Myanmar embassy seeking defence witnesses for Koh Tao accused

[AleG]

"I can give you plenty of 'real' facts"

Yes, well, go on then.

Here's the first 13 top facts in order of the timeline

1. The Investigation was seriously flawed from the word go

2. The crime scene invaded by members of the public and even future suspect/s

3. Fingerprints from the hoe impossible to get because of others handling it prior to forensics

4. Attempts by Thai's to destroy evidence linking them to the murders

5. Attempts given to give false information to divert attention to the real killers

6. Racial bias in at least 2 publicly made statements that Thai's could have not done this crime

7. DNA collection carried out by non specialist personal

8. Allegations of witness bribery

9. Allegations of torture by the B2

10. Police still refusing to meet the Human Rights Commission to answer those allegations of torture

11. Concerns internationally that this is not a fair trial in the making

12. Concerns of a cover up expressed by the UK government (corruption)

13. Concerns by the UK government of the DNA trail and the need to get it independently verified

Theres more but that should keep you going with excuses and arguments for a while...........................if you want any links to verify the above I will give them when I have time

I don't think you understand what "fact" means, since almost all the points on your list are either allegations (2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and opinions (1, 2, 11, 12, 13).

Now let's see what is left...

Point 3, where do you get that from? That the fingerprints couldn't be taken because the hoe was handled by other people?

If that would be the case then there would be fingerprints from anyone that had used it, it doesn't stop the police from getting fingerprints from it.

[onionluke]

I would to make the following allegation , ^ is happily living in cloud cuckoo land .

[thailandchilli]

"I can give you plenty of 'real' facts"

Yes, well, go on then.

Here's the first 13 top facts in order of the timeline

1. The Investigation was seriously flawed from the word go

2. The crime scene invaded by members of the public and even future suspect/s

3. Fingerprints from the hoe impossible to get because of others handling it prior to forensics

4. Attempts by Thai's to destroy evidence linking them to the murders

5. Attempts given to give false information to divert attention to the real killers

6. Racial bias in at least 2 publicly made statements that Thai's could have not done this crime

7. DNA collection carried out by non specialist personal

8. Allegations of witness bribery

9. Allegations of torture by the B2

10. Police still refusing to meet the Human Rights Commission to answer those allegations of torture

11. Concerns internationally that this is not a fair trial in the making

12. Concerns of a cover up expressed by the UK government (corruption)

13. Concerns by the UK government of the DNA trail and the need to get it independently verified

Theres more but that should keep you going with excuses and arguments for a while...........................if you want any links to verify the above I will give them when I have time

I don't think you understand what "fact" means, since almost all the points on your list are either allegations (2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and opinions (1, 2, 11, 12, 13).

Now let's see what is left...

Point 3, where do you get that from? That the fingerprints couldn't be taken because the hoe was handled by other people?

If that would be the case then there would be fingerprints from anyone that had used it, it doesn't stop the police from getting fingerprints from it.

There you go, excuses and arguments to the facts stated. Facts that allegations have been made are facts, facts that concerns have been raised of a cover up are facts the list goes on. Photo's and reports of the crime scene showing future suspect and members of the public are facts.

The RTP making statements that Thais had tried to destroy evidence is a fact

Opinions by professional people are facts. Just because it does not prove a senario does not mean its not a fact that these people have serious doubts and that raises enormous concerns to people world wide but not you, oh no

Point 3. Better talk to the RTP or should we say forensic experts about that :

September 15, many locals had already messed up the evidence by moving the two murder weapons - a hoe and a wooden stick - and thereby affecting the fingerprints.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Investigation-into-Koh-Tao-murders-seriously-flawe-30244163.html

I understand perfectly what a fact is thank you.

Carry on defending the undefendable

Edited January 16, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

Gotta love the circular logic: there are allegations that there is a cover up so that is a "fact" that supports the allegations that there is a cover up.

"Point 3. Better talk to the RTP or should we say forensic experts about that :

September 15, many locals had already messed up the evidence by moving the two murder weapons - a hoe and a wooden stick - and thereby affecting the fingerprints.http://www.nationmul...e-30244163.html"

Oh, but you claimed as a "fact" not that the fingerprints were affected, you stated as a "fact" that it was impossible to get fingerprints

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are not beneath twisting facts to fit into a narrative.

[thailandchilli]

Gotta love the circular logic: there are allegations that there is a cover up so that is a "fact" that supports the allegations that there is a cover up.

"Point 3. Better talk to the RTP or should we say forensic experts about that :

September 15, many locals had already messed up the evidence by moving the two murder weapons - a hoe and a wooden stick - and thereby affecting the fingerprints.http://www.nationmul...e-30244163.html"

Oh, but you claimed as a "fact" not that the fingerprints were affected, you stated as a "fact" that it was impossible to get fingerprints

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are not beneath twisting facts to fit into a narrative.

Pray tell what are your facts that convince you the trial is going to be fair and transparent?

Edited January 16, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

Gotta love the circular logic: there are allegations that there is a cover up so that is a "fact" that supports the allegations that there is a cover up.

"Point 3. Better talk to the RTP or should we say forensic experts about that :

September 15, many locals had already messed up the evidence by moving the two murder weapons - a hoe and a wooden stick - and thereby affecting the fingerprints.http://www.nationmul...e-30244163.html"

Oh, but you claimed as a "fact" not that the fingerprints were affected, you stated as a "fact" that it was impossible to get fingerprints

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are not beneath twisting facts to fit into a narrative.

