Myanmar says workers innocent of murdering Britons on Koh Tao

[aimbc]

Why should it not be possible to bring the Burmese workers who fled to Burma back

under protection of their government and then back to Burma.

May be even some money could be found as a substitute for their loss of income in Thailand.

Would it be a total fantasy that the Thai government can guarantee the safety of these witnesses.

I say if the PM it's sincere, he needs to send in DSI into KT and expose any corruption. Jail those breaking the law, including police who have been extorting illegal migrant workers permission to stay, in the name of the royal kingdom. If these figures are out of the picture, witness would not be so intimidated. I know powerful families made many enemies and there are plenty of folks ready to snitch on them whenever they get a chance.

No offence, but the beloved supreme ruler is a cog in the machine. He sits at about number 8 or so in the pecking order. He has as much desire to get to the bottom of this as you would desire to catch ebola.

Ahh...yes you maybe right, but strange things are happening in Thailand.

[aimbc]

"Some of those interviewed were "strong witnesses" who might provide evidence to exonerate the accused, said Kyaw Thaung, who heads the committee, but they were reluctant to testify and had returned to Myanmar for fear of being implicated in the crime." I think that should have read: for fear of being real dead, real soon. Like most on the island, they probably know that not only did the B2 not do the crime, they know who did and that it isn't the first time. While I doubt public assassination, and I doubt there are many, if any, Thai long range Thai experts, there are people that would give it a try ($$$$$$$$) and all it would take is the try to shut the witnesses up permanently. We have to remember, these witnesses are not people used to anything but fear, poverty and abuse, certainly not Spec. Ops. types. Also remember, they could be charged with a crime for being in Thailand illegally, does anyone believe our dear leader will give them immunity much less protection?

I wonder how many migrant workers are mysteriously killed or go missing. These group of people are the most venerable. Definitely a high risk life style. I hope for humanity sake, there is justice.

[greenchair]

The witnesses are coming.

The coroners report too.

The truth either way will be known.

Listen to the cards fall.

Flutter,flutter,flutter,bam.

[scorecard]

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

"Sek acknowledged that no extradition of a wanted person could be made if the laws of Thailand and the relevant country did not recognise the same criminal offence and it was unlikely the country would extradite anyone facing a political charge."

Yes, so why bother and why make your self and the country look less relevant and foolish ?

An (impotent) attempt to intimidate Thai expats into staying quiet? 'We know where you are, who you are. There is no escape...'

This politician in the shadows... is he fond of his whistles?

What do you mean?

[scorecard]

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

Myanmar are going to say that, if the so said witnesses exist, then I don't see any harm coming to them as they will be in the worlds spotlight, and protected by their own government, I think Myanmar are getting a bit of the Thai bullshit syndrome

I thiink you have no understanding of the context here. For an ASEAN country to come out and bluntly state that another ASEAN country's judicial system and police force is wrong, period, is unprecedented.

For them to do it over the plight of a couple of unskilled migrant workers is incredible.

They would only do this if there was absolutely no doubt and the Thais had rebuffed their approaches via diplomatic channels.

You need to see things in context.

ASEAN countries have done it before, Cambodia did it, so what is the big problem, it is being watched by many countries now, so I would say that it would no be so unprecedented to suggest that the police and the judicial system is wrong, even the Thai people and police force themselves have been under so much investigations lately, who would disagree

Cambodia did it. What do you mean / please share some details.

[DennisF]

Its all lies!!

Our Tear Bleader and Police General Khun SET have declared that all foreign governments are happy with their investigation which is perfect (or complete, depending how you translate it).

This has brought happiness to the people too, or at l;east 932 out of 1000 of their friends and acquaintances who were interviewed.( The rest may be in a readjustment programme, I have no news on that).

Hats off to the Mynamar government, this is as official a statement as you can get.

It seems they are waking up to the fact that Thailand needs them more than they need Thailand.

Sadly, its cash that counts but at least this time, the fiscal pressure is on the side of justice.

Lets go get the truth, this Worlds only constant, ( apart from RTP cock-ups).

