Myanmar says workers innocent of murdering Britons on Koh Tao

[greenchair]

Why do you keep talking about a picture that you know has been altered ?

Without wishing to sound rude, from your last days detective work who are we looking for ?

A man with his left foot on his right leg and his right foot on his left leg. And one foot twice as big as the other.

Plus we now know from a still picture frame that he walks like Charlie Chapin.

And he looks drunk. We know he is drunk from a fuzzy CCTV picture.

Not forgetting all this comes from a picture that shows someone walking hours before the crime took place.

May I ask what little gem you are expecting to pick up from this detective work ?

I only have one picture of the left foot right leg man. It doesn't have the time do you have a picture of him with the time. ⌚

[boomerangutang]

It's now been 17 weeks since the the British Coroner's Office rec'd possession of the bodies, and 3 weeks past the time the Coroner told the public they would release findings. If I was a professor and the Coroner was one of my students, I don't know whether I'd give her an 'Incomplete' or and F. An F would probably be unfair, because she and her office have not released anything - so she can't be graded on nothing submitted/released. An INCOMPLETE is what she gets.

[boomerangutang]

Speaking of officials forgetting to do their jobs. Remember the mini-saga of the Yingluck government and NASA? NASA had requested permission to establish a small scientific base near Pattaya, for a weather station. 11 months went by, and nothing from the Thai government. Then NASA gently reminded the Thai government of the request. Thai bureaucrats woke up for a few moments and realized they had to make a decision. They did, and turned down the request which, in my view, was stupid. If for not other reason, it deprives some science-leaning Thais to exposure to real science.

I bring that up, because it reminds me of the British Coroner and her relation to the Ko Tao case of David and Hannah. Maybe Madam Coroner needs a gentle reminder (from taxpayers who pay her salary?) ....to wake up and do her job.

[catsanddogs]

Why do you keep talking about a picture that you know has been altered ?

Without wishing to sound rude, from your last days detective work who are we looking for ?

A man with his left foot on his right leg and his right foot on his left leg. And one foot twice as big as the other.

Plus we now know from a still picture frame that he walks like Charlie Chapin.

And he looks drunk. We know he is drunk from a fuzzy CCTV picture.

Not forgetting all this comes from a picture that shows someone walking hours before the crime took place.

May I ask what little gem you are expecting to pick up from this detective work ?

A man with his left foot on his right leg and his right foot on his left leg. And one foot twice as big as the other.

Thank you Berybert. Your words have enabled me to chuckle out loud for the first time in four months after being involved in these threads. Could almost be the lyrics to a Rolf Harris song.

[greenchair]

Why do you keep talking about a picture that you know has been altered ?

Without wishing to sound rude, from your last days detective work who are we looking for ?

A man with his left foot on his right leg and his right foot on his left leg. And one foot twice as big as the other.

Plus we now know from a still picture frame that he walks like Charlie Chapin.

And he looks drunk. We know he is drunk from a fuzzy CCTV picture.

Not forgetting all this comes from a picture that shows someone walking hours before the crime took place.

May I ask what little gem you are expecting to pick up from this detective work ?

A man with his left foot on his right leg and his right foot on his left leg. And one foot twice as big as the other.

Thank you Berybert. Your words have enabled me to chuckle out loud for the first time in four months after being involved in these threads. Could almost be the lyrics to a Rolf Harris song.

Upon reading that again. It is kinda funny noh. ☺

[Eirene]

The reason the feet and legs look odd is due to one of the suspects superimposed overtop of the CCTV image of the running man in light coloured shorts. If you look closely it looks as though he is carrying his shirt. Would like to see the superimposed image of the other suspect. I wonder why they never showed it. I thought this could be Win...yet this was in the media on September 23 and they were arrested October 3.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

[greenchair]

The reason the feet and legs look odd is due to one of the suspects superimposed overtop of the CCTV image of the running man in light coloured shorts. If you look closely it looks as though he is carrying his shirt. Would like to see the superimposed image of the other suspect. I wonder why they never showed it. I thought this could be Win...yet this was in the media on September 23 and they were arrested October 3.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

Thanks for that. I was trying to figure it out. If it was superimposed on running man white shorts. I think the telephone is doctored in and the hair looks doctored in.