Pray tell what are your facts that convince you the trial is going to be fair and transparent?

That I haven't heard of anything speaking to the contrary regarding the trial.

[boomerangutang]

Here are some 'facts' put forth by police, all of which are fine with AleG:

>>> the hoe killed David
>>> Hannah's phone was found at the Burmese dwelling
>>> Nomsod was not at the island during the time of the crimes
>>> Mon wasn't involved and doesn't know anything about the crime
>>> David and Hannan were having sex on the beach
>>> It was not Nomsod or Mon in any CCTV videos (even though they initially thought it was Mon).

Here are some facts which AleG can't or won't agree with:

>>> David's wounds were caused by a sharp shallow blade (we'll get further proof of that when the Brit Coroner speaks about it).
>>> The RTP said they won't give Nomsod's DNA typing to Brits "because they already trust everything we're doing."
>>> The Thai PM restricted Brit experts to "observers only," and disallowed them from doing any sort of investigative work.
>>> Hannah's phone was clearly shown to have been in police custody, the day of the crime.
>>> CCTV from the bars was either destroyed or hidden.
>>> The Headman said his son went back to Bangkok on Monday morning.
>>> Ms Porntip said the Police handling of the DNA was flawed, and the DNA trail is probably untrustworthy.

Actually, that last point (re; Ms Porntip) could play nicely in favor of the Headman's people, if they ever are reinstated as suspects. Mon, who was a prime suspect early on, was walking all over the crime scene just hours after the crime (maybe before, as it would be in his interest to contaminate/rearrange the crime scene as much as possible). Indeed, that's v. likely why he allegedly claimed it was him in the 'running man video' even though many observers think it was Nomsod. Why would Mon make up a story like that? Answer: to cover for his nephew. However, neither Mon nor Nomsod need to worry about again being designated suspects, and it's clear to any dimwit. why.

Edited January 16, 2015 by boomerangutang

[thailandchilli]

Gotta love the circular logic: there are allegations that there is a cover up so that is a "fact" that supports the allegations that there is a cover up.

"Point 3. Better talk to the RTP or should we say forensic experts about that :

September 15, many locals had already messed up the evidence by moving the two murder weapons - a hoe and a wooden stick - and thereby affecting the fingerprints.http://www.nationmul...e-30244163.html"

Oh, but you claimed as a "fact" not that the fingerprints were affected, you stated as a "fact" that it was impossible to get fingerprints

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are not beneath twisting facts to fit into a narrative.

Pray tell what are your facts that convince you the trial is going to be fair and transparent?

That I haven't heard of anything speaking to the contrary regarding the trial.

Well thank you AleG for your input and your conviction that this will be a fair and transparent trial because you have heard nothing to the contrary.

Your faith in the RTP and Thai judicial system are admiral. Its a shame Amnesty, Reprieve, FCO (UK), Burmese Government, Dr Porntip, Sondhi, to numerous to mention respected media outlets and of course hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in Thailand and internationally don't agree with you, I know you "dont care", I already have a quote from you stating this in a previous post that I remember not so long ago.

Enjoy your next dive in Koh Tao

Edited January 16, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

That I haven't heard of anything speaking to the contrary regarding the trial.

Well thank you AleG for your input and your conviction that this will be a fair and transparent trial because you have heard nothing to the contrary.

Your faith in the RTP and Thai judicial system are admiral. Its a shame Amnesty, Reprieve, FCO (UK), Burmese Government, Dr Porntip, Sondhi, to numerous to mention respected media outlets and of course hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in Thailand and internationally don't agree with you, I know you "dont care", I already have a quote from you stating this in a previous post that I remember not so long ago.

Enjoy your next dive in Koh Tao

So you think the trial is not fair and transparent? What do you base that on?

[IslandLover]

berybert, on 16 Jan 2015 - 04:51, said:

IslandLover, on 15 Jan 2015 - 19:21, said:

berybert, on 13 Jan 2015 - 13:31, said:berybert, on 13 Jan 2015 - 13:31, said:

Are you sure I don't know what I am talking about. I do as the police have done since the start of the investigation talk a bit of rubbish and you claim I don't know what I am talking about.

If I was a Thai copper you would be saying It was it was an easy mistake to make etc. A bit like the man who ran being called Sow and being aged between 25 and 27. You need to be a bit more consistent in your criticism.

OK, sticking my neck out here but .....

Soe (Sow) = Cho = Win

Age 21 years

This kid has been given more names than I care to mention but I believe he is now known as Wai Phyo.

It was "Win" who legged it to Surat Thani and the report that put his age at between 25 and 27 was WRONG!

Stick your neck out a bit futher and you might find that he didn't give out any false information.. He had papers with his name on them also his age would have been on there. So everything was reported wrong. Which hasn't changed since the second team took over.

He had papers with his name on them also his age would have been on there.

Are you implying that it was Zaw Lin who was arrested in Surat Thani? Zaw seems to be the only one of the B3 who has a legitimate passport, according to the pre-trial hearing on 26th December. Maung Maung was pictured (wearing his ACTWO t-shirt) being arrested on Koh Tao so it was not him who fled to Surat Thani.

Subsequent reports tell us that two migrant workers were arrested on Koh Tao (believed to be Zaw Lin and Maung Maung) and a third was arrested in Surat Thani (believed to be Win/Wei Phyo). Are you saying that Soe/Cho is not Win/Wei Phyo and that a completely different man aged between 25 and 27 was arrested in Surat Thani? None of the B3 fit that age group as Zaw and Win are 21 and Maung Maung (Mau) is 23.

