Koh Tao murder trial rescheduled

berybert · January 12, 2015

Certainly looks that way to me:

Police sources said Christopher Alan Ware, 25, was stopped as he was about to leave Suvarnabhumi airport on Tuesday and placed under police questioning after police found what they thought was a pair of his bloodstained trousers in the luggage of the male victim David William Miller, 24. https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-muder-burmese-migrants-cleared-after-dna-tests-burma-myanmar/44236

Heaven's forbid the police would act based on clues and witness testimony, investigate accordingly and move on when further information clears a suspect

Why!, they should follow the M.O. of the ThaiVisa Amateur Detectives Club: conjure up some imaginary scenario, assume it to be true and stick with it no matter what.

Yes they have moved on. As have the other 3 of the 4. Glad there is still one trying to convince the world.

jimmybkk · January 12, 2015

There's just one little problem with your grand theory, the pants were Miller's not Ware's:

"As for the pair of stained pants found in Miller's luggage, the general admitted that the substance found on the clothing was not blood and that they belonged to Miller"

Surely you're not suggesting that no matter who was wearing the pants that night ultimately it is the ownership of the pants that is important, are you? Is it unheard of for guys who are sharing a room to perhaps borrow clothes from their roommate?

Come on AleG - you can do better than that son. Do I detect cracks beginning to show...? Is the stress getting to be a bit too much for you? Maybe it's time for you to take a break and pass the baton to one of your pals...

AleG · January 12, 2015

There's just one little problem with your grand theory, the pants were Miller's not Ware's:

"As for the pair of stained pants found in Miller's luggage, the general admitted that the substance found on the clothing was not blood and that they belonged to Miller"

Surely you're not suggesting that no matter who was wearing the pants that night ultimately it is the ownership of the pants that is important, are you? Is it unheard of for guys who are sharing a room to perhaps borrow clothes from their roommate?

Come on AleG - you can do better than that son. Do I detect cracks beginning to show...? Is the stress getting to be a bit too much for you? Maybe it's time for you to take a break and pass the baton to one of your pals...

Try asking again, with less trolling this time.

jimmybkk · January 12, 2015

There's just one little problem with your grand theory, the pants were Miller's not Ware's:

"As for the pair of stained pants found in Miller's luggage, the general admitted that the substance found on the clothing was not blood and that they belonged to Miller"

Surely you're not suggesting that no matter who was wearing the pants that night ultimately it is the ownership of the pants that is important, are you? Is it unheard of for guys who are sharing a room to perhaps borrow clothes from their roommate?

Come on AleG - you can do better than that son. Do I detect cracks beginning to show...? Is the stress getting to be a bit too much for you? Maybe it's time for you to take a break and pass the baton to one of your pals...

Try asking again, with less trolling this time.

Discredit by calling a troll... <yawn!> Discredit by calling a conspiracy theorist... <yawn!> How about instead of this juvenile name-calling you offer a valid explanation why ownership of the pants has any relevance when at least 2 of their friends reported that Christopher Ware was wearing those pants that night.

"Several witnesses confirmed that Ware, who left the island for Bangkok on Monday evening, was wearing the trousers the night the two victims were murdered, the same source said."

Source: https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-muder-burmese-migrants-cleared-after-dna-tests-burma-myanmar/44236

jdinasia · January 12, 2015

Certainly looks that way to me:

Police sources said Christopher Alan Ware, 25, was stopped as he was about to leave Suvarnabhumi airport on Tuesday and placed under police questioning after police found what they thought was a pair of his bloodstained trousers in the luggage of the male victim David William Miller, 24. https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-muder-burmese-migrants-cleared-after-dna-tests-burma-myanmar/44236

Heaven's forbid the police would act based on clues and witness testimony, investigate accordingly and move on when further information clears a suspect

Why!, they should follow the M.O. of the ThaiVisa Amateur Detectives Club: conjure up some imaginary scenario, assume it to be true and stick with it no matter what.

