Koh Tao murder trial rescheduled

[boomerangutang]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Police-free-bar-owners-and-look-for-ex-village-hea-30243997.html

The footprint in the sand, shown in one of the photos in the URL above, is remarkably clean. When I first heard of footprints in this botched investigation, I thought they were in regular dry beach sand, not smooth firm sand that one finds just after the tide goes out. For that reason, I thought the footprint(s) would be moot.

The photo shows a measuring device alongside. I find it hard to believe what GC alleged (that passers-by were allowed to stick their feet in or alongside the prints - to check fit), but maybe so. The list of things that Thai RTP have botched gets longer week by week. Should we feel sorry for them, for being such bumblers (as you might pity a 3rd grader in his first baseball game), or should there be serious efforts underway to bust those RTP who intentionally screwed up on their duties. You can guess my opinion.

How much worse is it when a brain surgeon intentionally botches a surgery, compared to a Thai cop intentionally botching a serious criminal investigation? The ball's in your court.

[Eirene]

The footprints were impressed into flatened out sand...they wipe it over [erase] to take the next set to measure and photograph to compare with the original. Not sure if they took casts or only photo's of the original.

Boomer - They established early on that the running man was Montriwat Toovichien. Whether or not it is only he would know for sure. I also read that it was a picture of him that was superimposed on the dark short - cell phone image. Unable to locate that one now.

[berybert]

What needs to be established about the running man if it is Mon is which way he is running, i.e. if to the beach or away from it.

No way he could be running away from the beach if he hadn't been there yet.

[Eirene]

@berybert - Good question. Which direction is the beach?

Meant to add above. I don't think the footprints mean anything other than the police trying to make themselves look like professionals. The measurements of the originals would be in question due to environmental changes that take place with sand, snow and mud.

[PaPiPuPePo]

@berybert - Good question. Which direction is the beach?

Meant to add above. I don't think the footprints mean anything other than the police trying to make themselves look like professionals. The measurements of the originals would be in question due to environmental changes that take place with sand, snow and mud.

Looking at the photo with some ability to judge the conditions for preserving a print, I'd say it was altered very little before being measured. It's close to the perfect sand conditions for producing a sharp print.

There's another view of both prints somewhere, and what's odd is their position which you can just guess from the bit you see of the other foot, the front toe positioned like the one on the left foot. So the person who made them was standing equally on both legs, heels close together with the feet slightly splayed. That's the stance of someone standing in repose, not in the midst of any kind of quick movement at all.

[AleG]

@berybert - Good question. Which direction is the beach?

Meant to add above. I don't think the footprints mean anything other than the police trying to make themselves look like professionals. The measurements of the originals would be in question due to environmental changes that take place with sand, snow and mud.

Looking at the photo with some ability to judge the conditions for preserving a print, I'd say it was altered very little before being measured. It's close to the perfect sand conditions for producing a sharp print.

There's another view of both prints somewhere, and what's odd is their position which you can just guess from the bit you see of the other foot, the front toe positioned like the one on the left foot. So the person who made them was standing equally on both legs, heels close together with the feet slightly splayed. That's the stance of someone standing in repose, not in the midst of any kind of quick movement at all.

"Looking at the photo with some ability to judge..."

... it is obvious that those are prints made to collect samples from people, not prints at the crime scene.

One may get the clue from looking at the other pictures in the article, of other type of sampling going on, or from noting that the prints were done on a deliberately flattened square of sand.

Really, it's not hard to figure it out.

[greenchair]

What needs to be established about the running man if it is Mon is which way he is running, i.e. if to the beach or away from it.

No way he could be running away from the beach if he hadn't been there yet.

I pointed that out a wee while ago. There must be another entrance to the beach. Since you see him coming back. But not see him go. And then see him go 2 times but not come back in between. I think it was the video from ac they were asking for to fill these times, but the head man refused to give. The police should have gotten a warrant to take their computer .

[boomerangutang]

The footprints were impressed into flatened out sand...they wipe it over [erase] to take the next set to measure and photograph to compare with the original. Not sure if they took casts or only photo's of the original.

If what you're saying is true, and it now seems believable, then that's not an original footprint. If cops are attempting to do comparison prints, they should recreate the conditions as close to original as possible. If the original print was made in deep sand, and the person was (probably walking or running), the the re-creations should reflect that also. Yet another instance of cops fudging their jobs.

Boomer - They established early on that the running man was Montriwat Toovichien. Whether or not it is only he would know for sure. I also read that it was a picture of him that was superimposed on the dark short - cell phone image. Unable to locate that one now.

I don't think Thai investigators established that. During initial days, cops claimed they didn't know who was on that important video. Supposedly Mon spoke up later and said it was him. I've said before, and I'll say again, I think it's Nomsod (for several reasons, not least because it's a younger man's body) - and Mon is doing the avuncular thing of trying to shield his nephew from scrutiny, because the nephew is guilty as sin. ....and Mon is essentially untouchable, because he's a BMOI (big man on the island) and buddies with cops. Mon is no more likely to be hauled off to jail than his cop friend (with big ears) who, along with Mon, threatened Sean with death if Sean told what he knew of the crime.

What needs to be established about the running man if it is Mon is which way he is running, i.e. if to the beach or away from it.

No way he could be running away from the beach if he hadn't been there yet.

I pointed that out a wee while ago. There must be another entrance to the beach. Since you see him coming back. But not see him go. And then see him go 2 times but not come back in between. I think it was the video from ac they were asking for to fill these times, but the head man refused to give. The police should have gotten a warrant to take their computer .

If true (withholding of evidence), and I believe it is, then both the headman and the investigating cops should be charged with criminal obstruction of justice. The cops (for conspiracy.....), because they went along with it. Unfortunately, Thailand's justice system is like a 3rd world country's, in that - even the mention of 'obstructing evidence' will get hoots of laughter from cops and lawyers alike. "Obstruction of ...what?!?" "....charges against a pu yai!?" ""Ha ha ha, you must be a stand-up comedian. But don't quit your day job."

[IslandLover]

greenchair, on 17 Feb 2015 - 06:42, said:

The footprint is a joke.

Usually there is a cast made of the print. Then people's feet are compared to the cast.

But oh no. Dozens of people stood in the prints in the sand to see if they fit.

Who knows if it was measured properly before they stood in it. article-2762055-218288A000000578-460_634x415.jpg

That photo has always bothered me. The footprints are almost too perfect to be real.

[jimmybkk]

Based on the footprint police said at the time they were looking for a male at least 174cm tall with a shoe size of 40. The 2 Burmese lads are what...? 150 something tall...? I'd also be surprised if they had size 40 feet based on their height, but it's possible I guess.

[IslandLover]

greenchair, on 17 Feb 2015 - 13:59, said:greenchair, on 17 Feb 2015 - 13:59, said:greenchair, on 17 Feb 2015 - 13:59, said:

berybert, on 17 Feb 2015 - 11:05, said:berybert, on 17 Feb 2015 - 11:05, said:berybert, on 17 Feb 2015 - 11:05, said:

What needs to be established about the running man if it is Mon is which way he is running, i.e. if to the beach or away from it.

No way he could be running away from the beach if he hadn't been there yet.

I pointed that out a wee while ago. There must be another entrance to the beach. Since you see him coming back. But not see him go. And then see him go 2 times but not come back in between. I think it was the video from ac they were asking for to fill these times, but the head man refused to give. The police should have gotten a warrant to take their computer .

It would be good if someone who knows the island could come up with a map of where everything is on Sairee beach in relation to these murders. For example, where exactly is the CCTV camera that recorded running man (and the farang with his asian gf) situated? The Intouch guesthouse/bar/restaurant owned by Mon is situated at the southern end of Sairee beach right near the crime scene. If you look at the photos on TripAdvisor you will get a good idea of its location. The AC bar is further to the north and closer to the town where presumably most of the CCTV cameras are. So if Mon is indeed the running man (which I doubt), where was he running from?