I am well aware that much of the reporting in this case has been misleading, and in some cases completely erroneous (e.g. Sean McAnna was first reported to be French), but nevertheless it has been established that it was Win who was arrested in Surat Thani.

[berybert]

berybert, on 16 Jan 2015 - 04:51, said:

IslandLover, on 15 Jan 2015 - 19:21, said:

berybert, on 13 Jan 2015 - 13:31, said:berybert, on 13 Jan 2015 - 13:31, said:

Are you sure I don't know what I am talking about. I do as the police have done since the start of the investigation talk a bit of rubbish and you claim I don't know what I am talking about.

If I was a Thai copper you would be saying It was it was an easy mistake to make etc. A bit like the man who ran being called Sow and being aged between 25 and 27. You need to be a bit more consistent in your criticism.

OK, sticking my neck out here but .....

Soe (Sow) = Cho = Win

Age 21 years

This kid has been given more names than I care to mention but I believe he is now known as Wai Phyo.

It was "Win" who legged it to Surat Thani and the report that put his age at between 25 and 27 was WRONG!

Stick your neck out a bit futher and you might find that he didn't give out any false information.. He had papers with his name on them also his age would have been on there. So everything was reported wrong. Which hasn't changed since the second team took over.

He had papers with his name on them also his age would have been on there.

Are you implying that it was Zaw Lin who was arrested in Surat Thani? Zaw seems to be the only one of the B3 who has a legitimate passport, according to the pre-trial hearing on 26th December. Maung Maung was pictured (wearing his ACTWO t-shirt) being arrested on Koh Tao so it was not him who fled to Surat Thani.

Subsequent reports tell us that two migrant workers were arrested on Koh Tao (believed to be Zaw Lin and Maung Maung) and a third was arrested in Surat Thani (believed to be Win/Wei Phyo). Are you saying that Soe/Cho is not Win/Wei Phyo and that a completely different man aged between 25 and 27 was arrested in Surat Thani? None of the B3 fit that age group as Zaw and Win are 21 and Maung Maung (Mau) is 23.

I am well aware that much of the reporting in this case has been misleading, and in some cases completely erroneous (e.g. Sean McAnna was first reported to be French), but nevertheless it has been established that it was Win who was arrested in Surat Thani.

No I am saying they have done nothing but get things wrong and made mistake after mistake.

Lets be honest if you had killed someone and knew there was little chance of getting away with it would you have hung around for a few days.

Oh and if you are saying that because one of them left the island that makes him guilty, does that make the other one not guilty because he didn't leave.

[AleG]

Here are some 'facts' put forth by police, all of which are fine with AleG:

>>> the hoe killed David

>>> Hannah's phone was found at the Burmese dwelling

>>> Nomsod was not at the island during the time of the crimes

>>> Mon wasn't involved and doesn't know anything about the crime

>>> David and Hannan were having sex on the beach

>>> It was not Nomsod or Mon in any CCTV videos (even though they initially thought it was Mon).

Here are some facts which AleG can't or won't agree with:

>>> David's wounds were caused by a sharp shallow blade (we'll get further proof of that when the Brit Coroner speaks about it).

>>> The RTP said they won't give Nomsod's DNA typing to Brits "because they already trust everything we're doing."

>>> The Thai PM restricted Brit experts to "observers only," and disallowed them from doing any sort of investigative work.

>>> Hannah's phone was clearly shown to have been in police custody, the day of the crime.

>>> CCTV from the bars was either destroyed or hidden.

>>> The Headman said his son went back to Bangkok on Monday morning.

>>> Ms Porntip said the Police handling of the DNA was flawed, and the DNA trail is probably untrustworthy.

Actually, that last point (re; Ms Porntip) could play nicely in favor of the Headman's people, if they ever are reinstated as suspects. Mon, who was a prime suspect early on, was walking all over the crime scene just hours after the crime (maybe before, as it would be in his interest to contaminate/rearrange the crime scene as much as possible). Indeed, that's v. likely why he allegedly claimed it was him in the 'running man video' even though many observers think it was Nomsod. Why would Mon make up a story like that? Answer: to cover for his nephew. However, neither Mon nor Nomsod need to worry about again being designated suspects, and it's clear to any dimwit. why.

"Here are some 'facts' put forth by police, all of which are fine with AleG:"

">>> the hoe killed David"

False, he died from drowning.

">>> Hannah's phone was found at the Burmese dwelling"

It was David's phone, you are holding on to one wrong statement from a policeman and ignoring subsequent developments.

It's easy to prove this to be false, since Whiterige's phone was handed to the police intact and then given back to her family, Miller's phone, found near the two Burmese lodgings was smashed.

">>> Nomsod was not at the island during the time of the crimes"

As proved by the evidence he provided, which, contrary to your claims, is not limited to a "doctored" 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."

>>> Mon wasn't involved and doesn't know anything about the crime

If you (royal you) can't prove he was involved that is that.

">>> David and Hannan were having sex on the beach"

Probably yes, it's not a fact though.

">>> It was not Nomsod or Mon in any CCTV videos (even though they initially thought it was Mon)."

Since there is no positive ID for them (your biased speculation is not a positive ID), then no, it's not a fact that they are in the CCTV footage.

So, in summary, do not pretend to know what facts I know or believe. You assume many things, and are proven to be wrong more often than not.