Yes they have moved on. As have the other 3 of the 4. Glad there is still one trying to convince the world.

I, personally, am waiting on the results of the trial. Watching people continue to promote conspiracy theories has grown boring.

Contrary to conjecture, the 2 Burmese men charged with the crimes have not been convicted and executed.

jimmybkk · January 12, 2015

AleG is picking up where jdinasia left off, regarding comments on this crime. They're fixated with bandying around "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" in nearly every one of their posts.

They're quite busy, trying desperately to discount every tidbit of the deluge of possible evidence which points at the Headman's people. It must be tiresome. If they were open-minded, they would take an attitude like mine: I've already stated that if the DNA evidence shows the Burmese' DNA matching that found in Hannah, then I will admit the Burmese had sex with her. However, The DNA typing (to satisfy me) has to come from the Brits' independent analysis. Thai officials have zero credibility at this time. Since the replacement Head Cop was put in charge, there have been more screwed up statements than a ref can blow a whistle at.

Conversely, if independently/Brit garnered DNA evidence shows matches between Nomsod and/or Mon with that found in/on Hannah, the Gang of 4 will not admit it's implicating. that's but one difference in our attitudes toward this case. I'm willing and open to consider all solid evidence. In contrast, the Gang of 4 is consistently discounting any bit of evidence which implicates the people they're shielding.

I admit, I go off on theories and scenarios, but that's my right, on an internet blog. Part of a discussion, is putting forth theories of what happened. Thai police ventured similar, and that brought us the ridiculous reenactment on the beach.

btw, Police have not raised a finger to do any reenactments of suspects (yes, including Mon and Nomsod) walking/running on that same CCTV path. For any remotely competent investigation, that would have been a key thing to do. Cops either didn't think to do it, or simply figured it would further implicate Mon and Nomsod, so stuffed the idea. It's not too late.

It's not the Headman's people that are being protected. Think about it. The guy clicks his fingers once and all traces of his son ever having been on the island disappear. Clicks them again and the top cop gets replaced. Do you really think that this guy needs the help of a few posters on TV? Or do you really think that the posters you are referring to are dumb enough to think that this guy needs their help protecting his people.

You're on the right track, but you're not thinking smart enough...

jimmybkk · January 12, 2015

Certainly looks that way to me:

Police sources said Christopher Alan Ware, 25, was stopped as he was about to leave Suvarnabhumi airport on Tuesday and placed under police questioning after police found what they thought was a pair of his bloodstained trousers in the luggage of the male victim David William Miller, 24. https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-muder-burmese-migrants-cleared-after-dna-tests-burma-myanmar/44236

Heaven's forbid the police would act based on clues and witness testimony, investigate accordingly and move on when further information clears a suspect

Why!, they should follow the M.O. of the ThaiVisa Amateur Detectives Club: conjure up some imaginary scenario, assume it to be true and stick with it no matter what.

Yes they have moved on. As have the other 3 of the 4. Glad there is still one trying to convince the world.

I, personally, am waiting on the results of the trial. Watching people continue to promote conspiracy theories has grown boring.

Contrary to conjecture, the 2 Burmese men charged with the crimes have not been convicted and executed.

And I think that was the baton-pass right there...

stephen terry · January 12, 2015

CCTV Camera run 24/7. There are loads of cameras as we have already seen clips from them.

The owner of the bar wont allow police to look at his footage cause its private property.

Let's run this one again. Seems to me to be deliberately withholding possible evidence with the sanction of the RTP. It doesn't take much to reason that had the Burmese been involved, the CCTV would have been handed over, PDQ. A reasonable person would then conclude that perhaps the CCTV implicated people, other than the chosen scapegoats, who wouldn't, couldn't be, Thai.

Actually a reasonable person doesn't use his own ignorance as a basis for a conclusion, you only can consider one option completely ignoring the other: that the CCTV footage is immaterial to the crime. You don't know either way.

