greenchair Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 It has always been said walking man is moa moa. But I don't think it is. post-223227-0-23285100-1420519434.jpgpost-223227-0-23285100-1420519434-1.jpg 10560376_10152449452722274_3888438221108410521_o-3.jpg10560376_10152449452722274_3888438221108410521_o-1.jpg In the bar is David ,hoeman and this man that looks exactly like walking man. GC do u think that someone walking at 2am is relevant. Also as there has been mentioned many times that a disturbance at the AC bar took place and they possibly walked along the beach. Yes, it is extremely relevant, since that person walking is said by police to be moa moa. However it cannot be moa since he cannot be in 2 places at the same time. More significant is that one of the picture show this man walking with no jandal. The other jandal was found bloody at the crime. If it is this man in the bar. It shows that. (A) he was in the bar at same table as David and hoeman. (B)he was at the beach around the time of murders. Does not exonerate the b2 but shows they were not alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Te liberez-somyot site (or just that article about the KT crimes) must have hit a nerve (among the Headman and/or Thai officialdom) as they're censored by our Thai political minders - the people who are paid by taxpayers to decide (using their sage wisdom) what we should not see or hear. It's good to hear at least some French folks are digging for the truth, as French have a well-deserved reputation for being adept at crime investigations. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I see that there are 2 pair of shorts at the crime scene. 1 belongs to David. The other is a pair of very small black shorts. They cannot belong to the b3, since Zaw and Wei are wearing long pants. Moa was wearing half length. Also they look to small for any of the boys. David small shorts 2 long.1 half walking man half running man big shorts. There's an extra pair of shorts according to my math. Loony. This shows that the owner of the shorts was there and the owner of the missing jandal was there. That is 2 people that were there for sure. That could not possibly be any of the b3. ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berybert Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 This thread for most of us is trying to prove the Burmese guys didn't do it. Thailandchilli has just made a great post and all of a sudden Greenchair is back to the shorts. Even showing a picture of a small pair of blue shorts, calling them a small pair of black shorts. And he's off about his jandal again. And he makes a statement that they could well have done it, just not on their own. Deflecting is what they call it. I think Greenchair is the latest member of the fab 4 thus making them the fab 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balo Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I just want to say I agree with AleG, he hit the nail this time, regarding the famous words "A Thai could never do this" . .Don't just agree with him. Give us proof that a Thai could never have done it .I can't but what we do now is that 80% of the workers on the island are not Thais , most of them comes from Laos and Myanmar. Of course it could have been a Thai tourist or any other Asian tourist as well, or even Nomsod, The possibilities are endless if you do not believe in the DNA evidence. Edited January 20, 2015 by balo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berybert Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I just want to say I agree with AleG, he hit the nail this time, regarding the famous words "A Thai could never do this" . .Don't just agree with him. Give us proof that a Thai could never have done it .I can't but what we do now is that 80% of the workers on the island are not Thais , most of them comes from Laos and Myanmar.Of course it could have been a Thai tourist or any other Asian tourist as well, or even Nomsod, The possibilities are endless if you do not believe in the DNA evidence. Even if you believe the DNA evidence it would only prove they had sex with her. But be honest with yourself, how many condoms will have DNA on the outside and none on the inside ? Then tell us why you would believe any of the crap spouted by the RTP. And let us not forget our main RTP supporter has stated that the DNA of B and C was found on the body, and the DNA of A and B found on the cigarette. He was unable to work out that this meant that only B's DNA was on both body and cigarette. Meaning only one killer. Can you explain that to him. Edited January 20, 2015 by berybert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balo Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 We do not know everything regarding the DNA , but I can tell you this . if they had sex with her in the first place , as the DNA shows , that alone would make them the main suspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eirene Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I would like to point out that in post #1257....the bar scene...the fellow at the bottom right is not the same fellow that did that distasteful photo of himself holding the hoe. The fellow in the bar photo is the same one with the stringray tail ring who apparently left the island right away...was seen on Chumporn?? riding his motor bike and returned to Koh Tao after the Burmese lads where arrested. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 This thread for most of us is trying to prove the Burmese guys didn't do it. Thailandchilli has just made a great post and all of a sudden Greenchair is back to the shorts. Even showing a picture of a small pair of blue shorts, calling them a small pair of black shorts. And he's off about his jandal again. And he makes a statement that they could well have done it, just not on their own. Deflecting is what they call it. I think Greenchair is the latest member of the fab 4 thus making them the fab 5. I did not make any such statement that b2 were there. I have said according to the bloody JANDAL left at the beach and these shorts that do not belong to the missing jandal man. It proves that there were 2 people at the beach that is impossible to be any of the 3 boys. Now berybert in his wisdom of the crime sees blue shorts. Which to me is neither here nor there. However, could my friends have a look at the color so I can correct my mistake black black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I would like to point out that in post #1257....the bar scene...the fellow at the bottom right is not the same fellow that did that distasteful photo of himself holding the hoe. The fellow in the bar photo is the same one with the stringray tail ring who apparently left the island right away...was seen on Chumporn?? riding his motor bike and returned to Koh Tao after the Burmese lads where arrested.Thanks for pointing that out. If you are not busy. Would you mind posting a pic of hoeman and stingray man side by side I am never sure which is which. stingray in bar in bar. Walking near crime scene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berybert Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 This thread for most of us is trying to prove the Burmese guys didn't do it. Thailandchilli has just made a great post and all of a sudden Greenchair is back to the shorts. Even showing a picture of a small pair of blue shorts, calling them a small pair of black shorts. And he's off about his jandal again. And he makes a statement that they could well have done it, just not on their own. Deflecting is what they call it. I think Greenchair is the latest member of the fab 4 thus making them the fab 5. I did not make any such statement that b2 were there. I have said according to the bloody JANDAL left at the beach and these shorts that do not belong to the missing jandal man. It proves that there were 2 people at the beach that is impossible to be any of the 3 boys. Now berybert in his wisdom of the crime sees blue shorts. Which to me is neither here nor there. However, could my friends have a look at the color so I can correct my mistake post-221615-0-92296800-1421130966_thumb.jpg black post-221615-0-92296800-1421130966_thumb-1.jpgblack Sorry if you think blue is black then best you leave the crime solving to somebody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooner Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 We do not know everything regarding the DNA , but I can tell you this . if they had sex with her in the first place , as the DNA shows , that alone would make them the main suspects. If it was that clear then it seems strange that the it took several times for the courts to accept this case! Surely matching DNA from the B2 on Hannahs body would be enough for the case to be accepted straight away as the logic of the last part of your sentence implies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eirene Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Not sure about those shorts...hard to tell with the poor quality of the screen shot and the lighting. Could they perhaps be David's swim shorts he wore under his regular ones? There was one report early on that the police had clips of three runners and one in underwear...you know how those news reports are. Misinformation galore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catsanddogs Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 It has always been said walking man is moa moa. But I don't think it is. post-223227-0-23285100-1420519434.jpgpost-223227-0-23285100-1420519434-1.jpg 10560376_10152449452722274_3888438221108410521_o-3.jpg10560376_10152449452722274_3888438221108410521_o-1.jpg In the bar is David ,hoeman and this man that looks exactly like walking man. That guy looks too big and broad to be walking man to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chetzee Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 This thread for most of us is trying to prove the Burmese guys didn't do it. Thailandchilli has just made a great post and all of a sudden Greenchair is back to the shorts. Even showing a picture of a small pair of blue shorts, calling them a small pair of black shorts. And he's off about his jandal again. And he makes a statement that they could well have done it, just not on their own. Deflecting is what they call it. I think Greenchair is the latest member of the fab 4 thus making them the fab 5. I did not make any such statement that b2 were there. I have said according to the bloody JANDAL left at the beach and these shorts that do not belong to the missing jandal man. It proves that there were 2 people at the beach that is impossible to be any of the 3 boys. Now berybert in his wisdom of the crime sees blue shorts. Which to me is neither here nor there. However, could my friends have a look at the color so I can correct my mistake post-221615-0-92296800-1421130966_thumb.jpg black post-221615-0-92296800-1421130966_thumb-1.jpgblack As david was naked , why should the black shorts be his Speedos , certainly seems to be a Monogram on them . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catsanddogs Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I see that there are 2 pair of shorts at the crime scene. 1 belongs to David. The other is a pair of very small black shorts. They cannot belong to the b3, since Zaw and Wei are wearing long pants. Moa was wearing half length. Also they look to small for any of the boys. post-223227-0-59220500-1419996307-1.jpg David post-221615-0-92296800-1421130966_thumb-1.jpg small shorts post-69687-0-46852900-1420714555 (1)-1.png2 long.1 half sidemanno time5.jpgwalking man half post-155768-0-37866300-1418771831.jpgrunning man big shorts. There's an extra pair of shorts according to my math. Loony. This shows that the owner of the shorts was there and the owner of the missing jandal was there. That is 2 people that were there for sure. That could not possibly be any of the b3. ????? GC - Where do all these new pics keep coming from? This is the first I've heard of a 'small' pair of shorts at the scene. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chetzee Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I see that there are 2 pair of shorts at the crime scene. 