[DennisF]

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

"Sek acknowledged that no extradition of a wanted person could be made if the laws of Thailand and the relevant country did not recognise the same criminal offence and it was unlikely the country would extradite anyone facing a political charge."

Yes, so why bother and why make your self and the country look less relevant and foolish ?

An (impotent) attempt to intimidate Thai expats into staying quiet? 'We know where you are, who you are. There is no escape...'

This politician in the shadows... is he fond of his whistles?

What do you mean?

Whistle---- blow-- whistleblower... someone who speaks out... get the drift?

[balo]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

Edited December 19, 2014 by balo

[DennisF]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

Youre at it again Blabo.

Show us some independently verifiable untainted evidence that they are guilty.

There is none that would stand up in a court of law where law has truth and integrity in its foundations.

Guess we will have to wait for the court case and whilst many, including me, thought a guilty verdict inevitable,

this statement form Mynamar official sources sheds a new light.

The RTP is already internationally ridiculed, the Thai justice system cannot afford to drive the same highway, tourism and trade are at risk.

[BritTim]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

The way I read it: the Burmese investigators have been convinced of the B2's innocence for weeks, based on what they have been told by the Burmese community on Koh Tao. No one with first-hand knowledge is willing to come forward officially, giving the reason that they are fearful of retaliation. This makes sense to me, but the claimed first-hand accounts might not be truthful. I doubt the B2's guilt, but the defense is sounding desperate.

[DennisF]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

The way I read it: the Burmese investigators have been convinced of the B2's innocence for weeks, based on what they have been told by the Burmese community on Koh Tao. No one with first-hand knowledge is willing to come forward officially, giving the reason that they are fearful of retaliation. This makes sense to me, but the claimed first-hand accounts might not be truthful. I doubt the B2's guilt, but the defense is sounding desperate.

I think you are correct that desperate measures are being taken b ut that is understandable given the timeline and the fact that the defence have been given nothing in the way of prosecution evidence or even the names of the witnesses and therefore are working almost blind on a defence.

So, desperate measures yes but, the word desperate gives us false impressions I feel.

I would prefer to say they are utilising all available resources and this particular one, the Mynamar government, is about as close to an ace as they can get.

Thailand needs Mynamar more than Mynamar need Thailand in trade terms, a large percentage of natural gas is imported and there are many potential customers waiting in the wings to buy if relationships should sour.

Thailand should beware, it is being mismanaged by amateur politicians and, despite their internal issues, most of the Mynamar government are seasoned professionals.

[boomerangutang]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

The court case should be, about 'innocent until proven guilty.'

The proofs the defense are probably looking for, are things like; proof they headed back to their cabin at a time before the crime. However, there are many circumstantial issues that the defense will probably put forth, such as...

>>> no bloody clothes

>>> no blood mess at their cabin

>>> no cuts or bruises

>>> no DNA from victims found on them or any of their possessions.

>>> they acted normal that night, when returning to their cabin, and they didn't try to flee the next day.

>>> they were DNA tested earlier and cleared - prior to the time they were tested a 2nd time and supposedly matched (if a person believes the DNA trail wasn't tampered with).

>>> Thailand's foremost forensic expert and DNA expert opined a few weeks ago that she thinks it possible DNA was mishandled. She will almost certainly be a witness for the defense. It's also telling that, at no time, was she invited to become involved with the case.

The biggest question mark is the DNA from Hannah matching the B2. The only way that can be proved is if British findings corroborate it. If the judge goes merely by data provided by Thai authorities, then no one, other than the gang of 4 on T.Visa will believe it. Thai officialdom and the Headman will know it's not true, but will celebrate hardily, if the judge puts complete faith only in DNA trail provided by Thai officials. Convicting the B2 automatically puts the Headman's people in the permanently safe zone.

However, letting the B2 off on technicalities (insufficient evidence, for example), will also let the Headman's people walk free. So they win either way. Thai officialdom will not re-muster their accusatory machine and aim it at the Headman's people, if the B2 are acquitted - regardless of what other evidence comes to light.

Edited December 19, 2014 by boomerangutang

[maxme]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

Pathetic attempt to grasp the straws

[DennisF]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

The court case should be, about 'innocent until proven guilty.'