For example (and I am not actually making the allegation): I don't know whether you are working for the defense team and being paid for posting in ThaiVisa or not, but I'm just going to assume that as true and act accordingly because it is self reassuring and it would reinforce some of my preconceived notions. Would you take that as a reasonable attitude?

I would reason that if the CCTV was immaterial there would be no advantage to withhold it from the RTP. Especially if it implicates the Burmese. The simplest motive is that there could be incriminating evidence against a 'protected person' or 'persons', thus it would be material.

I am sure the defence are quite able to reason similarly to me, not that they could do any more than cast doubt as to why. My preconceived notion (because it has already been decided) is that the Burmese will be found guilty of some, if not all, of the charges - I hope that satisfies you.

Chetzee · January 12, 2015

this police photo of clothing from the beach ....

no single Jandel .

jdinasia · January 12, 2015

CCTV Camera run 24/7. There are loads of cameras as we have already seen clips from them.

The owner of the bar wont allow police to look at his footage cause its private property.

Let's run this one again. Seems to me to be deliberately withholding possible evidence with the sanction of the RTP. It doesn't take much to reason that had the Burmese been involved, the CCTV would have been handed over, PDQ. A reasonable person would then conclude that perhaps the CCTV implicated people, other than the chosen scapegoats, who wouldn't, couldn't be, Thai.

Actually a reasonable person doesn't use his own ignorance as a basis for a conclusion, you only can consider one option completely ignoring the other: that the CCTV footage is immaterial to the crime. You don't know either way.

For example (and I am not actually making the allegation): I don't know whether you are working for the defense team and being paid for posting in ThaiVisa or not, but I'm just going to assume that as true and act accordingly because it is self reassuring and it would reinforce some of my preconceived notions. Would you take that as a reasonable attitude?

I would reason that if the CCTV was immaterial there would be no advantage to withhold it from the RTP. Especially if it implicates the Burmese. The simplest motive is that there could be incriminating evidence against a 'protected person' or 'persons', thus it would be material.

I am sure the defence are quite able to reason similarly to me, not that they could do any more than cast doubt as to why. My preconceived notion (because it has already been decided) is that the Burmese will be found guilty of some, if not all, of the charges - I hope that satisfies you.

There has been no trial yet. That means nothing has been decided regarding guilt or innocence. The judges will make those decisions based on the evidence in the trial.

Jai Dee · January 12, 2015

One post baiting another member has been deleted from this topic.

AleG · January 12, 2015

There's just one little problem with your grand theory, the pants were Miller's not Ware's:

"As for the pair of stained pants found in Miller's luggage, the general admitted that the substance found on the clothing was not blood and that they belonged to Miller"

Surely you're not suggesting that no matter who was wearing the pants that night ultimately it is the ownership of the pants that is important, are you? Is it unheard of for guys who are sharing a room to perhaps borrow clothes from their roommate?

Come on AleG - you can do better than that son. Do I detect cracks beginning to show...? Is the stress getting to be a bit too much for you? Maybe it's time for you to take a break and pass the baton to one of your pals...

Try asking again, with less trolling this time.

Discredit by calling a troll... <yawn!> Discredit by calling a conspiracy theorist... <yawn!> How about instead of this juvenile name-calling you offer a valid explanation why ownership of the pants has any relevance when at least 2 of their friends reported that Christopher Ware was wearing those pants that night.

"Several witnesses confirmed that Ware, who left the island for Bangkok on Monday evening, was wearing the trousers the night the two victims were murdered, the same source said."

Source: https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-muder-burmese-migrants-cleared-after-dna-tests-burma-myanmar/44236

It has no relevance on what the witnesses said, it has relevance on this speculation of yours:

"Has he ever said what caused the stain? He was wearing the trousers, so you would think he would know."

Why would he know if it wasn't his trousers?

You are clearly implying that he is hiding something, from then on you get the speculation going; that the police didn't test for blood thoroughly, that they didn't actually identify the chemical substance as being different from any blood stain, that Ware spend at least two hours cleaning the trousers with oxygen bleach, that he was cleared only on the results of the trousers analysis, etc, etc...

AleG · January 12, 2015

Actually a reasonable person doesn't use his own ignorance as a basis for a conclusion, you only can consider one option completely ignoring the other: that the CCTV footage is immaterial to the crime. You don't know either way.

For example (and I am not actually making the allegation): I don't know whether you are working for the defense team and being paid for posting in ThaiVisa or not, but I'm just going to assume that as true and act accordingly because it is self reassuring and it would reinforce some of my preconceived notions. Would you take that as a reasonable attitude?

I would reason that if the CCTV was immaterial there would be no advantage to withhold it from the RTP. Especially if it implicates the Burmese. The simplest motive is that there could be incriminating evidence against a 'protected person' or 'persons', thus it would be material.

I am sure the defence are quite able to reason similarly to me, not that they could do any more than cast doubt as to why. My preconceived notion (because it has already been decided) is that the Burmese will be found guilty of some, if not all, of the charges - I hope that satisfies you.

Is this claim that the AC Bar refuses to release the CCTV footage the same as the claim that Nomsod refused to submit to a DNA test?

jimmybkk · January 12, 2015

Actually a reasonable person doesn't use his own ignorance as a basis for a conclusion, you only can consider one option completely ignoring the other: that the CCTV footage is immaterial to the crime. You don't know either way.

For example (and I am not actually making the allegation): I don't know whether you are working for the defense team and being paid for posting in ThaiVisa or not, but I'm just going to assume that as true and act accordingly because it is self reassuring and it would reinforce some of my preconceived notions. Would you take that as a reasonable attitude?

Interesting that you should now be using the word reasonable to try to discredit people.

There is one thing that for sure does not stand the test of reasonableness in my eyes, and that is why yourself and some other posters who share your views would spend hours and hours and hours reading all these posts, posting comments, responding to posts, researching previous posts, researching news articles, monitoring threads, stepping in if you dislike the direction a thread is headed etc. etc.... it is an awful lot of work that you have dedicated to these threads when the bottom line is you are doing this based on nothing more than a hunch. A gut feeling that the RTP have got it right this time. Because you don't have any more evidence at your fingertips than the rest of us do, correct?

The fact that historically the RTP have not got a great track record of always getting the right guys does not seem to affect this hunch of yours. Did you think they had got the right guys during the Sherry Ann Duncan investigation a few years back:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/THE-MURDER-OF-SHERRY-ANN-DUNCAN-A-travesty-of-just-86893.html

And incidents such as the recent case of Jaysukh Sudra, a former supermarket executive for Tesco's, Asda and Co-Op in the UK who it appears was treated terribly and unjustly by Thai Police apparently have no bearing on your belief that they got it right this time. (There are several online news reports that give the official party line to this story, but AD has done some additional investigation so I suggest those who are interested take a look on his site. It is quite shocking if true.)

And of course we should take track record into account, because for sure if the 2 Burmese lads had a track record of committing violent crimes, that would be taken into account, so why should the track record of their accusers be ignored, particularly when their conduct in this investigation has some serious question marks hanging over it.

I think a reasonable and prudent man would have no choice but to feel there is reasonable doubt surrounding the RTP's case.

For every action anyone takes there has to be motivation. I can understand those who spend their time on these forums being motivated to do so because they see an injustice occurring, and believe it worthwhile to take the time to voice their concerns that 2 young men are possibly about to lose their lives because of this injustice. What I cannot understand is what motivates you to go to the lengths you are going to when really, a one-liner back when these threads started would suffice - something along the lines of; "For what it's worth, I think the RTP have got the right guys this time".