But what about the shirt?

Anyway neither here nor there.

If it were superimposed on 23rd.

It quite obviously is not b2.

So quick evaluation of past investigations

Running man black shorts cannot be b2.

Running man white shorts cannot be b2

Walking man cannot be b2

Running man and walking man were at the beach near/at the time of the crime.

Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing.

So the last piece of evidence is the dna on Hannah.

We know that the dna collection was kept in the Headman's fridge, 3 days.

The crime scene was trampled all over before the police arrived at 12.00.

Thailand top forensic scientist has spoken about the dna collection and other issues.

All these boys need is a good lawyer and a couple of good forensic scientists.

INNOCENT ??

[AleG]

The reason the feet and legs look odd is due to one of the suspects superimposed overtop of the CCTV image of the running man in light coloured shorts. If you look closely it looks as though he is carrying his shirt. Would like to see the superimposed image of the other suspect. I wonder why they never showed it. I thought this could be Win...yet this was in the media on September 23 and they were arrested October 3.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

Thanks for that. I was trying to figure it out. If it was superimposed on running man white shorts. I think the telephone is doctored in and the hair looks doctored in.

But what about the shirt?

Anyway neither here nor there.

If it were superimposed on 23rd.

It quite obviously is not b2.

So quick evaluation of past investigations

Running man black shorts cannot be b2.

Running man white shorts cannot be b2

Walking man cannot be b2

Running man and walking man were at the beach near/at the time of the crime.

Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing.

So the last piece of evidence is the dna on Hannah.

We know that the dna collection was kept in the Headman's fridge, 3 days.

The crime scene was trampled all over before the police arrived at 12.00.

Thailand top forensic scientist has spoken about the dna collection and other issues.

All these boys need is a good lawyer and a couple of good forensic scientists.

INNOCENT ??

"Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing."

Except, of course, that they had Miller's phone and sunglasses at some point after the murders.

[boomerangutang]

So, fair-minded people among us feel strongly (from evidence, etc) that the B2 are not guilty. Let's see if we can determine who is. The RTP doesn't care, and aren't doing anything (since the replacement head cop was instated) to try and find who is really guilty. For those of us seeking truth and justice, it's a tough row to hoe for several reasons. Even some of the clues we've been shown have been doctored. Certainly the CCTV from the U which forms the ONLY alibi material for Nomsod. Now, we find even the CCTV from the island is doctored (the man with no shirt and dark shorts - at the least, his hair looks blacked-on by a felt-tipped pen). Other CCTV wasn't submitted and was probably destroyed by AC bar people (most likely Mon). We've already seen thousands of posts showing how the DNA trail is screwed. Altogether, Mon and his buddies have successfully screwed-up as much would-be evidence as humanly possible. So, whether or not the B2 are acquitted, there's no chance of a trial for those who should still be suspects, because they've successfully tampered-with and destroyed evidence, not least; Mon walking all over the crime scene minutes/hours after the crime.

Welcome to crime investigation - Thai style.

[boomerangutang]

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

The reason the feet and legs look odd is due to one of the suspects superimposed overtop of the CCTV image of the running man in light coloured shorts. If you look closely it looks as though he is carrying his shirt. Would like to see the superimposed image of the other suspect. I wonder why they never showed it. I thought this could be Win...yet this was in the media on September 23 and they were arrested October 3.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

Thanks for that. I was trying to figure it out. If it was superimposed on running man white shorts. I think the telephone is doctored in and the hair looks doctored in.

But what about the shirt?

Anyway neither here nor there.

If it were superimposed on 23rd.

It quite obviously is not b2.

So quick evaluation of past investigations

Running man black shorts cannot be b2.

Running man white shorts cannot be b2

Walking man cannot be b2

Running man and walking man were at the beach near/at the time of the crime.

Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing.

So the last piece of evidence is the dna on Hannah.