The proofs the defense are probably looking for, are things like; proof they headed back to their cabin at a time before the crime. However, there are many circumstantial issues that the defense will probably put forth, such as...

>>> no bloody clothes

>>> no blood mess at their cabin

>>> no cuts or bruises

>>> no DNA from victims found on them or any of their possessions.

The biggest question mark is the DNA from Hannah matching the B2. The only way that can be proved is if British findings corroborate it. If the judge goes merely by data provided by Thai authorities, then no one, other than the gang of 4 on T.Visa will believe it. Thai officialdom and the Headman will know it's not true, but will celebrate hardily, if the judge puts complete faith only in DNA trail provided by Thai officials. Convicting the B2 automatically puts the Headman's people in the permanently safe zone.

However, letting the B2 off on technicalities (insufficient evidence, for example), will also let the Headman's people walk free. So they win either way. Thai officialdom will not re-muster their accusatory machine and aim it at the Headman's people, if the B2 are acquitted - regardless of what other evidence comes to light.

That does make sense if the theories are correct.

For one minute, lets assume that the B2 are acquitted for whatever reason and there is no further investigation.

This would be a red flag to tourists, even if the RTP declared that they are not looking for other suspects ( in effect blaming the B2 and a technicality for non conviction).

Given the international reputation of the RTP being corrupt and inept and the fear of these psychopaths still roaming the beaches and bars of murder island, ( which many of the posters here believe they are already doing), tourism on the island will deteriorate tremendously.

So a not guilty verdict is still not a good option for the authorities but, they will accept it if it clears who many believe to be their resident thug/family and life can continue, albeit less profitably, for a few years on murder island.

Not a good result for Hannah and David, or their families.

I sincerely hope that we get real justice in this case and the families are given the opportunity to move on and have closure.

[AleG]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

In all fairness the correct way around things is to prove that they are guilty, not to prove that they are not guilty.

Having said that there are a few points to consider before people uncork any more champagne, first the nature of the testimony is unknown, the relevance and reliability also is unknown; secondly witness testimony is one of the worst sources of evidence to present in court, not only it's easy for people that just make up things, it's also very easy for people to end up believing earnestly that they witnessed something that didn't actually happen; that is why physical evidence is much more decisive in an investigation.

[rockingrobin]

Ah the dna raises it head again.thid is where people and the rtp have made some error of judgement in intepretting the results

Lets consider what the actual meaning of the dna "match" and " no match"

If a donor supplies a specimen that is a match for the sample , then this is intepreted that the donor is possibly the source of the sample, and the next question should be "how "

Now for the no match result, this obviously states that the donor could not have supplied the sample tested against.Sounds simple untill you then ask the next question can the donor be eliminated and in the case of a crime scene we have 3 possibilities

a ) the donor was not at the crime scene

the donor was at the crime scene ,dna left but either not the sample was unsuitable for testing or not collected by forensics forwhatever reason

C) the donor was at the crimescene but did not leave any dna

Throughout the investigation the common statement was the dna did not match so he is cleared, surely this is incorrect because if he was a suspect to begin with then other evidence would be required to eliminate or clear

[Norvid]

Is there in Thailand some sort of witness protection act? These accused need all help they could get. Witnesses could be subpoena to court under protection from their Embassy official and designated Thai police representative(s).

[falangjim]

The witnesses are coming.

The coroners report too.

The truth either way will be known.

Listen to the cards fall.

Flutter,flutter,flutter,bam.

I like your optimism.

[JOC]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

The way I read it: the Burmese investigators have been convinced of the B2's innocence for weeks, based on what they have been told by the Burmese community on Koh Tao. No one with first-hand knowledge is willing to come forward officially, giving the reason that they are fearful of retaliation. This makes sense to me, but the claimed first-hand accounts might not be truthful. I doubt the B2's guilt, but the defense is sounding desperate.

The witnesses are not on Koh Tao, they are back in Myanmar.

Why do you think 40 migrant workers suddenly left Koh Tao. They needed a holiday? or were they convinced by "someone", that it was time to leave.