"Here are some facts which AleG can't or won't agree with:"

">>> David's wounds were caused by a sharp shallow blade (we'll get further proof of that when the Brit Coroner speaks about it)."

This is not a fact, it's speculation

">>> The RTP said they won't give Nomsod's DNA typing to Brits "because they already trust everything we're doing.""

Because the UK police has no jurisdiction to investigate in Thailand, furthermore, the police didn't request his DNA to begin with because he had already provided a solid alibi. Just because you are too obsessed with the man's guilt is not evidence against it.

">>> The Thai PM restricted Brit experts to "observers only," and disallowed them from doing any sort of investigative work."

Because the UK police has no jurisdiction in Thailand.

">>> Hannah's phone was clearly shown to have been in police custody, the day of the crime."

Yes it was, however, it was not the phone that was found near the suspects home. What with being different models and one being intact and the other broken.

">>> CCTV from the bars was either destroyed or hidden."

This is not a fact, it's speculation.

">>> The Headman said his son went back to Bangkok on Monday morning."

This is not a fact, it's you making things up.

">>> Ms Porntip said the Police handling of the DNA was flawed, and the DNA trail is probably untrustworthy."

That's not a fact, it's an opinion.

In view of this latest debacle of yours, you should leave the quest for truth and justice thing to more capable people.

Edited January 16, 2015 by AleG

[z42]

Yes lets have some facts.

1, The fact is the boys did it. They said so themselves.

2, The RTP said the boys did it.

3, The pancake seller who translated for them said they did it.

4, No torture was used to get the boys to confess, both the RTP and the pancake seller have said this.

5, The crime scene re-enactment proves that the hoe is in fact the murder weapon.

6,The British police as well as both sets of parents are 100% sure the RTP have the right people. The RTP have made this statement with regard the British police many times so we know it to be true.

There are 6 facts that prove guilt 100% I am sure there are many more, these are just a few I picked off the top of my head.

This is a wind up surely, right?? Or am i missing something here... I can't believe i'm even biting haha. Help me

[berybert]

Yes lets have some facts.

1, The fact is the boys did it. They said so themselves.

2, The RTP said the boys did it.

3, The pancake seller who translated for them said they did it.

4, No torture was used to get the boys to confess, both the RTP and the pancake seller have said this.

5, The crime scene re-enactment proves that the hoe is in fact the murder weapon.

6,The British police as well as both sets of parents are 100% sure the RTP have the right people. The RTP have made this statement with regard the British police many times so we know it to be true.

There are 6 facts that prove guilt 100% I am sure there are many more, these are just a few I picked off the top of my head.

This is a wind up surely, right?? Or am i missing something here... I can't believe i'm even biting haha. Help me

These are the sort of facts that some people believe these guys committed these murders.

100% proof.

[IslandLover]

berybert, on 16 Jan 2015 - 16:20, said:berybert, on 16 Jan 2015 - 16:20, said:

IslandLover, on 16 Jan 2015 - 16:04, said:IslandLover, on 16 Jan 2015 - 16:04, said:

berybert, on 16 Jan 2015 - 04:51, said:berybert, on 16 Jan 2015 - 04:51, said:berybert, on 16 Jan 2015 - 04:51, said:

IslandLover, on 15 Jan 2015 - 19:21, said:IslandLover, on 15 Jan 2015 - 19:21, said:IslandLover, on 15 Jan 2015 - 19:21, said:

OK, sticking my neck out here but .....

Soe (Sow) = Cho = Win

Age 21 years

This kid has been given more names than I care to mention but I believe he is now known as Wai Phyo.

It was "Win" who legged it to Surat Thani and the report that put his age at between 25 and 27 was WRONG!

Stick your neck out a bit futher and you might find that he didn't give out any false information.. He had papers with his name on them also his age would have been on there. So everything was reported wrong. Which hasn't changed since the second team took over.

He had papers with his name on them also his age would have been on there.

Are you implying that it was Zaw Lin who was arrested in Surat Thani? Zaw seems to be the only one of the B3 who has a legitimate passport, according to the pre-trial hearing on 26th December. Maung Maung was pictured (wearing his ACTWO t-shirt) being arrested on Koh Tao so it was not him who fled to Surat Thani.

Subsequent reports tell us that two migrant workers were arrested on Koh Tao (believed to be Zaw Lin and Maung Maung) and a third was arrested in Surat Thani (believed to be Win/Wei Phyo). Are you saying that Soe/Cho is not Win/Wei Phyo and that a completely different man aged between 25 and 27 was arrested in Surat Thani? None of the B3 fit that age group as Zaw and Win are 21 and Maung Maung (Mau) is 23.

I am well aware that much of the reporting in this case has been misleading, and in some cases completely erroneous (e.g. Sean McAnna was first reported to be French), but nevertheless it has been established that it was Win who was arrested in Surat Thani.

No I am saying they have done nothing but get things wrong and made mistake after mistake.

Lets be honest if you had killed someone and knew there was little chance of getting away with it would you have hung around for a few days.

Oh and if you are saying that because one of them left the island that makes him guilty, does that make the other one not guilty because he didn't leave.

No I am saying they have done nothing but get things wrong and made mistake after mistake

Agreed.

No, I'm certainly not saying that the one who fled KT did so because he was guilty of the murders. In fact in one report I read it said he did so because he was an illegal migrant. The fact that the RTP was trying to pin the murders on the Burmese workers from the outset is enough to make any of them want to get the hell out of there, yet the B3 remained on KT for 2 weeks after the murders, despite the huge police presence on the island. Why would they do that if they were guilty? It doesn't make sense.

[thailandchilli]

I notice the fact that professional opinions publicly given on record by those who have the knowledge, qualifications, expertise and background to do so are now also being discounted by the glee club purely as opinions if it does not toe the RTP line. Opinions by professionals are normally taken and considered by most people including courts.

Professional opinions mean a lot and should be investigated or those opinions should be acted on if not then whats the point of ever visiting a doctor again for in your life!.

Sickening how they stoop to all lows to get a trial underway that is not fair and transparent. The fact these opinions are being made by people and organisations causes huge concern to people who have intelligence... or people who do not have a bias. No one can argue with that...............oh wait I'm sure there are a couple..................

Edited January 17, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

I notice the fact that professional opinions publicly given on record by those who have the knowledge, qualifications, expertise and background to do so are now also being discounted by the glee club purely as opinions if it does not toe the RTP line. Opinions by professionals are normally taken and considered by most people including courts.

Professional opinions mean a lot and should be investigated or those opinions should be acted on if not then whats the point of ever visiting a doctor again for in your life!.

Sickening how they stoop to all lows to get a trial underway that is not fair and transparent. The fact these opinions are being made by people and organisations causes huge concern to people who have intelligence... or people who do not have a bias. No one can argue with that...............oh wait I'm sure there are a couple..................

Opinions are not facts, it's not hard to understand; yet, when asked about facts you provide opinions.

Again, what is not fair and transparent about the trial?

[thailandchilli]

I notice the fact that professional opinions publicly given on record by those who have the knowledge, qualifications, expertise and background to do so are now also being discounted by the glee club purely as opinions if it does not toe the RTP line. Opinions by professionals are normally taken and considered by most people including courts.

Professional opinions mean a lot and should be investigated or those opinions should be acted on if not then whats the point of ever visiting a doctor again for in your life!.

Sickening how they stoop to all lows to get a trial underway that is not fair and transparent. The fact these opinions are being made by people and organisations causes huge concern to people who have intelligence... or people who do not have a bias. No one can argue with that...............oh wait I'm sure there are a couple..................

Opinions are not facts, it's not hard to understand; yet, when asked about facts you provide opinions.

Again, what is not fair and transparent about the trial?

Again:

Sickening how they stoop to all lows to get a trial underway that is not fair and transparent. The fact these opinions are being made by people and organisations causes huge concern to people who have intelligence... or people who do not have a bias. No one can argue with that...............oh wait I'm sure there are a couple..................

Again:

Maya Foa from the fair trials group Reprieve, said the group extended deep sympathies to the victims’ families and “understand their desire to see that those responsible are held to account”.

She added: “We also share their desire to see a fair and transparent trial process. At the moment, however, this does not seem to be happening.

I agree with that opinion, I know you don't................wonder why

Edited January 17, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

Opinions are not facts, it's not hard to understand; yet, when asked about facts you provide opinions.

Again, what is not fair and transparent about the trial?

Again:

Sickening how they stoop to all lows to get a trial underway that is not fair and transparent. The fact these opinions are being made by people and organisations causes huge concern to people who have intelligence... or people who do not have a bias. No one can argue with that...............oh wait I'm sure there are a couple..................

Again:

Maya Foa from the fair trials group Reprieve, said the group extended deep sympathies to the victims’ families and “understand their desire to see that those responsible are held to account”.

She added: “We also share their desire to see a fair and transparent trial process. At the moment, however, this does not seem to be happening.

I agree with that opinion, I know you don't................wonder why

Because opinions without a fundament are just hot air.

What is the problem that you can't articulate why the trial is unfair and not transparent?

[thailandchilli]

Opinions are not facts, it's not hard to understand; yet, when asked about facts you provide opinions.

Again, what is not fair and transparent about the trial?

Again:

Sickening how they stoop to all lows to get a trial underway that is not fair and transparent. The fact these opinions are being made by people and organisations causes huge concern to people who have intelligence... or people who do not have a bias. No one can argue with that...............oh wait I'm sure there are a couple..................

Again:

Maya Foa from the fair trials group Reprieve, said the group extended deep sympathies to the victims’ families and “understand their desire to see that those responsible are held to account”.

She added: “We also share their desire to see a fair and transparent trial process. At the moment, however, this does not seem to be happening.

I agree with that opinion, I know you don't................wonder why

Because opinions without a fundament are just hot air.

What is the problem that you can't articulate why the trial is unfair and not transparent?

I have better things to do with my time than argue, articulate or debate with someone who has a twisted logic, is dishonest in his arguments, cherry pics, is selective, hypocritical and above all has no wish to seek a fair trial.

I save my debates for people and posters who are open and honest in their opinions and are willing to question and fight for justice and fairness in the trial and trial process.

Those who classify the opinions of respected organisations including Reprieve as hot air are not worth my respect or my time, assuming those people are making those opinions with no knowledge of what they are talking about is disrestectful and shows their bias against those views. In light of Mr Miller also thanking Reprieve for the work they are doing is further proof that you dismiss anything that does not fit with your own agenda.

I'm sorry I know this bursts your bubble but I did not realize your condition was as bad as it obviously is.

[JLCrab]

Just to embellish the miller family statement 5 DEC 2014 released via the UK FCO:

The evidence collected by the Royal Thai police will be presented at court and we hope the suspects are granted a fair and transparent trial. We are thankful of the over-sight of pressure groups such as Reprieve and Amnesty.

In the meantime however, we ask that the speculative theories circulating on social media are not taken as fact. These interpretations are based on incomplete evidence and substantial conjecture.

So kudos to the first paragraph and so much for the latter.

[berybert]

Just to embellish the miller family statement 5 DEC 2014 released via the UK FCO:

The evidence collected by the Royal Thai police will be presented at court and we hope the suspects are granted a fair and transparent trial. We are thankful of the over-sight of pressure groups such as Reprieve and Amnesty.

In the meantime however, we ask that the speculative theories circulating on social media are not taken as fact. These interpretations are based on incomplete evidence and substantial conjecture.

So kudos to the first paragraph and so much for the latter.

And kudos for you for pointing this out. I am glad that since 5/12/14 you have made no posts on the trial. Well played.

[JLCrab]

Just to embellish the miller family statement 5 DEC 2014 released via the UK FCO:

The evidence collected by the Royal Thai police will be presented at court and we hope the suspects are granted a fair and transparent trial. We are thankful of the over-sight of pressure groups such as Reprieve and Amnesty.

In the meantime however, we ask that the speculative theories circulating on social media are not taken as fact. These interpretations are based on incomplete evidence and substantial conjecture.

So kudos to the first paragraph and so much for the latter.

And kudos for you for pointing this out. I am glad that since 5/12/14 you have made no posts on the trial. Well played.

Thank --- since 5 DEC 2014 and even before I have made no wild speculative theories as, in that department, I am decidedly outmatched by others on here who do so routinely.

[berybert]

Just to embellish the miller family statement 5 DEC 2014 released via the UK FCO:

The evidence collected by the Royal Thai police will be presented at court and we hope the suspects are granted a fair and transparent trial. We are thankful of the over-sight of pressure groups such as Reprieve and Amnesty.

In the meantime however, we ask that the speculative theories circulating on social media are not taken as fact. These interpretations are based on incomplete evidence and substantial conjecture.

So kudos to the first paragraph and so much for the latter.

And kudos for you for pointing this out. I am glad that since 5/12/14 you have made no posts on the trial. Well played.

Thank --- since 5 DEC 2014 and even before I have made no wild speculative theories as, in that department, I am decidedly outmatched by others on here who do so routinely.

Are you sure ? You seem to regularly make outlandish remarks then give a link to a paper or a T.V. series or a film to cover yourself.

You may fool some people but you have yet to fool me.

[JLCrab]

I have said often enough that personally I have seen no information from any source that would be sufficient to convict or exculpate those charged with the crimes. The rest is up-to-you.

... but while we're at it, from Silence of the Lambs (1991):

(Agents Starling & Mapp) We covet what we see -- every day.

Edited January 17, 2015 by JLCrab

[AleG]

Because opinions without a fundament are just hot air.

What is the problem that you can't articulate why the trial is unfair and not transparent?

I have better things to do with my time than argue, articulate or debate with someone who has a twisted logic, is dishonest in his arguments, cherry pics, is selective, hypocritical and above all has no wish to seek a fair trial.

I save my debates for people and posters who are open and honest in their opinions and are willing to question and fight for justice and fairness in the trial and trial process.

Those who classify the opinions of respected organisations including Reprieve as hot air are not worth my respect or my time, assuming those people are making those opinions with no knowledge of what they are talking about is disrestectful and shows their bias against those views. In light of Mr Miller also thanking Reprieve for the work they are doing is further proof that you dismiss anything that does not fit with your own agenda.

I'm sorry I know this bursts your bubble but I did not realize your condition was as bad as it obviously is.

All that tirade because you refuse to articulate what is unfair and not transparent about the trial.

You can't do that so you throw a temper tantrum and run to hide under the skirts of Ms. Self Righteousness.

I classified unsupported opinions as hot air, Reprive's, yours, mine, anyone's; so don't tell me about twisted logic, dishonest arguments, cherry picking and hypocrisy.

[thailandchilli]

Because opinions without a fundament are just hot air.

What is the problem that you can't articulate why the trial is unfair and not transparent?

I have better things to do with my time than argue, articulate or debate with someone who has a twisted logic, is dishonest in his arguments, cherry pics, is selective, hypocritical and above all has no wish to seek a fair trial.

I save my debates for people and posters who are open and honest in their opinions and are willing to question and fight for justice and fairness in the trial and trial process.

Those who classify the opinions of respected organisations including Reprieve as hot air are not worth my respect or my time, assuming those people are making those opinions with no knowledge of what they are talking about is disrestectful and shows their bias against those views. In light of Mr Miller also thanking Reprieve for the work they are doing is further proof that you dismiss anything that does not fit with your own agenda.

I'm sorry I know this bursts your bubble but I did not realize your condition was as bad as it obviously is.

All that tirade because you refuse to articulate what is unfair and not transparent about the trial.

You can't do that so you throw a temper tantrum and run to hide under the skirts of Ms. Self Righteousness.

I classified unsupported opinions as hot air, Reprive's, yours, mine, anyone's; so don't tell me about twisted logic, dishonest arguments, cherry picking and hypocrisy.