EDIT: Why do I think Mon is NOT the running man? Mon is an adult male likely in his late 30s/early 40s and running man has the body of a much younger man.

Edited February 17, 2015 by IslandLover

[IslandLover]

jimmybkk, on 17 Feb 2015 - 14:43, said:

Based on the footprint police said at the time they were looking for a male at least 174cm tall with a shoe size of 40. The 2 Burmese lads are what...? 150 something tall...? I'd also be surprised if they had size 40 feet based on their height, but it's possible I guess.

It's extremely doubtful that anybody 150 cm (5 ft) tall would have a shoe size 40 (U.K. size 6-1/2). My husband is 174cm (5ft 8in) tall and he takes a size 40 shoe, which is actually small for his height. I am of a similar height to Win and Zaw and only take a size 36 shoe. I don't believe this so-called footprint could belong to either Win or Zaw. On the other hand, Maung Maung is taller than both of them.

[minikev]

Running man is NOT Mon

[greenchair]

Running man is NOT Mon

Prove it.

[greenchair]

greenchair, on 17 Feb 2015 - 06:42, said:

The footprint is a joke.

Usually there is a cast made of the print. Then people's feet are compared to the cast.

But oh no. Dozens of people stood in the prints in the sand to see if they fit.

Who knows if it was measured properly before they stood in it. article-2762055-218288A000000578-460_634x415.jpg

That photo has always bothered me. The footprints are almost too perfect to be real.

I thought so too. Although there was one guy walking around the crime scene. He might have stopped for a minute. Which actually just made me realise, there are no foot prints leading up to the footprints. They are just there magically in the sand ??

[boomerangutang]

Running man is NOT Mon

Prove it.

I doubt anyone other than Mon or Nomsod could 'prove it' and, or course, they're not going to turn 180 degrees and start telling the truth - about this nor a lot of other things. Even if it were proven that Nomsod was the running man (minutes after the crime was wrapped up), then what? If he were on trial, all his lawyer would have to say is, "so what if he was traveling on that path. Is there a law against traveling on that path at night?" In other words, they've got a lot of excuses up their sleeves, to dish out to the judge, ....any one of which will get them out of trouble. But they're already out of trouble, so all this postulating we're doing here online isn't going to affect the course of justice. It might clear things up for us little people, but we don't count. What counts, ultimately, is how the judge decides in October. Secondly, what counts is the story the RTP (working arm in arm with the Headman's people) ....choose to project. Any bit of reason we netizens put forth, will only be ignored by officialdom.

Here's a sterling way Mon can keep out of trouble: If there's any DNA or clothing or evidence on the hoe, or a footprint implicating him being at the scene of the crime, no problem. He can say he was assisting police at the crime scene, on that same morning, so his DNA or footprint found at the crime scene would be expected.

[greenchair]

jimmybkk, on 17 Feb 2015 - 14:43, said:

Based on the footprint police said at the time they were looking for a male at least 174cm tall with a shoe size of 40. The 2 Burmese lads are what...? 150 something tall...? I'd also be surprised if they had size 40 feet based on their height, but it's possible I guess.

It's extremely doubtful that anybody 150 cm (5 ft) tall would have a shoe size 40 (U.K. size 6-1/2). My husband is 174cm (5ft 8in) tall and he takes a size 40 shoe, which is actually small for his height. I am of a similar height to Win and Zaw and only take a size 36 shoe. I don't believe this so-called footprint could belong to either Win or Zaw. On the other hand, Maung Maung is taller than both of them.

Muang Muang is still on my suspect list.

[Eirene]

Here's a report regarding the person of interest in the CCtv images. This from the BP which I don't believe I can link to.