So what could be your motivation for posting so fervently when the RTP investigation is taking exactly the course that you want it to take? Why not put your feet up and relax? I for one would be very interested to hear a reply that wasn't simply reconfirming your gut feel, because if whatever it is that motivates you could also motivate me in the same way it would save me a lot of time reading and posting on these threads.

stephen terry · January 12, 2015

CCTV Camera run 24/7. There are loads of cameras as we have already seen clips from them.

The owner of the bar wont allow police to look at his footage cause its private property.

Let's run this one again. Seems to me to be deliberately withholding possible evidence with the sanction of the RTP. It doesn't take much to reason that had the Burmese been involved, the CCTV would have been handed over, PDQ. A reasonable person would then conclude that perhaps the CCTV implicated people, other than the chosen scapegoats, who wouldn't, couldn't be, Thai.

Actually a reasonable person doesn't use his own ignorance as a basis for a conclusion, you only can consider one option completely ignoring the other: that the CCTV footage is immaterial to the crime. You don't know either way.

For example (and I am not actually making the allegation): I don't know whether you are working for the defense team and being paid for posting in ThaiVisa or not, but I'm just going to assume that as true and act accordingly because it is self reassuring and it would reinforce some of my preconceived notions. Would you take that as a reasonable attitude?

I would reason that if the CCTV was immaterial there would be no advantage to withhold it from the RTP. Especially if it implicates the Burmese. The simplest motive is that there could be incriminating evidence against a 'protected person' or 'persons', thus it would be material.

I am sure the defence are quite able to reason similarly to me, not that they could do any more than cast doubt as to why. My preconceived notion (because it has already been decided) is that the Burmese will be found guilty of some, if not all, of the charges - I hope that satisfies you.

There has been no trial yet. That means nothing has been decided regarding guilt or innocence. The judges will make those decisions based on the evidence in the trial.

Even though I think you must be a little naive, I do hope the judge is and will remain impartial. We shall see.

AleG · January 12, 2015

Actually a reasonable person doesn't use his own ignorance as a basis for a conclusion, you only can consider one option completely ignoring the other: that the CCTV footage is immaterial to the crime. You don't know either way.

For example (and I am not actually making the allegation): I don't know whether you are working for the defense team and being paid for posting in ThaiVisa or not, but I'm just going to assume that as true and act accordingly because it is self reassuring and it would reinforce some of my preconceived notions. Would you take that as a reasonable attitude?

Interesting that you should now be using the word reasonable to try to discredit people.

There is one thing that for sure does not stand the test of reasonableness in my eyes, and that is why yourself and some other posters who share your views would spend hours and hours and hours reading all these posts, posting comments, responding to posts, researching previous posts, researching news articles, monitoring threads, stepping in if you dislike the direction a thread is headed etc. etc.... it is an awful lot of work that you have dedicated to these threads when the bottom line is you are doing this based on nothing more than a hunch. A gut feeling that the RTP have got it right this time. Because you don't have any more evidence at your fingertips than the rest of us do, correct?

The fact that historically the RTP have not got a great track record of always getting the right guys does not seem to affect this hunch of yours. Did you think they had got the right guys during the Sherry Ann Duncan investigation a few years back:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/THE-MURDER-OF-SHERRY-ANN-DUNCAN-A-travesty-of-just-86893.html

And incidents such as the recent case of Jaysukh Sudra, a former supermarket executive for Tesco's, Asda and Co-Op in the UK who it appears was treated terribly and unjustly by Thai Police apparently have no bearing on your belief that they got it right this time. (There are several online news reports that give the official party line to this story, but AD has done some additional investigation so I suggest those who are interested take a look on his site. It is quite shocking if true.)

And of course we should take track record into account, because for sure if the 2 Burmese lads had a track record of committing violent crimes, that would be taken into account, so why should the track record of their accusers be ignored, particularly when their conduct in this investigation has some serious question marks hanging over it.

I think a reasonable and prudent man would have no choice but to feel there is reasonable doubt surrounding the RTP's case.

For every action anyone takes there has to be motivation. I can understand those who spend their time on these forums being motivated to do so because they see an injustice occurring, and believe it worthwhile to take the time to voice their concerns that 2 young men are possibly about to lose their lives because of this injustice. What I cannot understand is what motivates you to go to the lengths you are going to when really, a one-liner back when these threads started would suffice - something along the lines of; "For what it's worth, I think the RTP have got the right guys this time".

So what could be your motivation for posting so fervently when the RTP investigation is taking exactly the course that you want it to take? Why not put your feet up and relax? I for one would be very interested to hear a reply that wasn't simply reconfirming your gut feel, because if whatever it is that motivates you could also motivate me in the same way it would save me a lot of time reading and posting on these threads.

What motivates me is that when I see people spouting BS I don't stay quiet, as you'd like me to.

I find it ironic and hypocritical that the same people that think they are fighting a conspiracy to hide the truth are the same that have repeatedly attempted to silence and ignore anyone that doesn't buy their "truth"

stephen terry · January 12, 2015

Actually a reasonable person doesn't use his own ignorance as a basis for a conclusion, you only can consider one option completely ignoring the other: that the CCTV footage is immaterial to the crime. You don't know either way.

For example (and I am not actually making the allegation): I don't know whether you are working for the defense team and being paid for posting in ThaiVisa or not, but I'm just going to assume that as true and act accordingly because it is self reassuring and it would reinforce some of my preconceived notions. Would you take that as a reasonable attitude?

I would reason that if the CCTV was immaterial there would be no advantage to withhold it from the RTP. Especially if it implicates the Burmese. The simplest motive is that there could be incriminating evidence against a 'protected person' or 'persons', thus it would be material.

I am sure the defence are quite able to reason similarly to me, not that they could do any more than cast doubt as to why. My preconceived notion (because it has already been decided) is that the Burmese will be found guilty of some, if not all, of the charges - I hope that satisfies you.

Is this claim that the AC Bar refuses to release the CCTV footage the same as the claim that Nomsod refused to submit to a DNA test?

It was quoted in a report in the early days of the investigation - I'm sure someone on here can reproduce it. Words to the effect that the RTP had not collected the CCTV because it was private property. No doubt it's all been erased long ago - so I guess it is immaterial.

berybert · January 12, 2015

Actually a reasonable person doesn't use his own ignorance as a basis for a conclusion, you only can consider one option completely ignoring the other: that the CCTV footage is immaterial to the crime. You don't know either way.

For example (and I am not actually making the allegation): I don't know whether you are working for the defense team and being paid for posting in ThaiVisa or not, but I'm just going to assume that as true and act accordingly because it is self reassuring and it would reinforce some of my preconceived notions. Would you take that as a reasonable attitude?

I would reason that if the CCTV was immaterial there would be no advantage to withhold it from the RTP. Especially if it implicates the Burmese. The simplest motive is that there could be incriminating evidence against a 'protected person' or 'persons', thus it would be material.

I am sure the defence are quite able to reason similarly to me, not that they could do any more than cast doubt as to why. My preconceived notion (because it has already been decided) is that the Burmese will be found guilty of some, if not all, of the charges - I hope that satisfies you.

Is this claim that the AC Bar refuses to release the CCTV footage the same as the claim that Nomsod refused to submit to a DNA test?

No the claim the AC Bar refused to release CCTV Footage is the claim the AC Bar refused to release CCTV footage. The claim that Nomsod refused to submit to DNA test, was the claim Nomson refused a DNA test.

Hope that has cleared that up for you.

greenchair · January 12, 2015

AC bar staff pic posted by another poster on TV in Sept.

AC bar staff.jpg

Posted in 'Key witness says foreigner kills British tourists' post number 879. You can enlarge the image on the original thread. Big guy at the back with beard - that's not hoe man is it?

