Myanmar says workers innocent of murdering Britons on Koh Tao

[greenchair]

So I guess anyway that means if Muang Muang was in the room just 1 minute after the crime. If there is any actual proof of that. It would mean none of the 3 committed it. Since 1 minute would not be enough for any of them to get to their room even at lightning speed.

[AleG]

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.

Boomerangutang claimed the only evidence Nomsod produced for his alibi was footage from one CCTV camera, the source I linked to proved that to be false, there were at least two sources of footage, plus university records.

Now, substantiate your claim that Muan Muan said he found the two suspects sleeping one minute after the crime was committed, because it is increasingly (from a 100% certainty starting point) clear that you made that up.

Spreading lies is bad enough, spreading lies in regards to a heinous crime in a poor attempt at playing gotcha is worse still; it's also against forum rules.

[AleG]

So I guess anyway that means if Muang Muang was in the room just 1 minute after the crime. If there is any actual proof of that. It would mean none of the 3 committed it. Since 1 minute would not be enough for any of them to get to their room even at lightning speed.

No, it means berybert is the sort of person that would make up a lie over a matter as serious as a double murder in order to play games.

[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.

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.

I and others have listed reams of evidence on these threads. If you don't want to see or acknowledge it, that's your choice. Your reasons why are clear.

If you want to frame my prejudice toward truth and justice as anathema, that too is your choice. You can also choose to believe the moon is made of cream cheese if you choose.

[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.

I and others have listed reams of evidence on these threads. If you don't want to see or acknowledge it, that's your choice. Your reasons why are clear.

If you want to frame my prejudice toward truth and justice as anathema, that too is your choice. You can also choose to believe the moon is made of cream cheese if you choose.

Your "evidence" is nothing but speculation and innuendo, like this: "Then there are stacks of other potential evidence which, if some were proved true, would prove he committed grave crimes that night."

"Potential" evidence is not evidence, it's make believe; claims that Nomsod's footage was doctored are not evidence, speculation on how he could have possibly did the crime is not evidence, theorizing over the vast conspiracy necessary for all this to take place is not evidence and lastly, stepping on a soapbox and wrapping yourself in a mantle of self-righteousness is not evidence either.

Over and over again you fail to see that my reasons are to stand up for standards of proof on the pursuit of knowledge, that you interpret that to be "shielding the headman's people" says a lot more about you than about me.

Let me edit the post to add something, in the name of fairness.

List one single piece of evidence (from the stacks you say exists) that points at anyone else being the person responsible for the murders. Not that this or that person could have done it, or that this or that scenario could prove it, no speculation, actual, factual, evidence.

Edited January 29, 2015 by AleG

[berybert]

So I guess anyway that means if Muang Muang was in the room just 1 minute after the crime. If there is any actual proof of that. It would mean none of the 3 committed it. Since 1 minute would not be enough for any of them to get to their room even at lightning speed.

No, it means berybert is the sort of person that would make up a lie over a matter as serious as a double murder in order to play games.

Sorry but if you are going to call me a liar then you will need to prove it.

I look forward to your poof I am indeed lying.

[berybert]

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.

Boomerangutang claimed the only evidence Nomsod produced for his alibi was footage from one CCTV camera, the source I linked to proved that to be false, there were at least two sources of footage, plus university records.

Now, substantiate your claim that Muan Muan said he found the two suspects sleeping one minute after the crime was committed, because it is increasingly (from a 100% certainty starting point) clear that you made that up.

Spreading lies is bad enough, spreading lies in regards to a heinous crime in a poor attempt at playing gotcha is worse still; it's also against forum rules.

Sorry what university records ? have you seen them ? has anyone seen them? or is the fact Nomsods mum's mate the solicitor said it all the proof you need.

You have said what he said. He hasn't shown proof these records exist and neither have you.

So are you just repeating a lie, or is there really any proof.

Don't tell me again he said it. Give me proof they exist.

Many thanks.

[greenchair]

Really I refuse to get into the battle of nomsod. Now that we have found many evidences in our investigations, that indeed the b2 are innocent. It should be left alone, the who did it.

Now a days nobody cares who did it.

The parents want nothing to do with it.

The brit police want nothing to do with it.

Her friends want nothing to do with it. In my valued opinion people need to focus on saving two more lives. If the murderers thought they could save themselves without stitching up the b2. It would be a lot easier for the defense .