1 belongs to David. The other is a pair of very small black shorts. They cannot belong to the b3, since Zaw and Wei are wearing long pants. Moa was wearing half length. Also they look to small for any of the boys. post-223227-0-59220500-1419996307-1.jpg David post-221615-0-92296800-1421130966_thumb-1.jpg small shorts post-69687-0-46852900-1420714555 (1)-1.png2 long.1 half sidemanno time5.jpgwalking man half post-155768-0-37866300-1418771831.jpgrunning man big shorts. There's an extra pair of shorts according to my math. Loony. This shows that the owner of the shorts was there and the owner of the missing jandal was there. That is 2 people that were there for sure. That could not possibly be any of the b3. ????? GC - Where do all these new pics keep coming from? This is the first I've heard of a 'small' pair of shorts at the scene. they a police photos used at a news conference that i screen shot , from a thai tv station . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Yes, Chetzee sent the pic of the clothes found at the scene. In the picture it is t shirt and shorts I think. But I cut the shorts off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 This thread for most of us is trying to prove the Burmese guys didn't do it. Thailandchilli has just made a great post and all of a sudden Greenchair is back to the shorts. Even showing a picture of a small pair of blue shorts, calling them a small pair of black shorts. And he's off about his jandal again. And he makes a statement that they could well have done it, just not on their own. Deflecting is what they call it. I think Greenchair is the latest member of the fab 4 thus making them the fab 5. I did not make any such statement that b2 were there. I have said according to the bloody JANDAL left at the beach and these shorts that do not belong to the missing jandal man. It proves that there were 2 people at the beach that is impossible to be any of the 3 boys. Now berybert in his wisdom of the crime sees blue shorts. Which to me is neither here nor there. However, could my friends have a look at the color so I can correct my mistakepost-221615-0-92296800-1421130966_thumb.jpg black post-221615-0-92296800-1421130966_thumb-1.jpgblack As david was naked , why should the black shorts be his Speedos , certainly seems to be a Monogram on them . Yes and it looks like it has a belt. I've seen them down at the bars many times with little shorts like this. Usually young teenagers 13 to 16 years or so. They have to be pretty small to fit into them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eirene Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) This fellow in black is seen at 2:00am...with missing thong/flip flop...[the other one allegedly at crimescene]...not even sure of that as in some photo's it looks like he is wearing both. If so the crime hadn't taken place yet. To me he does not look like Maung Maung nor does he look like the fellow in the bar. I don't think they are even sitting at a table greenchair...looks like everyone is just standing haphazardly around the bar. What's with all these balloons in the bars? Is there really a place named Chumporn? Chums sharing porn? Around and around we go..... Edit: Are these the blue shorts then? The ones exchanged for David's better quality shorts as stated in one of the many reports to the media. Well then...who did the other beige one's belong to? Total mind Fuuuk!!! Edited January 20, 2015 by Eirene 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 It has always been said walking man is moa moa. But I don't think it is. post-223227-0-23285100-1420519434.jpgpost-223227-0-23285100-1420519434-1.jpg 10560376_10152449452722274_3888438221108410521_o-3.jpg10560376_10152449452722274_3888438221108410521_o-1.jpg In the bar is David ,hoeman and this man that looks exactly like walking man. That guy looks too big and broad to be walking man to me.I have been corrected by the sender of that pic. Bottom right is stingray man. Top is David. But the middle guy only has a head shot. How can you say he is too big ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thailandchilli Posted January 20, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Yes, Chetzee sent the pic of the clothes found at the scene. In the picture it is t shirt and shorts I think. But I cut the shorts off. Police said they also found thongs, a pair of black trousers, a T-shirt, a pair of underpants and a used condom at the crime scene http://www.student-weekly.com/learning/160914-terry.html#.VL4aK0eUeCo The RTP investigation has been a sham, I've no doubt the items and evidence picked up by the RTP at the crime scene is just as confusing and who really knows what was there? Edited January 20, 2015 by thailandchilli 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I can't but what we do now is that 80% of the workers on the island are not Thais , most of them comes from Laos and Myanmar.Of course it could have been a Thai tourist or any other Asian tourist as well, or even Nomsod, The possibilities are endless if you do not believe in the DNA evidence. Even if you believe the DNA evidence it would only prove they had sex with her. But be honest with yourself, how many condoms will have DNA on the outside and none on the inside ? Then tell us why you would believe any of the crap spouted by the RTP. And let us not forget our main RTP supporter has stated that the DNA of B and C was found on the body, and the DNA of A and B found on the cigarette. He was unable to work out that this meant that only B's DNA was on both body and cigarette. Meaning only one killer. Can you explain that to him. "And let us not forget our main RTP supporter has stated that the DNA of B and C was found on the body, and the DNA of A and B found on the cigarette. He was unable to work out that this meant that only B's DNA was on both body and cigarette. Meaning only one killer." You really have no idea how utterly flawed your "logic" is, do you? B and C in the body, A and B in a cigarette butt nearby, what that means is that B and C raped the victim, A and B shared a cigarette at some unknown point in time, period. There is absolutely no basis from those facts alone to state that not only there was only one killer (in spite of two rapist), but also that the killer was B. Quite frankly, I feel a vicarious embarrassed to have to explain