Then I suggest you go back to post #389 where my first 13 points of facts, opinions by professional people who have knowledge of the case and serious recorded allegations are clearly outlined. Once you have done that PM me your email and we can continue because there's a books worth of debate there. Unless of course you want to go through each point one by one starting with points 12 and 13 and can show in the debate that you are not going to use twisted logic:

12. Concerns of a cover up expressed by the UK government (corruption)

13. Concerns by the UK government of the DNA trail and the need to get it independently verified

Point 12

That said, we are very concerned by the allegations of corruption and mistreatment of the suspects and it is very important that whoever committed these murders is brought to justice.

http://www.eadt.co.u..._case_1_3820462

Clearly demonstrates to me that there are concerns in the UK government that there may be a cover up of some sort in this case, its investigation and or evidence. Unless those concerns are addressed then the suspicions will not go away and the possibility that this is true remains. How to address those concerns? One way is to have an independent investigation into the RTP investigation. Because without doing so the trial process can hardly be deemed as fair in the international community.

Point 13

"There are two areas we are particularly concerned about. One is the verification of the DNA samples of the suspects, making sure there is further independent verification. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29668785

An independent test would reveal only one of 2 possible results.

1. The DNA did not match and this was a cover up from the start

2. The DNA matches and the very least the B2 are guilty of is rape

So with only these 2 results possible then if the RTP are so confident in their case and are so affected by the international outcry they could have taken the offer by the UK government to prove their case, but they did not do so................

If this had been done and the results were a match, that would satisfy me and I am sure most other people, speculation on the DNA would then cease.............a fair and transparent trial could be had presuming all the other evidence is above board.

[AleG]

Then I suggest you go back to post #389 where my first 13 points of facts, opinions by professional people who have knowledge of the case and serious recorded allegations are clearly outlined. Once you have done that PM me your email and we can continue because there's a books worth of debate there. Unless of course you want to go through each point one by one starting with points 12 and 13 and can show in the debate that you are not going to use twisted logic:

12. Concerns of a cover up expressed by the UK government (corruption)

13. Concerns by the UK government of the DNA trail and the need to get it independently verified

Point 12

That said, we are very concerned by the allegations of corruption and mistreatment of the suspects and it is very important that whoever committed these murders is brought to justice.

http://www.eadt.co.u..._case_1_3820462

Clearly demonstrates to me that there are concerns in the UK government that there may be a cover up of some sort in this case, its investigation and or evidence. Unless those concerns are addressed then the suspicions will not go away and the possibility that this is true remains. How to address those concerns? One way is to have an independent investigation into the RTP investigation. Because without doing so the trial process can hardly be deemed as fair in the international community.

Point 13

"There are two areas we are particularly concerned about. One is the verification of the DNA samples of the suspects, making sure there is further independent verification. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29668785

An independent test would reveal only one of 2 possible results.

1. The DNA did not match and this was a cover up from the start

2. The DNA matches and the very least the B2 are guilty of is rape

So with only these 2 results possible then if the RTP are so confident in their case and are so affected by the international outcry they could have taken the offer by the UK government to prove their case, but they did not do so................

If this had been done and the results were a match, that would satisfy me and I am sure most other people, speculation on the DNA would then cease.............a fair and transparent trial could be had presuming all the other evidence is above board.

You keep talking about the investigation, I asked (for about the fourth or fifth time) what evidence you have that the TRIAL will not be fair and transparent.

Biased judge? Defense team not allowed access to the defendants? Press and public barred from attending hearings? What?

Besides that.

12 concerns the allegations of a cover up; I, or anyone else could allege a lot of things, wouldn't make them true, would they?

Furthermore, any allegation, if proved true should be pertinent to the crime itself; as I explained to you and you took great lengths to work yourself up over it, even if the confession was obtaining by putting the two Burmese men through the rack it has no bearing whatsoever on the objective reality of whether they did commit the murders or not.

13 is your spin on the outcome of the UK inquiries, you have no idea if those resulted in an acceptance of the validity of the DNA testing or not.

[thailandchilli]

Then I suggest you go back to post #389 where my first 13 points of facts, opinions by professional people who have knowledge of the case and serious recorded allegations are clearly outlined. Once you have done that PM me your email and we can continue because there's a books worth of debate there. Unless of course you want to go through each point one by one starting with points 12 and 13 and can show in the debate that you are not going to use twisted logic:

12. Concerns of a cover up expressed by the UK government (corruption)

13. Concerns by the UK government of the DNA trail and the need to get it independently verified

Point 12

That said, we are very concerned by the allegations of corruption and mistreatment of the suspects and it is very important that whoever committed these murders is brought to justice.

http://www.eadt.co.u..._case_1_3820462

Clearly demonstrates to me that there are concerns in the UK government that there may be a cover up of some sort in this case, its investigation and or evidence. Unless those concerns are addressed then the suspicions will not go away and the possibility that this is true remains. How to address those concerns? One way is to have an independent investigation into the RTP investigation. Because without doing so the trial process can hardly be deemed as fair in the international community.

Point 13

"There are two areas we are particularly concerned about. One is the verification of the DNA samples of the suspects, making sure there is further independent verification. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29668785

An independent test would reveal only one of 2 possible results.

1. The DNA did not match and this was a cover up from the start

2. The DNA matches and the very least the B2 are guilty of is rape

So with only these 2 results possible then if the RTP are so confident in their case and are so affected by the international outcry they could have taken the offer by the UK government to prove their case, but they did not do so................

If this had been done and the results were a match, that would satisfy me and I am sure most other people, speculation on the DNA would then cease.............a fair and transparent trial could be had presuming all the other evidence is above board.