We know that the dna collection was kept in the Headman's fridge, 3 days.

The crime scene was trampled all over before the police arrived at 12.00.

Thailand top forensic scientist has spoken about the dna collection and other issues.

All these boys need is a good lawyer and a couple of good forensic scientists.

INNOCENT ??

"Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing."

Except, of course, that they had Miller's phone and sunglasses at some point after the murders.

If true, then the worst they can be convicted of is stealing a couple of low-value items, after a crime was committed. Incidentally, David's phone was reportedly found at the crime scene. It had a broken faceplate. For the record: theft in Thailand carries twice the penalty if done at night, than if the same crime is done in daylight.

[greenchair]

The reason the feet and legs look odd is due to one of the suspects superimposed overtop of the CCTV image of the running man in light coloured shorts. If you look closely it looks as though he is carrying his shirt. Would like to see the superimposed image of the other suspect. I wonder why they never showed it. I thought this could be Win...yet this was in the media on September 23 and they were arrested October 3.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

Thanks for that. I was trying to figure it out. If it was superimposed on running man white shorts. I think the telephone is doctored in and the hair looks doctored in.

But what about the shirt?

Anyway neither here nor there.

If it were superimposed on 23rd.

It quite obviously is not b2.

So quick evaluation of past investigations

Running man black shorts cannot be b2.

Running man white shorts cannot be b2

Walking man cannot be b2

Running man and walking man were at the beach near/at the time of the crime.

Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing.

So the last piece of evidence is the dna on Hannah.

We know that the dna collection was kept in the Headman's fridge, 3 days.

The crime scene was trampled all over before the police arrived at 12.00.

Thailand top forensic scientist has spoken about the dna collection and other issues.

All these boys need is a good lawyer and a couple of good forensic scientists.

INNOCENT ??

"Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing."

Except, of course, that they had Miller's phone and sunglasses at some point after the murders.

Well no actually there is no evidence of that. They were found outside their room "apparently ". there is no proveable evidence that the objects were actually in their hands. No fingerprints for example. Although there might be now. Anybody could have put those things there. Probably the fairies.?⛄

[berybert]

The reason the feet and legs look odd is due to one of the suspects superimposed overtop of the CCTV image of the running man in light coloured shorts. If you look closely it looks as though he is carrying his shirt. Would like to see the superimposed image of the other suspect. I wonder why they never showed it. I thought this could be Win...yet this was in the media on September 23 and they were arrested October 3.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

Thanks for that. I was trying to figure it out. If it was superimposed on running man white shorts. I think the telephone is doctored in and the hair looks doctored in.

But what about the shirt?

Anyway neither here nor there.

If it were superimposed on 23rd.

It quite obviously is not b2.

So quick evaluation of past investigations

Running man black shorts cannot be b2.

Running man white shorts cannot be b2

Walking man cannot be b2

Running man and walking man were at the beach near/at the time of the crime.

Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing.

So the last piece of evidence is the dna on Hannah.

We know that the dna collection was kept in the Headman's fridge, 3 days.

The crime scene was trampled all over before the police arrived at 12.00.

Thailand top forensic scientist has spoken about the dna collection and other issues.

All these boys need is a good lawyer and a couple of good forensic scientists.

INNOCENT ??

"Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing."

Except, of course, that they had Miller's phone and sunglasses at some point after the murders.

Why do you even bother ?

When the man mentions no DNA or fingerprints, that goes for the phone as well as the sunglasses.

[berybert]

So, fair-minded people among us feel strongly (from evidence, etc) that the B2 are not guilty. Let's see if we can determine who is. The RTP doesn't care, and aren't doing anything (since the replacement head cop was instated) to try and find who is really guilty. For those of us seeking truth and justice, it's a tough row to hoe for several reasons. Even some of the clues we've been shown have been doctored. Certainly the CCTV from the U which forms the ONLY alibi material for Nomsod. Now, we find even the CCTV from the island is doctored (the man with no shirt and dark shorts - at the least, his hair looks blacked-on by a felt-tipped pen). Other CCTV wasn't submitted and was probably destroyed by AC bar people (most likely Mon). We've already seen thousands of posts showing how the DNA trail is screwed. Altogether, Mon and his buddies have successfully screwed-up as much would-be evidence as humanly possible. So, whether or not the B2 are acquitted, there's no chance of a trial for those who should still be suspects, because they've successfully tampered-with and destroyed evidence, not least; Mon walking all over the crime scene minutes/hours after the crime.