Since many of them were illegals (?), they were probably escorted all the way to the border in police minivans, just to make sure they had a safe journey of course. Last word from their escorts before the migrants crossed the border: "If you ever came back, you are dead"

Since they probably had witnessed fellow migrant workers "disappear" without any consequences for the perpetrators, maybe not so strange that they are scared of returning to Thailand!!

[thailandchilli]

Ah the dna raises it head again.thid is where people and the rtp have made some error of judgement in intepretting the results

Lets consider what the actual meaning of the dna "match" and " no match"

If a donor supplies a specimen that is a match for the sample , then this is intepreted that the donor is possibly the source of the sample, and the next question should be "how "

Now for the no match result, this obviously states that the donor could not have supplied the sample tested against.Sounds simple untill you then ask the next question can the donor be eliminated and in the case of a crime scene we have 3 possibilities

a ) the donor was not at the crime scene

the donor was at the crime scene ,dna left but either not the sample was unsuitable for testing or not collected by forensics forwhatever reason

C) the donor was at the crimescene but did not leave any dna

Throughout the investigation the common statement was the dna did not match so he is cleared, surely this is incorrect because if he was a suspect to begin with then other evidence would be required to eliminate or clear

Yes unfortunately that was the message sent out by the Thai Pm at the start of the investigation who stated, we are doing this as scientifically as possible, if peoples DNA does not match then they are innocent..............another gaff by him to add to the growing list of gaffs by officials in this case. I think the RTP took this as a message and then followed through

[z42]

An incredibly meaningful development it seems. Would be nice to see if these people actually do get to say their piece in court, how reliable their evidence is, and the lengths to which the prosecution will likely go to character assassinate them before / after the trial.

Kudos for the Burmese govt for backing its citizens. And just shows how utterly shameful the UK authorities have been during this whole debacle. Not once during this whole thing has anybody stepped up with a pair of cajones to try and get some legitimate answers and really grill the Thai investigators about their methods & very limited lines of actual investigation.

& AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too, you sound like you're trying to convince yourself of what you're posting. May I suggest keeping an open mind, these Burmese investigators seemingly know what they're doing & are working diligently for their clients best interests. Maybe you should invest some time in reading what they've done and how the findings may pose some pertinent questions later. The Thai investigators from day 1 have not been consistent in what they've done. The same levels of diligence and integrity from all concerned seem to be worlds apart. There is plenty to read into there. I hope you do so before penning your next entry

[JOC]

Is there in Thailand some sort of witness protection act? These accused need all help they could get. Witnesses could be subpoena to court under protection from their Embassy official and designated Thai police representative(s).

"Under protection......................................and designated Thai police representatives"

Sounds wonderful, but a small problem: The ones they are afraid of are The Thai Police!!

[Scott]

Off-topic, threatening, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters. Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension. Digging through other member's posts and bringing them up on the forum can be considered stalking and it is against the forum rules.

You have every right to express your opinion about the topic. You may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.

[rickirs]

Mynamar is taking a serious stand contrary to Gen. Prayuth's congradulations to the RTP for arresting the two Burmese suspects after having such a cum-by-ha get together between the two military leaders of the two nations. Gen. Prayuth has to feel betrayed by his foreign comrade in arms. The ASEAN Community may not even take its first breathe before it strangles to death.

[rockingrobin]

Ah the dna raises it head again.thid is where people and the rtp have made some error of judgement in intepretting the results
Lets consider what the actual meaning of the dna "match" and " no match"

If a donor supplies a specimen that is a match for the sample , then this is intepreted that the donor is possibly the source of the sample, and the next question should be "how "
Now for the no match result, this obviously states that the donor could not have supplied the sample tested against.Sounds simple untill you then ask the next question can the donor be eliminated and in the case of a crime scene we have 3 possibilities

a ) the donor was not at the crime scene
the donor was at the crime scene ,dna left but either not the sample was unsuitable for testing or not collected by forensics forwhatever reason
C) the donor was at the crimescene but did not leave any dna

Throughout the investigation the common statement was the dna did not match so he is cleared, surely this is incorrect because if he was a suspect to begin with then other evidence would be required to eliminate or clear