You keep talking about the investigation, I asked (for about the fourth or fifth time) what evidence you have that the TRIAL will not be fair and transparent.

Biased judge? Defense team not allowed access to the defendants? Press and public barred from attending hearings? What?

Besides that.

12 concerns the allegations of a cover up; I, or anyone else could allege a lot of things, wouldn't make them true, would they?

Furthermore, any allegation, if proved true should be pertinent to the crime itself; as I explained to you and you took great lengths to work yourself up over it, even if the confession was obtaining by putting the two Burmese men through the rack it has no bearing whatsoever on the objective reality of whether they did commit the murders or not.

13 is your spin on the outcome of the UK inquiries, you have no idea if those resulted in an acceptance of the validity of the DNA testing or not.

The trial process commences as soon as the accused were arrested.

I have no spin, I put forward debate, but you descend to accusing me of spin. Yes I or you can allege lots of things, when governments allege it then that carries credibility in my eyes but not yours, so in that case we have no need for further debate.

My point is made and I will not be responding to your biased views on this particular post again. Of course now go ahead and add your spin and twisted logic

[boomerangutang]

Here are some 'facts' put forth by police, all of which are fine with AleG:

>>> the hoe killed David

>>> Hannah's phone was found at the Burmese dwelling

>>> Nomsod was not at the island during the time of the crimes

>>> Mon wasn't involved and doesn't know anything about the crime

>>> David and Hannan were having sex on the beach

>>> It was not Nomsod or Mon in any CCTV videos (even though they initially thought it was Mon).

Here are some facts which AleG can't or won't agree with:

>>> David's wounds were caused by a sharp shallow blade (we'll get further proof of that when the Brit Coroner speaks about it).

>>> The RTP said they won't give Nomsod's DNA typing to Brits "because they already trust everything we're doing."

>>> The Thai PM restricted Brit experts to "observers only," and disallowed them from doing any sort of investigative work.

>>> Hannah's phone was clearly shown to have been in police custody, the day of the crime.

>>> CCTV from the bars was either destroyed or hidden.

>>> The Headman said his son went back to Bangkok on Monday morning.

>>> Ms Porntip said the Police handling of the DNA was flawed, and the DNA trail is probably untrustworthy.

Actually, that last point (re; Ms Porntip) could play nicely in favor of the Headman's people, if they ever are reinstated as suspects. Mon, who was a prime suspect early on, was walking all over the crime scene just hours after the crime (maybe before, as it would be in his interest to contaminate/rearrange the crime scene as much as possible). Indeed, that's v. likely why he allegedly claimed it was him in the 'running man video' even though many observers think it was Nomsod. Why would Mon make up a story like that? Answer: to cover for his nephew. However, neither Mon nor Nomsod need to worry about again being designated suspects, and it's clear to any dimwit. why.

"Here are some 'facts' put forth by police, all of which are fine with AleG:"

">>> the hoe killed David"

False, he died from drowning.

">>> Hannah's phone was found at the Burmese dwelling"

It was David's phone, you are holding on to one wrong statement from a policeman and ignoring subsequent developments.

It's easy to prove this to be false, since Whiterige's phone was handed to the police intact and then given back to her family, Miller's phone, found near the two Burmese lodgings was smashed.

">>> Nomsod was not at the island during the time of the crimes"

As proved by the evidence he provided, which, contrary to your claims, is not limited to a "doctored" 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."

>>> Mon wasn't involved and doesn't know anything about the crime

If you (royal you) can't prove he was involved that is that.

">>> David and Hannan were having sex on the beach"

Probably yes, it's not a fact though.

">>> It was not Nomsod or Mon in any CCTV videos (even though they initially thought it was Mon)."

Since there is no positive ID for them (your biased speculation is not a positive ID), then no, it's not a fact that they are in the CCTV footage.

So, in summary, do not pretend to know what facts I know or believe. You assume many things, and are proven to be wrong more often than not.

"Here are some facts which AleG can't or won't agree with:"

">>> David's wounds were caused by a sharp shallow blade (we'll get further proof of that when the Brit Coroner speaks about it)."

This is not a fact, it's speculation

">>> The RTP said they won't give Nomsod's DNA typing to Brits "because they already trust everything we're doing.""

Because the UK police has no jurisdiction to investigate in Thailand, furthermore, the police didn't request his DNA to begin with because he had already provided a solid alibi. Just because you are too obsessed with the man's guilt is not evidence against it.

">>> The Thai PM restricted Brit experts to "observers only," and disallowed them from doing any sort of investigative work."

Because the UK police has no jurisdiction in Thailand.

">>> Hannah's phone was clearly shown to have been in police custody, the day of the crime."

Yes it was, however, it was not the phone that was found near the suspects home. What with being different models and one being intact and the other broken.

">>> CCTV from the bars was either destroyed or hidden."

This is not a fact, it's speculation.

">>> The Headman said his son went back to Bangkok on Monday morning."

This is not a fact, it's you making things up.

">>> Ms Porntip said the Police handling of the DNA was flawed, and the DNA trail is probably untrustworthy."

That's not a fact, it's an opinion.

In view of this latest debacle of yours, you should leave the quest for truth and justice thing to more capable people.

You're a smart person AleG. The things you don't want to admit are 'facts' (because they implicate the headman's people), you instead give a reason for it - therefore, you think you can fool others into thinking they're not facts, simply because you can deflect. Deflection or obfuscation (because it's something you don't want to hear) doesn't disprove a fact is a fact.