Earlier reports: September 24, 2014

A photo taken by a Scottish tourist of two men suspected by police of involvement in the killing of two British tourists on Koh Tao. Police said the image of the man on the left matches that of a suspect captured by a security camera at the time of the killings, right.

Same article:

Meanwhile, investigators detained Montriwat Tuwichian, 45, a younger brother of Mr Woraphan, after confirming Mr Montriwat is the Asian-looking suspect caught in security camera images a few hours before the two Britons were found dead on the beach on the morning of Sept 15.

Montriwat Toovichien Pol Lt Gen Panya also confirmed that Mr Montriwat is the man captured in the AC Bar's security cameras.

Regarding the cigarrette found. Were there not articles stating that Hannah's DNA was on the cigarrette? This here states otherwise.

"He said the key to finding the killer lay in a single discarded cigarette butt which had DNA on it that matched samples from inside Hannah’s body."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thailand-beach-murders-desperate-police-4288032

I don't believe the public has seen the original footprints from the scene.

Edit to add: Note the article states that the cctv images were a few hours before the discovery on the beach.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Eirene

[greenchair]

The last picture of running man is 5.41. The victims were discovered between 5 and 6.30.

There are a couple of different reports of what time they were found.

Some have said the body type doesn't match mon. But that can sometimes be distorted when getting the stills or just by the camera. My neighbour is a big guy but he looks thinner in the video for some reason. The police said it was Mon. Mon said he was woken up and ran to the beach to see what was happening. The police have never said the running man was anybody but mon. They have not looked for any other person to match running man because they knew it was Mon.

To me it looks just like him. Especially the hair.

Edited February 17, 2015 by greenchair

[Eirene]

Same source - BP - September 18, 2014 [What is the reason this site can't be linked?] I wondered about this as one of the images of him is at 3:44am. So he is running away from the beach not towards...thus it is all a lie that he was running towards the beach when woken by a cleaner. Would islandlife like to comment on this?

In the video footage, captured by a camera installed at AC Bar, he can be seen walking back and forth near the crime scene.

The man was wearing a pair of shorts and walking about 4am toward the Jor Por Ror cape — the same route Miller and Witheridge took before they were found dead the following morning, said Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong.

The same man returned about 50 minutes later, running back hurriedly in a suspicious manner, said Pol Maj Gen Kiattipong.

[rockingrobin]

Eirene

There were 4 cigarette buts found in total, you are correct that it is stated that Hannahs dna is found on one with another person , there are also other issues about the cigarette buts, lipstick mark and which cigarette butt was Muang Muang dna found

As regards Mon being woken up I understand it is only the RTP that made this claim, along with Islandlife on this forum, I have not found an article where Mon actually states this. More interesting is the headmans statements and their timelline with regards Nomsod

It goes something like

Unable to contact , dont Know if he is involved

Returning to study not fleeing

Not on the Island

[Eirene]

I took this to mean that only the DNA of one of the rapists was found on the cigarrette...not Hannah's DNA.

"He said the key to finding the killer lay in a single discarded cigarette butt which had DNA on it that matched samples from inside Hannah’s body."

“We haven’t messed up. We need more progress, we need to work up more evidence. DNA tests on the cigarette prove it was not either of the victims or the two British brothers.

[boomerangutang]

The last picture of running man is 5.41. The victims were discovered between 5 and 6.30.

There are a couple of different reports of what time they were found.

Some have said the body type doesn't match mon. But that can sometimes be distorted when getting the stills or just by the camera. My neighbour is a big guy but he looks thinner in the video for some reason. The police said it was Mon. Mon said he was woken up and ran to the beach to see what was happening. The police have never said the running man was anybody but mon. They have not looked for any other person to match running man because they knew it was Mon.