this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catsanddogs Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) That's right. So if he was carrying it and then he wasn't some dots need joining up. It doesn't appear the man is carrying anything behind his back in the shot of him from the front at the time of still - 4.57 am. Wasn't the estimated time of death put at around 4pm? Then the weapon/s used would have been discarded by 4.57. A lot of people had thought that ? and ? but when you see the front view there is nothing. The stills which look like he is carrying something resembling a hoe are 3.32 am and 3.38 am. So there is a time difference of 1hr 20 mins approx from the shots which look like he is carrying and when he is not. The man in question has a slight build, looks like he is wearing the tee shirt Win was wearing on the evening and has similar hair to Win. But he is wearing shorts and not long trousers (which Win was seen to be wearing on the bike). And in this still it looks like he's carrying something in his right hand (no time stamp unfortunately). page-24.htm Edited January 20, 2015 by catsanddogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 This fellow in black is seen at 2:00am...with missing thong/flip flop...[the other one allegedly at crimescene]...not even sure of that as in some photo's it looks like he is wearing both. If so the crime hadn't taken place yet. To me he does not look like Maung Maung nor does he look like the fellow in the bar. I don't think they are even sitting at a table greenchair...looks like everyone is just standing haphazardly around the bar. What's with all these balloons in the bars? Is there really a place named Chumporn? Chums sharing porn? Around and around we go..... Edit: Are these the blue shorts then? The ones exchanged for David's better quality shorts as stated in one of the many reports to the media. Well then...who did the other beige one's belong to? Total mind Fuuuk!!! David Miller's shorts (light blue) were left at the crime scene. In some photos and CCTV footage they look different, it's due to different white balance from different cameras producing different colour temperatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thailandchilli Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I would say confusion reigns and nobody can be certain at this stage A blue colored pants that was found by the body of Mr David is now believed to belong to the suspect. http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-evidence-found-tourists-murder-case 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eirene Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Where are those timestamps coming from? One is 00:50:45 and the other is 02:01:55. I must be missing something here. My marbles perhaps! Cats - compared the t-shirt a few days back and the design on the front looks to be the same. Maung trousers - Win shirt? They could be standard wear for the workers. The fellow there looks very slight in stature compared to the three Burmese lads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I would say confusion reigns and nobody can be certain at this stage A blue colored pants that was found by the body of Mr David is now believed to belong to the suspect. http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-evidence-found-tourists-murder-case "I would say confusion reigns and nobody can be certain at this stage" Yes, in large part thanks to people deliberately cherry picking unconfirmed reports while ignoring subsequent information that disproves them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berybert Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I can't but what we do now is that 80% of the workers on the island are not Thais , most of them comes from Laos and Myanmar.Of course it could have been a Thai tourist or any other Asian tourist as well, or even Nomsod, The possibilities are endless if you do not believe in the DNA evidence. Even if you believe the DNA evidence it would only prove they had sex with her. But be honest with yourself, how many condoms will have DNA on the outside and none on the inside ? Then tell us why you would believe any of the crap spouted by the RTP. And let us not forget our main RTP supporter has stated that the DNA of B and C was found on the body, and the DNA of A and B found on the cigarette. He was unable to work out that this meant that only B's DNA was on both body and cigarette. Meaning only one killer. Can you explain that to him. "And let us not forget our main RTP supporter has stated that the DNA of B and C was found on the body, and the DNA of A and B found on the cigarette. He was unable to work out that this meant that only B's DNA was on both body and cigarette. Meaning only one killer." You really have no idea how utterly flawed your "logic" is, do you? B and C in the body, A and B in a cigarette butt nearby, what that means is that B and C raped the victim, A and B shared a cigarette at some unknown point in time, period. There is absolutely no basis from those facts alone to state that not only there was only one killer (in spite of two rapist), but also that the killer was B. Quite frankly, I feel a vicarious embarrassed to have to explain this. A and B shared a cigarette at some unknown point in time. So it could have been an hour before the murder or a month before the murder. The DNA on the ciggy is of no interest whatsoever then ? Now you are also saying there is no reason to suspect B was involved in the killings. So you have now discounted A B and C from the murders. Glad you have seen the light and will now join the fight to find the real killers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eirene Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Thanks for clearing that up for me Ale...I have been thinking all along that his shorts were beige. There was an early report that they had been taken and blue one's left behind. More misinformation or lost in translation. David Miller's shorts (light blue) were left at the crime scene. In some photos and CCTV footage they look different, it's due to different white balance from different cameras producing different colour temperatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts