Myanmar embassy seeking defence witnesses for Koh Tao accused

[AleG]

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.

Why should I care about the Koh Tao headman?

You forgot to point out which "facts" you are referring to.

[boomerangutang]

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.

Why should I care about the Koh Tao headman?

You forgot to point out which "facts" you are referring to.

I don't know your relation with the Headman, but I never referred to him. I referred to 'his people', which is shorthand for Mon, Nomsod, the 'Stingray Man' who wears a shark tooth ring, and M who likes to pose with a hoe, while grinning, since the murders. There may be others, but we'll probably never know, because neither the RTP nor the British are lifting a finger to try and find who may be the real killers.

It's a fact, for example, that Porntip expressed herself in the way I mentioned. It's a fact that the reenactment on the beach depicted the hoe being used on David. It's a fact that the cops announced they would not share Nomsod's DNA with the Brits. I could go on and show you other ways you're wrong, but the gist is: just because you can give an excuse for something said or something happening (that I claim is a fact) doesn't negate that it's a fact. It's also a fact that the Thai PM designated the Brits can be 'observers only,' and are not allowed to do any investigating, any interviews, nor pursue any leads toward finding the real killers. I'm sure you can excuse that also, but any reasonable person can see clearly why Thai officialdom is so fixated upon keeping the Brits as far from investigating as possible.

[AleG]

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.

Why should I care about the Koh Tao headman?

You forgot to point out which "facts" you are referring to.

I don't know your relation with the Headman, but I never referred to him. I referred to 'his people', which is shorthand for Mon, Nomsod, the 'Stingray Man' who wears a shark tooth ring, and M who likes to pose with a hoe, while grinning, since the murders. There may be others, but we'll probably never know, because neither the RTP nor the British are lifting a finger to try and find who may be the real killers.

It's a fact, for example, that Porntip expressed herself in the way I mentioned. It's a fact that the reenactment on the beach depicted the hoe being used on David. It's a fact that the cops announced they would not share Nomsod's DNA with the Brits. I could go on and show you other ways you're wrong, but the gist is: just because you can give an excuse for something said or something happening (that I claim is a fact) doesn't negate that it's a fact. It's also a fact that the Thai PM designated the Brits can be 'observers only,' and are not allowed to do any investigating, any interviews, nor pursue any leads toward finding the real killers. I'm sure you can excuse that also, but any reasonable person can see clearly why Thai officialdom is so fixated upon keeping the Brits as far from investigating as possible.

boomerangutan, why should I care about things that would implicate the "headman people"?

No more pussyfooting and insinuations, go on and tell me.

[loonodingle]

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.

Why should I care about the Koh Tao headman?

You forgot to point out which "facts" you are referring to.

I don't know your relation with the Headman, but I never referred to him. I referred to 'his people', which is shorthand for Mon, Nomsod, the 'Stingray Man' who wears a shark tooth ring, and M who likes to pose with a hoe, while grinning, since the murders. There may be others, but we'll probably never know, because neither the RTP nor the British are lifting a finger to try and find who may be the real killers.

It's a fact, for example, that Porntip expressed herself in the way I mentioned. It's a fact that the reenactment on the beach depicted the hoe being used on David. It's a fact that the cops announced they would not share Nomsod's DNA with the Brits. I could go on and show you other ways you're wrong, but the gist is: just because you can give an excuse for something said or something happening (that I claim is a fact) doesn't negate that it's a fact. It's also a fact that the Thai PM designated the Brits can be 'observers only,' and are not allowed to do any investigating, any interviews, nor pursue any leads toward finding the real killers. I'm sure you can excuse that also, but any reasonable person can see clearly why Thai officialdom is so fixated upon keeping the Brits as far from investigating as possible.

boomerangutan, why should I care about things that would implicate the "headman people"?

No more pussyfooting and insinuations, go on and tell me.

AleG are you on Koh Tao??/ If not do you have any links to Koh Tao? family friends or investments.

Thought this may be important so we can understand your angle of attack here.

Or do you just like a bit of Banter??

[boomerangutang]

boomerangutan, why should I care about things that would implicate the "headman people"?

No more pussyfooting and insinuations, go on and tell me.

I can gauge a person by their words and actions. I don't know your actions, but your words all aim at shielding the Headman's people, note for note along with jdinasia, JTJ, Balo the RTP, and the top officials in the self-appointed government. I've been articulate in many of my posts. I don't think anyone (except perhaps you) could call my text 'pussyfooting.' As for 'insinuations,' yes, a plethora. Insinuations are dripping off each page of the hundreds on this topic. Besides insinuations, there have been facts, suppositions, proposed scenarios, scrutiny of photos, and whole lot more. We don't have to agree, but it's appreciated to have a forum like T.Visa to express ideas. Next question?

[JLCrab]

Right now a trial of the 2 Burmese for murder and other crimes is scheduled for this summer. There may be ways to convince the judge/judges that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the 2 committed the crimes as charged. Insinuating that it is possible remotely or otherwise that persons associated with the headman coulda also done it may not be one of them.

[boomerangutang]

I realize that one major part of the frame-up of the scapegoats is to divert attention from scrutinizing other aspects/people of the case. Thus far, the RTP and higher ups have been quite successful with that, among their own circles and the press corps. Thai officialdom want all focus to be on the scapegoats. Even if they themselves (the RTP and their supporters) suffer bad press, that's ok with them, as long as the focus (in their view) doesn't shift back to the original prime suspects. However, those of us who seek truth in this matter don't have to play by the game plan set out by the RTP and Thai officialdom. Unlike (the restrictions put upon) Thai cops, we're free to pursue ideas to where they lead, and discuss every aspect of the case.

Edited January 19, 2015 by boomerangutang

[JLCrab]

Win the battle; lose the war.

[boomerangutang]

Win the battle; lose the war.

Destroy the village in order to save it.

[JLCrab]

Win the battle; lose the war.

Destroy the village in order to save it.

The village isn't on trial; the 2 Burmese are.

[AleG]

boomerangutan, why should I care about things that would implicate the "headman people"?

No more pussyfooting and insinuations, go on and tell me.

I can gauge a person by their words and actions. I don't know your actions, but your words all aim at shielding the Headman's people, note for note along with jdinasia, JTJ, Balo the RTP, and the top officials in the self-appointed government. I've been articulate in many of my posts. I don't think anyone (except perhaps you) could call my text 'pussyfooting.' As for 'insinuations,' yes, a plethora. Insinuations are dripping off each page of the hundreds on this topic. Besides insinuations, there have been facts, suppositions, proposed scenarios, scrutiny of photos, and whole lot more. We don't have to agree, but it's appreciated to have a forum like T.Visa to express ideas. Next question?

If you think I am shielding the headman's people it doesn't come from my words and actions because I have directly told you several times to the contrary; you are confusing challenging your nonsensical, unsupported theories with defending a third party, however I understand it's easier for you to hold the belief that it's not because you push nonsensical and unsupported arguments but because I have an ulterior motive to defend the target of your speculation.

The proof of that is that I have taken the time to debunk similar nonsense from people going after other targets, like Chris Ware, and that I have criticized some aspects of the RTP.

You remind me of a Yung quote: "When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate"

[JLCrab]

A criminal trial requires that guilt be established beyond a reasonable doubt; operative word to the guy from one of the Chiangs, reasonable.

[berybert]

Boomer why do you continue to argue with ignorance. You along with many of us have pointed out RTP facts and theories about Chris Ware. The fact the RTP have changed there minds from day to day means all the facts we have pointed out (which came from them) means we are conspiracy theorists.

Certain people claim only the RTP's last ideas can possible be true and that you have been debunked.

Show me a person that loves using the same words over and over . I.e. Debunked, Straw man, Conspiracy theorist, etc and I will show you a moron.

[thailandchilli]

Its quite telling to see that now we have people attempting to discredit the opinions of professionals in this case if they do not fit their own agenda by saying that their opinions are the same as everyone else, just opinions.

Despite that incredibly illogical statement that's been touted to deflect any criticism of the RTP investigation or the need for a fair and transparent trial and trial process not all opinions are the same.

Example of a professional opinion:

A school nurse or educational specialist makes a professional opinion on one of the children without actually making an examination of that child but purely from observing at a distance. Their opinion is that the child appears to be exhibiting symptoms of mild or apparent autism, by way of their mannerisms or habits. The professional mentions this concern to the school head who then acts on that opinion and gives permission to the professional to inform the parents, the parents then have a choice to act on the same opinion and take their child to a Doctor for an examination and second opinion. If they chose not to do this then the school can also bypass the parents and take that professional opinion to social services or a Child Physiologist who will then investigate further.

There are many other forms of opinion for instance 'collective', 'medical', 'legal' and of course opinions by any member of the public with no real knowledge of the subject matter in which case their opinion would hardly be used in a court of law but others can be.

What do responsible people do with professional opinions?

If they get a professional opinion from Dr Pronthip that the DNA is suspect and that is also backed up with another professional opinion from the UK Government that they wish to have independent DNA verification. In addition they not only have one or two further voices from the general public but a huge number calling for independent verification, now that opinion from the general public is now classified as a "collective opinion" (not a conspiracy theory) based on the fact that it is also being echoed by respectable bodies and organisations.

My opinion on what they would do is act on those opinions and if they have nothing to hide allow further investigation and verification of the DNA by an independent party. Keeping silent and not acknowledging this speaks volumes in my view.

It hardly facilitates a fair trial and trial process if its just left to the defense to challenge this after the judge has already accepted the DNA as evidence which I'm assuming to be the case but who knows pigs can fly yes?.

This then leads us to where we then come to one of the other professional opinions by Reprieve: Maya Foa. We also share their desire to see a fair and transparent trial process. At the moment, however, this does not seem to be happening

Of course some people see this as just an opinion that carries no weight, just as some people obviously have no interest in a fair trial and trial process. We all want to see the real suspects caught and convicted, if the B2 happen to be the real ones then the full weight of the law needs to come down on them, but if they are not? We need a fair trial to see that.

My opinion is to either independently check the DNA, its verification and the manner and trail in which it was collected from the crime scene and testing. If this does not happen and the judge allows the DNA to be used as evidence then the other evidence produced would need to fully convince people of the B2's guilt irrespective of the DNA.

The above does not cover the other concerns of corruption/coverup that also need to be independently investigated or the allegations of the B2 torture/mistreatment as demanded by Amnesty International

[JLCrab]

So maybe Dr. Pornthip will be called as a defense witness and she can say for herself at trial what she believes and doesn't believe about the validity and admissibility of any DNA evidence introduced by the prosecution with the opportunity for the prosecution to cross-examine her testimony.

Edited January 19, 2015 by JLCrab

[thailandchilli]

So maybe Dr. Pornthip will be called as a defense witness and she can say for herself at trial what she believes and doesn't believe about the validity and admissibility of any DNA evidence introduced by the prosecution with the opportunity for the prosecution to cross-examine her testimony.

Maybe, would add some fairness to the trial in my opinion

[DKUNPUTAF713]

Have the Defense Team applied for bail for the B2?

[AleG]

thailandchilli, it is not that the opinions of professionals have no weight; it's that, first, when asked for facts you provide opinions and second, if those opinions are not substantiated then they have no weight.

There is a difference between providing actual evidence that, for example, the DNA collected at the scene was contaminated/damaged/tampered with, etc... and quoting the opinion of someone regarding DNA collection procedures.

Did Dr. Rojanasunand actually audit the DNA work and doubted or dismissed the results of the analysis? or are you satisfied to simply cherry pick a quote without trying to find out if she subsequently validated her opinions by studying the actual procedures and results?

What you are doing is an appeal to authority to validate your claims, even if the authority you cite is not doing such thing or is casting an opinion without substantiating it.

If it would be the RTP investigators coming out to say that in their opinion the two Burmese men are guilty without providing any evidence or argument to support their opinion you'd be jumping up and down dismissing that as only an opinion too.

"just as some people obviously have no interest in a fair trial and trial process"

Who are these people?

[thailandchilli]

thailandchilli, it is not that the opinions of professionals have no weight; it's that, first, when asked for facts you provide opinions and second, if those opinions are not substantiated then they have no weight.

There is a difference between providing actual evidence that, for example, the DNA collected at the scene was contaminated/damaged/tampered with, etc... and quoting the opinion of someone regarding DNA collection procedures.

Did Dr. Rojanasunand actually audit the DNA work and doubted or dismissed the results of the analysis? or are you satisfied to simply cherry pick a quote without trying to find out if she subsequently validated her opinions by studying the actual procedures and results?

What you are doing is an appeal to authority to validate your claims, even if the authority you cite is not doing such thing or is casting an opinion without substantiating it.

If it would be the RTP investigators coming out to say that in their opinion the two Burmese men are guilty without providing any evidence or argument to support their opinion you'd be jumping up and down dismissing that as only an opinion too.

"just as some people obviously have no interest in a fair trial and trial process"

Who are these people?

Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated, of course they can also be ignored by some, I am not going to speculate how the UK government, or any other professional that I mentioned arrived at those opinions because that is what it would be, pure speculation.

Edited January 19, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

thailandchilli, it is not that the opinions of professionals have no weight; it's that, first, when asked for facts you provide opinions and second, if those opinions are not substantiated then they have no weight.

There is a difference between providing actual evidence that, for example, the DNA collected at the scene was contaminated/damaged/tampered with, etc... and quoting the opinion of someone regarding DNA collection procedures.

Did Dr. Rojanasunand actually audit the DNA work and doubted or dismissed the results of the analysis? or are you satisfied to simply cherry pick a quote without trying to find out if she subsequently validated her opinions by studying the actual procedures and results?

What you are doing is an appeal to authority to validate your claims, even if the authority you cite is not doing such thing or is casting an opinion without substantiating it.

If it would be the RTP investigators coming out to say that in their opinion the two Burmese men are guilty without providing any evidence or argument to support their opinion you'd be jumping up and down dismissing that as only an opinion too.

"just as some people obviously have no interest in a fair trial and trial process"

Who are these people?

Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated, of course they can also be ignored by some, I am not going to speculate how the UK government, or any other professional that I mentioned arrived at those opinions because that is what it would be, pure speculation.

"Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated"

You do realize that one of the people you are citing to support your argument based on their "well though out, measured and credible opinions" claimed that the GT200 dousing rod bomb detector was effective?

Just because someone with a degree, a title or a reputation says something is no reason to not question their opinions or expect them to substantiate them with evidence and facts.

Your attitude is a perfect example of appeal to authority: big cheese says something so it must be true.

[007cableguy]

thailandchilli, it is not that the opinions of professionals have no weight; it's that, first, when asked for facts you provide opinions and second, if those opinions are not substantiated then they have no weight.

There is a difference between providing actual evidence that, for example, the DNA collected at the scene was contaminated/damaged/tampered with, etc... and quoting the opinion of someone regarding DNA collection procedures.

Did Dr. Rojanasunand actually audit the DNA work and doubted or dismissed the results of the analysis? or are you satisfied to simply cherry pick a quote without trying to find out if she subsequently validated her opinions by studying the actual procedures and results?

What you are doing is an appeal to authority to validate your claims, even if the authority you cite is not doing such thing or is casting an opinion without substantiating it.

If it would be the RTP investigators coming out to say that in their opinion the two Burmese men are guilty without providing any evidence or argument to support their opinion you'd be jumping up and down dismissing that as only an opinion too.

"just as some people obviously have no interest in a fair trial and trial process"

Who are these people?

Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated, of course they can also be ignored by some, I am not going to speculate how the UK government, or any other professional that I mentioned arrived at those opinions because that is what it would be, pure speculation.

"Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated"

You do realize that one of the people you are citing to support your argument based on their "well though out, measured and credible opinions" claimed that the GT200 dousing rod bomb detector was effective?

Just because someone with a degree, a title or a reputation says something is no reason to not question their opinions or expect them to substantiate them with evidence and facts.

Your attitude is a perfect example of appeal to authority: big cheese says something so it must be true.

I'd sooner believe her then the crap you spiel !.......At least she is qualified in forensics .....I guess more then one of the four Glee boys !

[thailandchilli]

thailandchilli, it is not that the opinions of professionals have no weight; it's that, first, when asked for facts you provide opinions and second, if those opinions are not substantiated then they have no weight.

There is a difference between providing actual evidence that, for example, the DNA collected at the scene was contaminated/damaged/tampered with, etc... and quoting the opinion of someone regarding DNA collection procedures.

Did Dr. Rojanasunand actually audit the DNA work and doubted or dismissed the results of the analysis? or are you satisfied to simply cherry pick a quote without trying to find out if she subsequently validated her opinions by studying the actual procedures and results?

What you are doing is an appeal to authority to validate your claims, even if the authority you cite is not doing such thing or is casting an opinion without substantiating it.

If it would be the RTP investigators coming out to say that in their opinion the two Burmese men are guilty without providing any evidence or argument to support their opinion you'd be jumping up and down dismissing that as only an opinion too.

"just as some people obviously have no interest in a fair trial and trial process"

Who are these people?

Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated, of course they can also be ignored by some, I am not going to speculate how the UK government, or any other professional that I mentioned arrived at those opinions because that is what it would be, pure speculation.

"Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated"

You do realize that one of the people you are citing to support your argument based on their "well though out, measured and credible opinions" claimed that the GT200 dousing rod bomb detector was effective?

Just because someone with a degree, a title or a reputation says something is no reason to not question their opinions or expect them to substantiate them with evidence and facts.

Your attitude is a perfect example of appeal to authority: big cheese says something so it must be true.

Yes I do realize that and since then she has been given her job back as head of the forensics team. I expected you to attempt to be little any voice that could help a fair trial. You may have noticed I did not mention any of the irregularities and failings of the RTP in this case, or the corruption that is endemic within the force.While you have the right to carry your own opinions its perfectly clear your attitude is also a perfect example of ignoring where possible any credible criticism of the case and deny any independent investigation into those claims where they could then establish if they were true or not. The whole point is that a host of credible claims and opinions have been made publicly by authoritative bodies.

Those claims are a blot on Thailand and the Thai Judicial System if they are ignored. If they are investigated and found to be untrue then good I would be happy. If they were investigated and proven then Thailand has a lot to answer to. We will never know because in reality I can never see any independent investigation happening, Thailand will not allow it.

I am here for justice, I am not here to prove the B2 are innocent if justice is carried out I will be satisfied either way, but I do agree with those bodies that have raised those concerns on the possibility of tainted evidence and human rights issues among others and as such that is echoed in my own beliefs and bias.

Edited January 19, 2015 by thailandchilli

[JLCrab]

So are you suggesting that there should be some sort of ad hoc independent investigation by some agreed upon independent entity which should take place prior to the trial this summer or after the trial depending upon the results and what evidence was allowed to be admitted into the judicial proceedings?

[thailandchilli]

So are you suggesting that there should be some sort of ad hoc independent investigation by some agreed upon independent entity which should take place prior to the trial this summer or after the trial depending upon the results and what evidence was allowed to be admitted into the judicial proceedings?

Ad hoc? ad hoc would be the Thai way I guess

No I would suggest the following:

DNA - Follow the request of the UK Government, provide further independent checking, how that is done is not for me to say, but for authoritative bodies to decide that are independent of the RTP and Thai Authorities

Corruption - If the DSI was still functioning under the constitution then they could have acted as an investigative body to investigate the RTP investigation, in fact the parents of the B2 made an official request for them to do this but its now no longer in the Thai Constitution for them to act.

Torture of B2 - An independent investigation has been called for, again how that works is not for me to say but authoritative bodies.

What is admitted into the court case would follow those investigations

Edited January 19, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

"Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated"

You do realize that one of the people you are citing to support your argument based on their "well though out, measured and credible opinions" claimed that the GT200 dousing rod bomb detector was effective?

Just because someone with a degree, a title or a reputation says something is no reason to not question their opinions or expect them to substantiate them with evidence and facts.

Your attitude is a perfect example of appeal to authority: big cheese says something so it must be true.

Yes I do realize that and since then she has been given her job back as head of the forensics team. I expected you to attempt to be little any voice that could help a fair trial. You may have noticed I did not mention any of the irregularities and failings of the RTP in this case, or the corruption that is endemic within the force.While you have the right to carry your own opinions its perfectly clear your attitude is also a perfect example of ignoring where possible any credible criticism of the case and deny any independent investigation into those claims where they could then establish if they were true or not. The whole point is that a host of credible claims and opinions have been made publicly by authoritative bodies.

Those claims are a blot on Thailand and the Thai Judicial System if they are ignored. If they are investigated and found to be untrue then good I would be happy. If they were investigated and proven then Thailand has a lot to answer to. We will never know because in reality I can never see any independent investigation happening, Thailand will not allow it.

I am here for justice, I am not here to prove the B2 are innocent if justice is carried out I will be satisfied either way, but I do agree with those bodies that have raised those concerns on the possibility of tainted evidence and human rights issues among others and as such that is echoed in my own beliefs and bias.

"I expected you to attempt to be little any voice that could help a fair trial"

Oh, that's because, in your head, I don't want to see a fair trial, right?

Nothing says "fairness" more than putting words on other people's mouth's and judging them by it.

[rockingrobin]

thailandchilli, it is not that the opinions of professionals have no weight; it's that, first, when asked for facts you provide opinions and second, if those opinions are not substantiated then they have no weight.

There is a difference between providing actual evidence that, for example, the DNA collected at the scene was contaminated/damaged/tampered with, etc... and quoting the opinion of someone regarding DNA collection procedures.

Did Dr. Rojanasunand actually audit the DNA work and doubted or dismissed the results of the analysis? or are you satisfied to simply cherry pick a quote without trying to find out if she subsequently validated her opinions by studying the actual procedures and results?

What you are doing is an appeal to authority to validate your claims, even if the authority you cite is not doing such thing or is casting an opinion without substantiating it.

If it would be the RTP investigators coming out to say that in their opinion the two Burmese men are guilty without providing any evidence or argument to support their opinion you'd be jumping up and down dismissing that as only an opinion too.

"just as some people obviously have no interest in a fair trial and trial process"

Who are these people?

Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated, of course they can also be ignored by some, I am not going to speculate how the UK government, or any other professional that I mentioned arrived at those opinions because that is what it would be, pure speculation.

"Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated"

You do realize that one of the people you are citing to support your argument based on their "well though out, measured and credible opinions" claimed that the GT200 dousing rod bomb detector was effective?

Just because someone with a degree, a title or a reputation says something is no reason to not question their opinions or expect them to substantiate them with evidence and facts.

Your attitude is a perfect example of appeal to authority: big cheese says something so it must be true.