Yes unfortunately that was the message sent out by the Thai Pm at the start of the investigation who stated, we are doing this as scientifically as possible, if peoples DNA does not match then they are innocent..............another gaff by him to add to the growing list of gaffs by officials in this case. I think the RTP took this as a message and then followed through[/quot

On a side issue are you aware that there is a report where Pornthip is stating that the headman could not have claimed his son innocent based on the dna test only

[Willy Eckerslike]

Ah the dna raises it head again.thid is where people and the rtp have made some error of judgement in intepretting the results

Lets consider what the actual meaning of the dna "match" and " no match"

If a donor supplies a specimen that is a match for the sample , then this is intepreted that the donor is possibly the source of the sample, and the next question should be "how "

Now for the no match result, this obviously states that the donor could not have supplied the sample tested against.Sounds simple untill you then ask the next question can the donor be eliminated and in the case of a crime scene we have 3 possibilities

a ) the donor was not at the crime scene

the donor was at the crime scene ,dna left but either not the sample was unsuitable for testing or not collected by forensics forwhatever reason

C) the donor was at the crimescene but did not leave any dna

Throughout the investigation the common statement was the dna did not match so he is cleared, surely this is incorrect because if he was a suspect to begin with then other evidence would be required to eliminate or clear

Yes unfortunately that was the message sent out by the Thai Pm at the start of the investigation who stated, we are doing this as scientifically as possible, if peoples DNA does not match then they are innocent..............another gaff by him to add to the growing list of gaffs by officials in this case. I think the RTP took this as a message and then followed through

Yep, I reckon there are a few people on Koh Tao "following through", now that there are witnesses willing to talk.............

[thailandchilli]

Ah the dna raises it head again.thid is where people and the rtp have made some error of judgement in intepretting the results

Lets consider what the actual meaning of the dna "match" and " no match"

If a donor supplies a specimen that is a match for the sample , then this is intepreted that the donor is possibly the source of the sample, and the next question should be "how "

Now for the no match result, this obviously states that the donor could not have supplied the sample tested against.Sounds simple untill you then ask the next question can the donor be eliminated and in the case of a crime scene we have 3 possibilities

a ) the donor was not at the crime scene

the donor was at the crime scene ,dna left but either not the sample was unsuitable for testing or not collected by forensics forwhatever reason

C) the donor was at the crimescene but did not leave any dna

Throughout the investigation the common statement was the dna did not match so he is cleared, surely this is incorrect because if he was a suspect to begin with then other evidence would be required to eliminate or clear

Yes unfortunately that was the message sent out by the Thai Pm at the start of the investigation who stated, we are doing this as scientifically as possible, if peoples DNA does not match then they are innocent..............another gaff by him to add to the growing list of gaffs by officials in this case. I think the RTP took this as a message and then followed through[/quot

On a side issue are you aware that there is a report where Pornthip is stating that the headman could not have claimed his son innocent based on the dna test only

No was not aware of that, but logical statement from her, only wish she was brought into this case, but got no chance of that.

[falangjim]

I'm just wondering where the Scottish clown guy who had blood on his guitar and on his body, with a wound at his body, right after the killing, is hiding now.

Would you really let somebody go out of this country, who could have been more than just a witness?

Even when they're threatening him, he could stay somewhere in Thailand. But no, they let him go.

BTW, I never had blood on my guitar. Why does the whole story smell so god damned fishy?

Please explain why you think he is a clown.

I think he is a 'clown', too, but clown is too soft of a work I'd use in describing him. I'll tell you why, too. He's been notably absent from the case these last three months. And he does more flips than a dolphin in a Sea World Show. First he says he's identified the killers. Then he plays some kind of semantics game saying "I said it was them." I really can't trust this flake. "He's there. He's there. He's every effin' where." I imagine him in some island off of Italy strumming his guitar and peddling his BS to the locals there.

The guy had wounds on his arm the same that were in the victims. Where the eff is this cracker? Is he going to man up for his friend? Is he going to man up, period?