Welcome to crime investigation - Thai style.

How long does it take you to realize that the doctored photo is doctored ?

You know it is doctored, Greenchair knows it has been doctored, yet you continue to mention it as if it means anything.

It is a photo that has been superimposed which means it has been doctored.

So using a doctored photo as a starting point really isn't going to get you anywhere.

See if you can find a picture of someone with 3 legs or a arm missing.

[AleG]

"Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing."

Except, of course, that they had Miller's phone and sunglasses at some point after the murders.

Well no actually there is no evidence of that. They were found outside their room "apparently ". there is no proveable evidence that the objects were actually in their hands. No fingerprints for example. Although there might be now. Anybody could have put those things there. Probably the fairies.?⛄

One of the accused gave Miller's phone to a friend *Bangkok Post article "Police Fend Off Koh Tao Claims), who then discarded it near their lodgings, so that makes at least one witness to the fact

You have no idea if the phone had or hadn't fingerprints or DNA traces on it, you just assume something that lets you dismiss any information contrary to your beliefs, that's not the path to the truth.

[AleG]

So, fair-minded people among us feel strongly (from evidence, etc) that the B2 are not guilty. Let's see if we can determine who is. The RTP doesn't care, and aren't doing anything (since the replacement head cop was instated) to try and find who is really guilty. For those of us seeking truth and justice, it's a tough row to hoe for several reasons. Even some of the clues we've been shown have been doctored. Certainly the CCTV from the U which forms the ONLY alibi material for Nomsod. Now, we find even the CCTV from the island is doctored (the man with no shirt and dark shorts - at the least, his hair looks blacked-on by a felt-tipped pen). Other CCTV wasn't submitted and was probably destroyed by AC bar people (most likely Mon). We've already seen thousands of posts showing how the DNA trail is screwed. Altogether, Mon and his buddies have successfully screwed-up as much would-be evidence as humanly possible. So, whether or not the B2 are acquitted, there's no chance of a trial for those who should still be suspects, because they've successfully tampered-with and destroyed evidence, not least; Mon walking all over the crime scene minutes/hours after the crime.

Welcome to crime investigation - Thai style.

Since I have previously provided to you this cite to the effect that Nomsod's alibi is more than just one CCTV video:

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

[berybert]

So, fair-minded people among us feel strongly (from evidence, etc) that the B2 are not guilty. Let's see if we can determine who is. The RTP doesn't care, and aren't doing anything (since the replacement head cop was instated) to try and find who is really guilty. For those of us seeking truth and justice, it's a tough row to hoe for several reasons. Even some of the clues we've been shown have been doctored. Certainly the CCTV from the U which forms the ONLY alibi material for Nomsod. Now, we find even the CCTV from the island is doctored (the man with no shirt and dark shorts - at the least, his hair looks blacked-on by a felt-tipped pen). Other CCTV wasn't submitted and was probably destroyed by AC bar people (most likely Mon). We've already seen thousands of posts showing how the DNA trail is screwed. Altogether, Mon and his buddies have successfully screwed-up as much would-be evidence as humanly possible. So, whether or not the B2 are acquitted, there's no chance of a trial for those who should still be suspects, because they've successfully tampered-with and destroyed evidence, not least; Mon walking all over the crime scene minutes/hours after the crime.

Welcome to crime investigation - Thai style.

Since I have previously provided to you this cite to the effect that Nomsod's alibi is more than just one CCTV video:

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place.

You have yet to change anybody's mind despite hundreds of posts on the subject. Might soon be time you was taken for some attitude adjustment.

So I guess you are also more than happy to frame someone. But don't let that get in your way of an investment.