There is evidence that her opinions have validity based on the fact that there was no chain of custody of the crime scene, and lets not forget the RTP case is also somewhat based on opinions

[thailandchilli]

"Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated"

You do realize that one of the people you are citing to support your argument based on their "well though out, measured and credible opinions" claimed that the GT200 dousing rod bomb detector was effective?

Just because someone with a degree, a title or a reputation says something is no reason to not question their opinions or expect them to substantiate them with evidence and facts.

Your attitude is a perfect example of appeal to authority: big cheese says something so it must be true.

Yes I do realize that and since then she has been given her job back as head of the forensics team. I expected you to attempt to be little any voice that could help a fair trial. You may have noticed I did not mention any of the irregularities and failings of the RTP in this case, or the corruption that is endemic within the force.While you have the right to carry your own opinions its perfectly clear your attitude is also a perfect example of ignoring where possible any credible criticism of the case and deny any independent investigation into those claims where they could then establish if they were true or not. The whole point is that a host of credible claims and opinions have been made publicly by authoritative bodies.

Those claims are a blot on Thailand and the Thai Judicial System if they are ignored. If they are investigated and found to be untrue then good I would be happy. If they were investigated and proven then Thailand has a lot to answer to. We will never know because in reality I can never see any independent investigation happening, Thailand will not allow it.

I am here for justice, I am not here to prove the B2 are innocent if justice is carried out I will be satisfied either way, but I do agree with those bodies that have raised those concerns on the possibility of tainted evidence and human rights issues among others and as such that is echoed in my own beliefs and bias.

"I expected you to attempt to be little any voice that could help a fair trial"

Oh, that's because, in your head, I don't want to see a fair trial, right?

Nothing says "fairness" more than putting words on other people's mouth's and judging them by it.

Yea your logic working overtime again

[boomerangutang]

So maybe Dr. Pornthip will be called as a defense witness and she can say for herself at trial what she believes and doesn't believe about the validity and admissibility of any DNA evidence introduced by the prosecution with the opportunity for the prosecution to cross-examine her testimony.

I'd be surprised if she were NOT called as a defense witness. She certainly wouldn't be called as a witness for the prosecution, because Thai officialdom wants her far away from proceedings. They don't want her involved on any level with the crime investigation, and the reason is clear to see. Indeed, it's the same reason Thai officials want as little involvement as possible by Brit experts.

Have the Defense Team applied for bail for the B2?

Yes. And the Burmese gov't has requested bail, and been turned down. A snub.

[boomerangutang]

Nothing says "fairness" more than putting words on other people's mouth's and judging them by it.

AleG, you did that with me. In response to a post by me, where I said something like (I can't recall the exact words, because it was weeks ago), "if independently (Brit experts) garnered evidence points to the B2 being involved with the crimes, then they should at least be found guilty of rape (whether the victim was alive or not at the time) and be punished severely."

AleG responded by twisting my words 180 degrees and insinuating that I would never admit the B2 were guilty of crimes, no matter what.

I made that assertion ('if the B2 are found guilty by independently garnered evidence....') to show that I was fair- and open-minded re; this case. It demonstrates how my outlook contrasts to several of the posters herein, who would continue to shield the Headman's people come h#ll or high water - no matter what evidence was put forth.

[JLCrab]

So maybe Dr. Pornthip will be called as a defense witness and she can say for herself at trial what she believes and doesn't believe about the validity and admissibility of any DNA evidence introduced by the prosecution with the opportunity for the prosecution to cross-examine her testimony.

I'd be surprised if she were NOT called as a defense witness. She certainly wouldn't be called as a witness for the prosecution, because Thai officialdom wants her far away from proceedings. They don't want her involved on any level with the crime investigation, and the reason is clear to see. Indeed, it's the same reason Thai officials want as little involvement as possible by Brit experts.

Have the Defense Team applied for bail for the B2?

Yes. And the Burmese gov't has requested bail, and been turned down. A snub.

The cross-exam of the good Dr. Porntip I'm sure would be entertaining.