Even if we posted a video of the real killers in action. Do you think they would start a new trial after the boys were aquitted. No, they would not.

Much more important to find witnesses for the lads. And any small piece of evidence that might show them innocent. ??

[boomerangutang]

I and others have listed reams of evidence on these threads. If you don't want to see or acknowledge it, that's your choice. Your reasons why are clear.

If you want to frame my prejudice toward truth and justice as anathema, that too is your choice. You can also choose to believe the moon is made of cream cheese if you choose.

Your "evidence" is nothing but speculation and innuendo, like this: "Then there are stacks of other potential evidence which, if some were proved true, would prove he committed grave crimes that night."

"Potential" evidence is not evidence, it's make believe; claims that Nomsod's footage was doctored are not evidence, speculation on how he could have possibly did the crime is not evidence, theorizing over the vast conspiracy necessary for all this to take place is not evidence and lastly, stepping on a soapbox and wrapping yourself in a mantle of self-righteousness is not evidence either.

Over and over again you fail to see that my reasons are to stand up for standards of proof on the pursuit of knowledge, that you interpret that to be "shielding the headman's people" says a lot more about you than about me.

Let me edit the post to add something, in the name of fairness.

List one single piece of evidence (from the stacks you say exists) that points at anyone else being the person responsible for the murders. Not that this or that person could have done it, or that this or that scenario could prove it, no speculation, actual, factual, evidence.

Your desperation is showing and you're getting shrill. Good. It shows we're getting close to the truth of the matter. As for evidence and probable evidence, there have been dozens of lists by me and others on this site. You don't want to see it, no problem. btw, this is a discussion blog, not a court of law.

[AleG]

So I guess anyway that means if Muang Muang was in the room just 1 minute after the crime. If there is any actual proof of that. It would mean none of the 3 committed it. Since 1 minute would not be enough for any of them to get to their room even at lightning speed.

No, it means berybert is the sort of person that would make up a lie over a matter as serious as a double murder in order to play games.

Sorry but if you are going to call me a liar then you will need to prove it.

I look forward to your poof I am indeed lying.

Easily:

A ) You are the only one making the claim that the two Burmese men were found sleeping exactly 1 minute after the crime.

B ) you have no credibility whatsoever.

QED

[AleG]

I and others have listed reams of evidence on these threads. If you don't want to see or acknowledge it, that's your choice. Your reasons why are clear.

If you want to frame my prejudice toward truth and justice as anathema, that too is your choice. You can also choose to believe the moon is made of cream cheese if you choose.

Your "evidence" is nothing but speculation and innuendo, like this: "Then there are stacks of other potential evidence which, if some were proved true, would prove he committed grave crimes that night."

"Potential" evidence is not evidence, it's make believe; claims that Nomsod's footage was doctored are not evidence, speculation on how he could have possibly did the crime is not evidence, theorizing over the vast conspiracy necessary for all this to take place is not evidence and lastly, stepping on a soapbox and wrapping yourself in a mantle of self-righteousness is not evidence either.

Over and over again you fail to see that my reasons are to stand up for standards of proof on the pursuit of knowledge, that you interpret that to be "shielding the headman's people" says a lot more about you than about me.

Let me edit the post to add something, in the name of fairness.

List one single piece of evidence (from the stacks you say exists) that points at anyone else being the person responsible for the murders. Not that this or that person could have done it, or that this or that scenario could prove it, no speculation, actual, factual, evidence.

Your desperation is showing and you're getting shrill. Good. It shows we're getting close to the truth of the matter. As for evidence and probable evidence, there have been dozens of lists by me and others on this site. You don't want to see it, no problem. btw, this is a discussion blog, not a court of law.

As usual, first you make something up ("Your desperation is showing and you're getting shrill") then you derive a self serving and unwarranted assumption from it. ("It shows we're getting close to the truth of the matter.")

[boomerangutang]

So I guess anyway that means if Muang Muang was in the room just 1 minute after the crime. If there is any actual proof of that. It would mean none of the 3 committed it. Since 1 minute would not be enough for any of them to get to their room even at lightning speed.