P.S. You mention his Lawyer claims there are documents that prove he was in class on such and such dates. Now forgive me if I am wrong but if we were using what someone else claimed, you would be asking for facts and proof of said documentation not just taking our word for it.

What is the difference here ?

Of course him being good friends with Nom's mum is all the proof you need. Huh.

Edited January 29, 2015 by berybert

[boomerangutang]

So, fair-minded people among us feel strongly (from evidence, etc) that the B2 are not guilty. Let's see if we can determine who is. The RTP doesn't care, and aren't doing anything (since the replacement head cop was instated) to try and find who is really guilty. For those of us seeking truth and justice, it's a tough row to hoe for several reasons. Even some of the clues we've been shown have been doctored. Certainly the CCTV from the U which forms the ONLY alibi material for Nomsod. Now, we find even the CCTV from the island is doctored (the man with no shirt and dark shorts - at the least, his hair looks blacked-on by a felt-tipped pen). Other CCTV wasn't submitted and was probably destroyed by AC bar people (most likely Mon). We've already seen thousands of posts showing how the DNA trail is screwed. Altogether, Mon and his buddies have successfully screwed-up as much would-be evidence as humanly possible. So, whether or not the B2 are acquitted, there's no chance of a trial for those who should still be suspects, because they've successfully tampered-with and destroyed evidence, not least; Mon walking all over the crime scene minutes/hours after the crime.

Welcome to crime investigation - Thai style.

How long does it take you to realize that the doctored photo is doctored ?

You know it is doctored, Greenchair knows it has been doctored, yet you continue to mention it as if it means anything.

It is a photo that has been superimposed which means it has been doctored.

So using a doctored photo as a starting point really isn't going to get you anywhere.

See if you can find a picture of someone with 3 legs or a arm missing.

I mentioned, in my post, the KT video is doctored. So, we agree. What's new?

So, fair-minded people among us feel strongly (from evidence, etc) that the B2 are not guilty. Let's see if we can determine who is. The RTP doesn't care, and aren't doing anything (since the replacement head cop was instated) to try and find who is really guilty. For those of us seeking truth and justice, it's a tough row to hoe for several reasons. Even some of the clues we've been shown have been doctored. Certainly the CCTV from the U which forms the ONLY alibi material for Nomsod. Now, we find even the CCTV from the island is doctored (the man with no shirt and dark shorts - at the least, his hair looks blacked-on by a felt-tipped pen). Other CCTV wasn't submitted and was probably destroyed by AC bar people (most likely Mon). We've already seen thousands of posts showing how the DNA trail is screwed. Altogether, Mon and his buddies have successfully screwed-up as much would-be evidence as humanly possible. So, whether or not the B2 are acquitted, there's no chance of a trial for those who should still be suspects, because they've successfully tampered-with and destroyed evidence, not least; Mon walking all over the crime scene minutes/hours after the crime.

Welcome to crime investigation - Thai style.

Since I have previously provided to you this cite to the effect that Nomsod's alibi is more than just one CCTV video:

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

Even if the kid was in class on Monday morning, that wouldn't preclude him going in a speedboat to the mainland, and getting a fast vehicle to the U. The cops checked speedboat operators around Ko Tao, as one of their first things after the crime, but then the replacement head cop was instated, so all investigation in the original two prime suspects halted. Cops could have spoken with car-for-hire people on the mainland cities closest to Ko Tao, but that would be assuming cops are doing anything remotely like a crime investigation, which is a big stretch. Nomsod leaving Monday morning would also corroborate with what his father claimed - and there are other reasons to strongly suspect Nomsod was not only on the island that night, but directly involved with the crime.

In closing: the alibi photos and video always looked fake, and can quite likely be proven to be faked. As for 'present in class' ...that's not for sure, but even if his teacher was not paid/pressured to say so, it still doesn't preclude what I mentioned in the above paragraph. More importantly, it doesn't dismiss him as prime suspect from any reasonable person's perspective.

[greenchair]

"Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing."

Except, of course, that they had Miller's phone and sunglasses at some point after the murders.