Yep, that's him.

boomerangutang · January 12, 2015

AleG is picking up where jdinasia left off, regarding comments on this crime. They're fixated with bandying around "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" in nearly every one of their posts.

They're quite busy, trying desperately to discount every tidbit of the deluge of possible evidence which points at the Headman's people. It must be tiresome. If they were open-minded, they would take an attitude like mine: I've already stated that if the DNA evidence shows the Burmese' DNA matching that found in Hannah, then I will admit the Burmese had sex with her. However, The DNA typing (to satisfy me) has to come from the Brits' independent analysis. Thai officials have zero credibility at this time. Since the replacement Head Cop was put in charge, there have been more screwed up statements than a ref can blow a whistle at.

Conversely, if independently/Brit garnered DNA evidence shows matches between Nomsod and/or Mon with that found in/on Hannah, the Gang of 4 will not admit it's implicating. that's but one difference in our attitudes toward this case. I'm willing and open to consider all solid evidence. In contrast, the Gang of 4 is consistently discounting any bit of evidence which implicates the people they're shielding.

I admit, I go off on theories and scenarios, but that's my right, on an internet blog. Part of a discussion, is putting forth theories of what happened. Thai police ventured similar, and that brought us the ridiculous reenactment on the beach.

btw, Police have not raised a finger to do any reenactments of suspects (yes, including Mon and Nomsod) walking/running on that same CCTV path. For any remotely competent investigation, that would have been a key thing to do. Cops either didn't think to do it, or simply figured it would further implicate Mon and Nomsod, so stuffed the idea. It's not too late.

It's not the Headman's people that are being protected. Think about it. The guy clicks his fingers once and all traces of his son ever having been on the island disappear. Clicks them again and the top cop gets replaced. Do you really think that this guy needs the help of a few posters on TV? Or do you really think that the posters you are referring to are dumb enough to think that this guy needs their help protecting his people.
You're on the right track, but you're not thinking smart enough...

I lump the Gang of 4 posters with the RTP. They spout the same stuff. The Gang of 4 are spouting opinions, same as the rest of us. The Headman needs Thai officials to back him. It's quite possible he's paying for that backing - and it's quite common for VIP's in Thailand to pay for such backing. It could also be possible that there's a gold pot at the end of the rainbow. In other words, if the B2 are found guilty, then that would make it impossible to implicate any of the Headman's people or anyone else. An added payment would be in order. Remember 'pastrygate'? ....where friends of Thaksin were going to bribe a judge to get a favorable call on an important case? Not unusual, here in L.O.S.

Already, the Headman's people have been dropped as prime suspects. That was enacted the minute the replacement head cop was instated. However, if the B2 are acquitted, there is a 1% chance the Headman's people might again be designated suspects, however, there's more chance of Yingluck getting a sex change and hiring out as Ronald McDonald.

catsanddogs · January 12, 2015

AC bar staff pic posted by another poster on TV in Sept.

AC bar staff.jpg

Posted in 'Key witness says foreigner kills British tourists' post number 879. You can enlarge the image on the original thread. Big guy at the back with beard - that's not hoe man is it?

Yep, that's him.

Could this also be hoe man?

Or could it be Tom the traveller (although no tattoos can are visible on the pic with the girl)

Edited January 12, 2015 by catsanddogs

catsanddogs · January 12, 2015

Or is the the man with Asian woman on CCTV hand in hand?

https://crimesontheblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/the-guitar-sean-mcanna-leaves-koh-tao/comment-page-1/#jp-carousel-1003

IslandLover · January 12, 2015

catsanddogs, on 12 Jan 2015 - 14:33, said:

Or is the the man with Asian woman on CCTV hand in hand?

not David.jpg

https://crimesontheblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/the-guitar-sean-mcanna-leaves-koh-tao/comment-page-1/#jp-carousel-1003