If MM said that, then he would have had to know when the crime took place, to the minute. If so, then he's privy to crucial factors re; the crime. Otherwise, he would have claimed that by piecing together evidence revealed later. We can't rely on cops to ascertain when the crime took place (other than 'just before sunrise'), because the cop investigators are fixated on not being scientific about the case. It's more likely a gangly crew of netizens (like Greenchair) will zero in on time of crime, within a half hour or so. On the other hand, perhaps some cops have a modicum of scientific acumen, and can ascertain some aspects of what happened and who did the crime. If so, I'll be pleased as peaches, but won't be holding my breath.

[berybert]

So I guess anyway that means if Muang Muang was in the room just 1 minute after the crime. If there is any actual proof of that. It would mean none of the 3 committed it. Since 1 minute would not be enough for any of them to get to their room even at lightning speed.

If MM said that, then he would have had to know when the crime took place, to the minute. If so, then he's privy to crucial factors re; the crime. Otherwise, he would have claimed that by piecing together evidence revealed later. We can't rely on cops to ascertain when the crime took place (other than 'just before sunrise'), because the cop investigators are fixated on not being scientific about the case. It's more likely a gangly crew of netizens (like Greenchair) will zero in on time of crime, within a half hour or so. On the other hand, perhaps some cops have a modicum of scientific acumen, and can ascertain some aspects of what happened and who did the crime. If so, I'll be pleased as peaches, but won't be holding my breath.

He said he was in his room at 5am. I think the reason this is said to be 1 minute after the crime was committed is because the video of running man was 4.59.

So he didn't have to know anything about the crime.

The fact the RTP said he was with girlfriend was good enough for him to no longer be considered a suspect is a bit strange tho.

I believe at least 3 people who were involved in the crime have been spoken too and let go. 1 of them being Burmese and 2 being Western.

So to those who think I want the murderers to be Thai. Think again. I do think at least 2 Thai's are involved as well tho.

[greenchair]

So I guess anyway that means if Muang Muang was in the room just 1 minute after the crime. If there is any actual proof of that. It would mean none of the 3 committed it. Since 1 minute would not be enough for any of them to get to their room even at lightning speed.

If MM said that, then he would have had to know when the crime took place, to the minute. If so, then he's privy to crucial factors re; the crime. Otherwise, he would have claimed that by piecing together evidence revealed later. We can't rely on cops to ascertain when the crime took place (other than 'just before sunrise'), because the cop investigators are fixated on not being scientific about the case. It's more likely a gangly crew of netizens (like Greenchair) will zero in on time of crime, within a half hour or so. On the other hand, perhaps some cops have a modicum of scientific acumen, and can ascertain some aspects of what happened and who did the crime. If so, I'll be pleased as peaches, but won't be holding my breath.

I love that. Gangly crew of netizens. ??????

I see that ?Bert has found something interesting Muang if at the room at 5am is 3 minutes after the last picture of white short man. I do believe a more acurate time frame can be established through the video confirmation. Rather than police and news reports which change often. I saw a post on here a long time ago that said hannah was last seen at 2.58. I am wondering if that was on a video clip or just a news report.

Let's go back over video clip time frames of Hannah shall we. ⏳⏳

[boomerangutang]

So I guess anyway that means if Muang Muang was in the room just 1 minute after the crime. If there is any actual proof of that. It would mean none of the 3 committed it. Since 1 minute would not be enough for any of them to get to their room even at lightning speed.

If MM said that, then he would have had to know when the crime took place, to the minute. If so, then he's privy to crucial factors re; the crime. Otherwise, he would have claimed that by piecing together evidence revealed later. We can't rely on cops to ascertain when the crime took place (other than 'just before sunrise'), because the cop investigators are fixated on not being scientific about the case. It's more likely a gangly crew of netizens (like Greenchair) will zero in on time of crime, within a half hour or so. On the other hand, perhaps some cops have a modicum of scientific acumen, and can ascertain some aspects of what happened and who did the crime. If so, I'll be pleased as peaches, but won't be holding my breath.

He said he was in his room at 5am. I think the reason this is said to be 1 minute after the crime was committed is because the video of running man was 4.59.

So he didn't have to know anything about the crime.

The fact the RTP said he was with girlfriend was good enough for him to no longer be considered a suspect is a bit strange tho.

I believe at least 3 people who were involved in the crime have been spoken too and let go. 1 of them being Burmese and 2 being Western.

So to those who think I want the murderers to be Thai. Think again. I do think at least 2 Thai's are involved as well tho.