Well no actually there is no evidence of that. They were found outside their room "apparently ". there is no proveable evidence that the objects were actually in their hands. No fingerprints for example. Although there might be now. Anybody could have put those things there. Probably the fairies.?⛄

One of the accused gave Miller's phone to a friend *Bangkok Post article "Police Fend Off Koh Tao Claims), who then discarded it near their lodgings, so that makes at least one witness to the fact

You have no idea if the phone had or hadn't fingerprints or DNA traces on it, you just assume something that lets you dismiss any information contrary to your beliefs, that's not the path to the truth.

I guess I would have several questions about this "friend".

1.did they give both phone and glasses?

I understand why friend would throw broken phone but why the glasses.

2.did friend stay in same living quarters as b2.

If not, why did friend go and throw them in that particular place?

Why did friend wait until objects were found to come forward?

Why did friend come forward anyway.

Friend must have received said objects long before b2 arrested almost as much as 2 weeks. One does wonder where friend was working and if friend was illegal like pancake man.

As for Muang Muang. I am sorry to say. There are questions?

In fact throughout this whole thing in my opinion. There are many questions about all whose name has come up except the b2.

[boomerangutang]

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

I do seek truth and justice in this case. I am not shielding anyone, as you are. Am I prejudiced? You could say so, in the sense: I'm prejudiced in favor of the true criminals getting punished. I am prejudiced against Thai officialdom standing shoulder to shoulder to frame innocents while concurrently shielding the Headman's people from any scrutiny, even though two of them were prime suspects in the initial days after the crime. One of whom hid from authorities for a week even though he knew he was wanted by police. The same punk wouldn't submit to getting his DNA typed. Then there are stacks of other potential evidence which, if some were proved true, would prove he committed grave crimes that night. All that potential evidence has been successfully squelched by Thai authorities and the Headman, with support from some posters herein.

[boomerangutang]

"Another poster made a very good point. There is absolutely nothing to connect the b2 to David. Not a fingerprint no dna nothing."

Except, of course, that they had Miller's phone and sunglasses at some point after the murders.

Well no actually there is no evidence of that. They were found outside their room "apparently ". there is no proveable evidence that the objects were actually in their hands. No fingerprints for example. Although there might be now. Anybody could have put those things there. Probably the fairies.?⛄

One of the accused gave Miller's phone to a friend *Bangkok Post article "Police Fend Off Koh Tao Claims), who then discarded it near their lodgings, so that makes at least one witness to the fact

You have no idea if the phone had or hadn't fingerprints or DNA traces on it, you just assume something that lets you dismiss any information contrary to your beliefs, that's not the path to the truth.

I guess I would have several questions about this "friend".

1.did they give both phone and glasses?

I understand why friend would throw broken phone but why the glasses.

2.did friend stay in same living quarters as b2.

If not, why did friend go and throw them in that particular place?

Why did friend wait until objects were found to come forward?

Why did friend come forward anyway.

Friend must have received said objects long before b2 arrested almost as much as 2 weeks. One does wonder where friend was working and if friend was illegal like pancake man.

As for Muang Muang. I am sorry to say. There are questions?

In fact throughout this whole thing in my opinion. There are many questions about all whose name has come up except the b2.

Hello GC. You and I and a few others are trying to address the concerns of AleG. We already know he's doing all he can to shield the Headman's people. Part of that game involves focusing on the Burmese. It's a way to waste time and energy. It compels people like us to devote much time and energy to addressing little things like 'was a pair of sunglasses stolen?'. The 900 lb. gorilla in the room, that AleG and the others are trying to divert our attention from is: WHO ARE THE REAL PERPETRATORS of the crime?!?

Suppose I had 3 dead bodies in a locked room in my house. Neighbors show up at my door and ask, "what's that smell coming from your house?". If I then asked them about their garden, and their car, and a hundred other sundry things, ....that would divert their attention away from their main reason for showing up. That's what the RTP, the courts, and some posters herein are doing. They're trying to get us to focus on the Burmese, and are spooked if there's any mention of those who should still be prime suspects. DIVERSION.

Also, putting the trial off as long as possible (and getting Brit Coroner to do same with her findings) is the hope of the general public losing interest. And it works! Probably the only smart thing the RTP has done in this whole case is delay it for many months.

[AleG]

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

I do seek truth and justice in this case. I am not shielding anyone, as you are. Am I prejudiced? You could say so, in the sense: I'm prejudiced in favor of the true criminals getting punished. I am prejudiced against Thai officialdom standing shoulder to shoulder to frame innocents while concurrently shielding the Headman's people from any scrutiny, even though two of them were prime suspects in the initial days after the crime. One of whom hid from authorities for a week even though he knew he was wanted by police. The same punk wouldn't submit to getting his DNA typed. Then there are stacks of other potential evidence which, if some were proved true, would prove he committed grave crimes that night. All that potential evidence has been successfully squelched by Thai authorities and the Headman, with support from some posters herein.

If you hold a belief not only on the absence of evidence to support it, but against evidence that disproves it, then yes, you are operating under a system of prejudice.

You dismiss Nomsod's alibi, why? Big conspiracy, why you believe that? Because that´s what they would do, no need to show any facts to prove it, in short: prejudice.

Having said that, prejudice is anathema with the idea of truth and justice.

[AleG]

Since I have previously provided to you this cite to the effect that Nomsod's alibi is more than just one CCTV video:

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place.

You have yet to change anybody's mind despite hundreds of posts on the subject. Might soon be time you was taken for some attitude adjustment.

So I guess you are also more than happy to frame someone. But don't let that get in your way of an investment.

P.S. You mention his Lawyer claims there are documents that prove he was in class on such and such dates. Now forgive me if I am wrong but if we were using what someone else claimed, you would be asking for facts and proof of said documentation not just taking our word for it.

What is the difference here ?

Of course him being good friends with Nom's mum is all the proof you need. Huh.

"Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place."

One minute after the crime, right...

Where did you get that from?

[greenchair]

Since I have previously provided to you this cite to the effect that Nomsod's alibi is more than just one CCTV video:

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place.

You have yet to change anybody's mind despite hundreds of posts on the subject. Might soon be time you was taken for some attitude adjustment.

So I guess you are also more than happy to frame someone. But don't let that get in your way of an investment.

P.S. You mention his Lawyer claims there are documents that prove he was in class on such and such dates. Now forgive me if I am wrong but if we were using what someone else claimed, you would be asking for facts and proof of said documentation not just taking our word for it.

What is the difference here ?

Of course him being good friends with Nom's mum is all the proof you need. Huh.

"Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place."

One minute after the crime, right...

Where did you get that from?

I just noticed that. What does he mean 1 minute after it took place??♦?????

[catsanddogs]

Since I have previously provided to you this cite to the effect that Nomsod's alibi is more than just one CCTV video:

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place.

You have yet to change anybody's mind despite hundreds of posts on the subject. Might soon be time you was taken for some attitude adjustment.

So I guess you are also more than happy to frame someone. But don't let that get in your way of an investment.

P.S. You mention his Lawyer claims there are documents that prove he was in class on such and such dates. Now forgive me if I am wrong but if we were using what someone else claimed, you would be asking for facts and proof of said documentation not just taking our word for it.

What is the difference here ?

Of course him being good friends with Nom's mum is all the proof you need. Huh.

"Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place."

One minute after the crime, right...

Where did you get that from?

Yes, source please? That's a piece of information only you seem privy to - which is rather concerning.

[berybert]

Since I have previously provided to you this cite to the effect that Nomsod's alibi is more than just one CCTV video:

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place.

You have yet to change anybody's mind despite hundreds of posts on the subject. Might soon be time you was taken for some attitude adjustment.

So I guess you are also more than happy to frame someone. But don't let that get in your way of an investment.

P.S. You mention his Lawyer claims there are documents that prove he was in class on such and such dates. Now forgive me if I am wrong but if we were using what someone else claimed, you would be asking for facts and proof of said documentation not just taking our word for it.

What is the difference here ?