That looks like the guy in Hong Kong who murdered two girls in his apartment. BTW my cousin lives in the same apartment block

AleG · January 12, 2015

I lump the Gang of 4 posters with the RTP. They spout the same stuff. The Gang of 4 are spouting opinions, same as the rest of us. The Headman needs Thai officials to back him. It's quite possible he's paying for that backing - and it's quite common for VIP's in Thailand to pay for such backing. It could also be possible that there's a gold pot at the end of the rainbow. In other words, if the B2 are found guilty, then that would make it impossible to implicate any of the Headman's people or anyone else. An added payment would be in order. Remember 'pastrygate'? ....where friends of Thaksin were going to bribe a judge to get a favorable call on an important case? Not unusual, here in L.O.S.

Already, the Headman's people have been dropped as prime suspects. That was enacted the minute the replacement head cop was instated. However, if the B2 are acquitted, there is a 1% chance the Headman's people might again be designated suspects, however, there's more chance of Yingluck getting a sex change and hiring out as Ronald McDonald.

"Already, the Headman's people have been dropped as prime suspects. That was enacted the minute the replacement head cop was instated."

You can keep repeating that as much as you like, it doesn't become true, the police was already zeroing in on the Burmese men before Panya's promotion,

According to the Bangkok Post "Myanmar man 'admits to killings'" article on September 30 (before Panya's promotion) they were already focusing on one of the Burmese men caught on CCTV buying cigarettes, before that they were also on the look for a group of three Burmese men that were seeing playing the guitar near the site of the crime.

Your obsession in life, Nomsod, was cleared by the police on the 25th of September, seven days before Panya was replaced:

25 September 2014, Last update at 15:15:00 GMT

Bangkok Suspect Cleared of Connection To Britons' Murder

Furthermore Panya's promotion was scheduled well before the murders took place (and he wasn't the only one getting one at the time):

Gen Patchara's appointment is one of a slew of changes taking place at top provincial and regional levels at midnight tonight (September 30).

Lt Gen Panya Mamen, Commissioner of Police Region 8, is promoted to Assistant Commissioner General of the Royal Thai Police in Bangkok.

He is replaced by Maj Gen Decha Budnampeth, Deputy Commissioner of the Central Investigation Bureau, and a former provincial police cheif in Phuket. (2006-2008)

But again, why let facts get on the way of a good conspiracy?

boomerangutang · January 12, 2015

Or is the the man with Asian woman on CCTV hand in hand?

not David.jpg

https://crimesontheblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/the-guitar-sean-mcanna-leaves-koh-tao/comment-page-1/#jp-carousel-1003

that could be the guy!

thailandchilli · January 12, 2015

Here's a better shot, I cant see any resemblance to anyone

thailandchilli · January 12, 2015

I have to say that this guy could well be holding an item of clothing in his right hand, look at the posture of the hand and there is a darker shadow below. I know the photo has been superimposed but thats how it appears to me.

Click and enlarge the photo

CharlieH · January 12, 2015

A post commenting on poster has been removed,

Please stay on the topic of the thread.That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters.

Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension.

Digging through other member's posts and bringing them up on the forum can be considered stalking and it is against the forum rules.

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

Chetzee · January 12, 2015

I have to say that this guy could well be holding an item of clothing in his right hand, look at the posture of the hand and there is a darker shadow below. I know the photo has been superimposed but thats how it appears to me.

Click and enlarge the photo

Could not agree more !

catsanddogs · January 12, 2015

I have to say that this guy could well be holding an item of clothing in his right hand, look at the posture of the hand and there is a darker shadow below. I know the photo has been superimposed but thats how it appears to me.

Click and enlarge the photo

Agree. Dark item in right hand maybe.

Sign In

Koh Tao murder trial rescheduled

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

klauskunkel

JOC

Tatsujin

Posted Images

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US