Based on the 'running man' (white shorts?) CCTV, the crime likely wrapped up just before 4:57 am (assuming it took 2 minutes to jog from crime scene to where CCTV cameras are). That fits. In a slightly more general sense, assuming the crime took 10 to 20 minutes to commit, the crime took place in the half hour between 4:30 and 5 am. I'd venture that early shift beach workers (clearing litter) start at around 6 am, if there are such workers at KT. Alternatively, there are likely early risers who do mundane work at guest houses, etc. 7-11's are usually open 24/7, and they usually have a minimum of 2 workers at any shift. Have those sorts of folks been interviewed?

[boomerangutang]

I believe at least 3 people who were involved in the crime have been spoken too and let go. 1 of them being Burmese and 2 being Western. So to those who think I want the murderers to be Thai. Think again. I do think at least 2 Thai's are involved as well tho.

Don't forget Mon was questioned for 3 hours. He's Thai. Nomsod should have been questioned, but by the time Thai cops caught up with him (after he'd been hiding for a week), the cops surely knew what not to do, via orders from on high. The cops may have dished out a lightweight question to Nomsod, something like; "did you do anything bad on Ko Tao at the end of the weekend?" (picture a 17 yr old asking a question of a 5 year old).

Nomsod would say, "No. I have a photo taken from a CCTV which shows I was at college on Monday morning. If you'll wait a few hours, I'll get my lawyer to show it to you. Actually, I have two photos, isn't that great?! One was taken in a hallway of my apartment. You see, I had a whole week to prepare to talk to you and show you the photos. I wanted to turn myself in, but my girlfriend needed me to help her do somethings, so, you know, I had to deal with that." Big sheepish grin.

Cop thinks to himself 'hmmmm, I wonder if I should ask him to submit a saliva sample for DNA testing. Nawww, that might offend the kid. Plus his dad said 'leave the kid alone.' I sure don't want anyone to lose face, so I'll let someone else do it.'

[Chetzee]

i am sure this has been looked at a number of times , but i still have issues with it . Perhaps someone could put me right .

here are photos , from the beach , and photos from a police news briefing showing the clothes collected from the beach .

Why are they so obviously in conflict ?

the beach photos are very early , with the bodies still on the beach

I'd love to know if the towel was brought to the beach by a rescue worked etc , of was it there already when the bodies discovered .

likewise , who's are the very dark shorts , possibly even trousers by the rock . I had thought they might have been part of David's T shirt , but obviously not ,

[thailandchilli]

i am sure this has been looked at a number of times , but i still have issues with it . Perhaps someone could put me right .

here are photos , from the beach , and photos from a police news briefing showing the clothes collected from the beach .

Why are they so obviously in conflict ?

the beach photos are very early , with the bodies still on the beach

I'd love to know if the towel was brought to the beach by a rescue worked etc , of was it there already when the bodies discovered .

likewise , who's are the very dark shorts , possibly even trousers by the rock . I had thought they might have been part of David's T shirt , but obviously not ,

The problem with trying to analyze what was at the crime scene is that we also know a hoard of people who should not have been there were. Who knows what may or may not have been tampered with or planted/taken. Sorry I know that does not reply to your questions.

Edited January 30, 2015 by thailandchilli

[Chetzee]

i am sure this has been looked at a number of times , but i still have issues with it . Perhaps someone could put me right .

here are photos , from the beach , and photos from a police news briefing showing the clothes collected from the beach .

Why are they so obviously in conflict ?

the beach photos are very early , with the bodies still on the beach

I'd love to know if the towel was brought to the beach by a rescue worked etc , of was it there already when the bodies discovered .

likewise , who's are the very dark shorts , possibly even trousers by the rock . I had thought they might have been part of David's T shirt , but obviously not ,

The problem with trying to analyze what was at the crime scene is that we also know a hoard of people who should not have been there were. Who knows what may or may not have been tampered with or planted/taken. Sorry I know that does not reply to your questions.

ok , let me put it a little more directly . How come some of the garments that are obviously at the crime scene failed to make it to the police news briefing photos .

It's certainly a question the defence should be asking .

[AleG]

It's just amazing utterly predictable how the armchair detectives just jump at the latest made up "fact" to integrate it into their theories.

In the name of finding the truth, of course.

[Chetzee]

It's just amazing utterly predictable how the armchair detectives just jump at the latest made up "fact" to integrate it into their theories.

In the name of finding the truth, of course.