Of course him being good friends with Nom's mum is all the proof you need. Huh.

"Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place."

One minute after the crime, right...

Where did you get that from?

Ah as expected asking for proof as to where I got that from. But as I asked first, where is the proof that Nom's solicitor has documentation he was in class and taking exams.

You first. Proof dear boy, not deflection.

[berybert]

Since I have previously provided to you this cite to the effect that Nomsod's alibi is more than just one CCTV video:

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place.

You have yet to change anybody's mind despite hundreds of posts on the subject. Might soon be time you was taken for some attitude adjustment.

So I guess you are also more than happy to frame someone. But don't let that get in your way of an investment.

P.S. You mention his Lawyer claims there are documents that prove he was in class on such and such dates. Now forgive me if I am wrong but if we were using what someone else claimed, you would be asking for facts and proof of said documentation not just taking our word for it.

What is the difference here ?

Of course him being good friends with Nom's mum is all the proof you need. Huh.

"Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place."

One minute after the crime, right...

Where did you get that from?

Yes, source please? That's a piece of information only you seem privy to - which is rather concerning.

Hardly concerning. It was reported on months ago. Sadly I am not going to go thru 4 months of old stories to find it.

But please feel free to do so yourself.

[AleG]

Since I have previously provided to you this cite to the effect that Nomsod's alibi is more than just one CCTV video:

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

Your claim that you are seeking for truth and justice is dubious at best; you are trying to frame up someone for a crime out of prejudice.

Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place.

You have yet to change anybody's mind despite hundreds of posts on the subject. Might soon be time you was taken for some attitude adjustment.

So I guess you are also more than happy to frame someone. But don't let that get in your way of an investment.

P.S. You mention his Lawyer claims there are documents that prove he was in class on such and such dates. Now forgive me if I am wrong but if we were using what someone else claimed, you would be asking for facts and proof of said documentation not just taking our word for it.

What is the difference here ?

Of course him being good friends with Nom's mum is all the proof you need. Huh.

"Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place."

One minute after the crime, right...

Where did you get that from?

Ah as expected asking for proof as to where I got that from. But as I asked first, where is the proof that Nom's solicitor has documentation he was in class and taking exams.

You first. Proof dear boy, not deflection.

I provided a source, you haven't.

Were do you get the notion that the two suspects were at their lodgings sleeping within one minute of the crime?

[berybert]

"Muan Muan claimed he got back to his room and found both the accused sleeping at about 5am. Which was 1 minute after the crime took place."

One minute after the crime, right...

Where did you get that from?

Ah as expected asking for proof as to where I got that from. But as I asked first, where is the proof that Nom's solicitor has documentation he was in class and taking exams.

You first. Proof dear boy, not deflection.

I provided a source, you haven't.

Were do you get the notion that the two suspects were at their lodgings sleeping within one minute of the crime?

Your source is Nom's solicitor said it. Well if that's good enough for you then my source that Muan Muan said it, should be good enough for you also.

Edited January 29, 2015 by berybert

[AleG]

I provided a source, you haven't.

Were do you get the notion that the two suspects were at their lodgings sleeping within one minute of the crime?

Your source is Nom's solicitor said it. Well if that's good enough for you then my source that Muan Muan said it, should be good enough for you also.

I provided a source to substantiate what I said, now you provide a source to substantiate your claim that Muan Muan said he found the two suspects sleeping one minute after the crime was committed.

I know you are trying to wind me up, but you are doing so by spreading misinformation.

[berybert]

I provided a source, you haven't.

Were do you get the notion that the two suspects were at their lodgings sleeping within one minute of the crime?

Your source is Nom's solicitor said it. Well if that's good enough for you then my source that Muan Muan said it, should be good enough for you also.

I provided a source to substantiate what I said, now you provide a source to substantiate your claim that Muan Muan said he found the two suspects sleeping one minute after the crime was committed.

I know you are trying to wind me up, but you are doing so by spreading misinformation.

Your source is Nom's solicitor. That is far from credible. Give some proof, send a link to the schools exam board that he was there. Don't just tell me Nom's soliciitor said it.