows if any other evidence went in their bins? Edited January 25, 2015 by thailandchilli 1
greenchair Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 Mon goes to the beach first at. 3:44.15 then must have come back (no pic ) then again at 4:49.01 then come back 4:51.28 then go again (no pic) Then come back again running. 5:41.50
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now