Maybe BS isn't all McAnna peddles in? Maybe he was the middle man for drugs on Koh Tao. An English speaking person would be vital in order to get drugs to other English speaking tourists and by the look of the photos of the full moon parties, there is more than a few 'bucket's of alcohol going round. He said he didn't see David that night (although they had arranged to meet) because he was in bed with a hangover. Yet he also said he knew David had tried to save Hannah. The police said they did not want to release results of the toxicology reports to spare the parents. The parents had had the worst news any parents could ever have, so it does not make sense that they would want to spare them this. If no drugs had been found in their systems then the police would have said so, so to say what they did must imply they did.

Maybe Mon and big ears targeted McAnna because they knew he was a stone head and thought he would top himself for fear of being found out because of his criminal deeds. I continue to speculate...

According to the 2B lawyer in the most recent article published in a Myanmar press, Scotland Yard never interviewed Ware or McAnna. Now both of these two have been summoned. I don't know enough about international law to say if they have to come forward as witnesses or not. The defense lawyer is implying they are implicated due to Sean's wounds, blood on his guitar. Of the two Brits, Ware seems to have his head screwed on tight. I'd be happy if they could create enough doubt in the judges mind as to what happened. We shall see. By the way, I'm over the moon that the Myanmar team have made this statement. The RTP have a lot to answer for, and no, I don't care if comments about a stitch up make them "feel sad" over doubts in their work.

[AleG]

An incredibly meaningful development it seems. Would be nice to see if these people actually do get to say their piece in court, how reliable their evidence is, and the lengths to which the prosecution will likely go to character assassinate them before / after the trial.

Kudos for the Burmese govt for backing its citizens. And just shows how utterly shameful the UK authorities have been during this whole debacle. Not once during this whole thing has anybody stepped up with a pair of cajones to try and get some legitimate answers and really grill the Thai investigators about their methods & very limited lines of actual investigation.

& AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too, you sound like you're trying to convince yourself of what you're posting. May I suggest keeping an open mind, these Burmese investigators seemingly know what they're doing & are working diligently for their clients best interests. Maybe you should invest some time in reading what they've done and how the findings may pose some pertinent questions later. The Thai investigators from day 1 have not been consistent in what they've done. The same levels of diligence and integrity from all concerned seem to be worlds apart. There is plenty to read into there. I hope you do so before penning your next entry

"AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too"

I have been very consistent on my stance all the time, evidence is what has to decide the outcome of the case, not speculation, not opinions and certainly not conspiracy theories; I have the feeling that the difference between "balanced thoughts" and "reams of mendacious nonsense" has more to do on whether you agree or with a particular point or not.

In any case I don't know from were do you derive your opinion that the Burmese investigators know what they are doing and work diligently since all they have done is make claims with no indications of what actual methodology they applied to reach their conclusions or even what is the nature of the evidence they claim to have, what is it? first hand accounts exculpating the defendants, inculpating someone else, circumstantial evidence, second/third hand accounts, character witnesses, etc, etc...? There is no information to glean any insight into what they've done and what it means for the case.

Besides, as I pointed out before witnesses are at the bottom rung of the preponderance ladder in an investigation, they are not a reliable source to establish facts; you can check the case of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson to get an idea.

[Willy Eckerslike]

An incredibly meaningful development it seems. Would be nice to see if these people actually do get to say their piece in court, how reliable their evidence is, and the lengths to which the prosecution will likely go to character assassinate them before / after the trial.

Kudos for the Burmese govt for backing its citizens. And just shows how utterly shameful the UK authorities have been during this whole debacle. Not once during this whole thing has anybody stepped up with a pair of cajones to try and get some legitimate answers and really grill the Thai investigators about their methods & very limited lines of actual investigation.

& AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too, you sound like you're trying to convince yourself of what you're posting. May I suggest keeping an open mind, these Burmese investigators seemingly know what they're doing & are working diligently for their clients best interests. Maybe you should invest some time in reading what they've done and how the findings may pose some pertinent questions later. The Thai investigators from day 1 have not been consistent in what they've done. The same levels of diligence and integrity from all concerned seem to be worlds apart. There is plenty to read into there. I hope you do so before penning your next entry

Good post but I think you meant AleG's post # 165......