Something specific ? Or just another of your glib throw away comments ?

[greenchair]

There are 2 pair of shorts at the beach. We remember earlier reports. Supposedly runman changed shorts with David, then he didn't. And then there was the story that the murderer left the shorts at the beach. I am learning almost all of the rtp reports have a ring of truth to it. But with so many police and reports it is like a messed up jigsaw.

I think there 2 pair and 1 pair belong to a person that was there. We know that everybody in other footage has their pants on. We know that the boys clothes were stolen.

So far we have not seen any pictures of someone with these small black shorts. There must be 2 entrance to the beach within close proximity to each other. I know this because many pic of runman show him go 2 times. With no come back time in between. Then 2 pics come back but no pic of him go in between. So he must have been using 2 ways. With 1 being on camera and 1 not. Could it be the runman thought he was only in footage that was withheld. Not realising that he used 2 ways that night. My point is. The owner of the black shorts may have used the other entrance also.

[thailandchilli]

i am sure this has been looked at a number of times , but i still have issues with it . Perhaps someone could put me right .

here are photos , from the beach , and photos from a police news briefing showing the clothes collected from the beach .

Why are they so obviously in conflict ?

the beach photos are very early , with the bodies still on the beach

I'd love to know if the towel was brought to the beach by a rescue worked etc , of was it there already when the bodies discovered .

likewise , who's are the very dark shorts , possibly even trousers by the rock . I had thought they might have been part of David's T shirt , but obviously not ,

The problem with trying to analyze what was at the crime scene is that we also know a hoard of people who should not have been there were. Who knows what may or may not have been tampered with or planted/taken. Sorry I know that does not reply to your questions.

ok , let me put it a little more directly . How come some of the garments that are obviously at the crime scene failed to make it to the police news briefing photos .

It's certainly a question the defence should be asking .

Thtat indeed appears to be the case, I have no doubt the defense will be raising this as would be normal. There's no reason to doubt that some evidence is missing. We already know there were was a report by the RTP that an attempt at destroying evidence had occurred. Whether this was at the crime scene who knows?

Edited January 30, 2015 by thailandchilli

[craigt3365]

A disrespectful post towards another member has been removed from view. Please abide by forum rules and show respect to other members.

[AleG]

It's just amazing utterly predictable how the armchair detectives just jump at the latest made up "fact" to integrate it into their theories.

In the name of finding the truth, of course.

Something specific ? Or just another of your glib throw away comments ?

Specifically, the claim that the two Burmese accused of the murder were seen sleeping on their beds exactly one minute after the murders.

[Chetzee]

It's just amazing utterly predictable how the armchair detectives just jump at the latest made up "fact" to integrate it into their theories.

In the name of finding the truth, of course.

Something specific ? Or just another of your glib throw away comments ?

Specifically, the claim that the two Burmese accused of the murder were seen sleeping on their beds exactly one minute after the murders.

Look, if the guy says he was back home at five and saw the others a sleep then I feel we must take that as fact , after all it seems they were all self obsessed Time Freeks with more stolen iPhones than a room full of FX traders

[berybert]

I do wonder why a certain member who is 100% certain the right 2 people are in jail feels the need to continue to try to convince other who will never agree with him.

Every time someone mentions something, Wallop he's in there trying to put it down. I do believe AleG is running scared some of the so called CT's commenting on these murders might make a point that gets the boy's off.

There is always one clue, no such thing as the perfect murder. In all honesty there are 100's of clues with this case of which none point to those currently in jail.

I wonder where the case would be now if the original head cop had still been in charge.

[AleG]

It's just amazing utterly predictable how the armchair detectives just jump at the latest made up "fact" to integrate it into their theories.

In the name of finding the truth, of course.

Something specific ? Or just another of your glib throw away comments ?

Specifically, the claim that the two Burmese accused of the murder were seen sleeping on their beds exactly one minute after the murders.

Look, if the guy says he was back home at five and saw the others a sleep then I feel we must take that as fact , after all it seems they were all self obsessed Time Freeks with more stolen iPhones than a room full of FX traders

"Look, if the guy says he was back home at five and saw the others a sleep then I feel we must take that as fact"

Yes? and at what time, precisely, was the crime committed?

[greenchair]

According to aleg 4.49

[AleG]

According to aleg 4.49

Quote me where I claimed the crime was committed at 4:49...