To me it looks just like him. Especially the hair. post-155768-0-37866300-1418771831.jpg

In the first few days after the crime, the police said they were looking for a man who matched the image in the CCTV footage - therefore cops didn't know who it was. It's been alleged that Mon himself said it was him (when did he say that?), and apparently the cops latched on to that in their knee-jerk way. It may be Mon, but as GC says, many observers doubt it, as I do also. Mon and his nephew have similar haircuts. Where is the still grabs from the videos which show A. the reflection of an earring in a left ear (?) and another (side shot of head, facing left) which shows a sideburn clearly curving to the front of the face ? Mon has a man's body, whereas Nomsod has a boy's body. The video shows a skinny boy with a bit of a pouch belly.

If this were a remotely adept investigation, there would be a central secure room with bulletin boards on the walls, plastered with such evidence. There would be time-lines established, connecting strings, photos of the ten or so 'persons of interest' (most of whom connected to the Headman), plus tables with neatly labelled items which may be useful in solving the case. There would be farang-trained investigators who weren't required to spout the Thai establishment line.

There will be more atrocious crimes in Thailand (as can happen in any country) as time rolls by. Let's hope future investigations won't be as badly bungled and skewed as this one.

[minikev]

Running man is NOT Mon

Prove it.

Simply use your eyes! the video shows a young man both walking and running. Mon is not a teenager! What other proof would you need. I suppose you could ask Mon to remove his shirt as most middle aged Thais have a tattoo or two.

[seahorse]

rockingrobin, on 16 Feb 2015 - 17:47, said:

One of the two men released last night, who reporters did not identify, said he was unable to contact his son and did not know if he had a hand in the killings.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Police-free-bar-owners-and-look-for-ex-village-hea-30243997.html

Interesting that this report says an altercation happened at the Intouch bar, rather than at the AC bar as claimed in most other reports.

The chief investigator was speaking after police had summoned the owner of the Intouch Bar for questioning after investigators discovered that both victims had visited the bar and had had an altercation before they were found dead.

So, is this true or not? The Intouch guesthouse complex is certainly closest to the crime scene (apart from the Ocean View guesthouse where David and Hannah were actually staying) and is owned by Mon, although he apparently also manages the AC bar. It is hard to keep up with all these differences in reporting.

Also interesting from that report.

Panya also promised that the investigation would not be influenced by reports that some influential persons on the island might try to obstruct police work.

Meanwhile, a police source said it was not possible that people on the island did not have any knowledge of what might have happened on the night of the murder. The source said may be they don't want to talk to police, as they do not want to have problems with an influential group.

[seahorse]

Running man is NOT Mon

Prove it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3sHTxNP2N4

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528835.600-cameras-know-you-by-your-walk.html

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 17 Feb 2015 - 21:54, said:

Eirene

There were 4 cigarette buts found in total, you are correct that it is stated that Hannahs dna is found on one with another person , there are also other issues about the cigarette buts, lipstick mark and which cigarette butt was Muang Muang dna found

As regards Mon being woken up I understand it is only the RTP that made this claim, along with Islandlife on this forum, I have not found an article where Mon actually states this. More interesting is the headmans statements and their timelline with regards Nomsod

It goes something like

Unable to contact , dont Know if he is involved

Returning to study not fleeing

Not on the Island

As regards Mon being woken up I understand it is only the RTP that made this claim, along with Islandlife on this forum, I have not found an article where Mon actually states this

If Mon had been woken up by his staff after the murders had been committed he would have been running from the Intouch guesthouse which he owns and where he presumably lives (and which is closest to the crime scene), not the AC bar. The camera that picked up "running man" was positioned somewhere near the AC bar.

We have reports that say Mon was seen on CCTV near the crime scene but how do we know if it is indeed the footage of running man that has been released to the media? The RTP will know for sure who running man is but that evidence may/or may not come out at the trial, depending on whether they are shielding someone or if they believe it to be one of the suspects.

[IslandLover]

minikev, on 18 Feb 2015 - 02:09, said:

greenchair, on 17 Feb 2015 - 16:51, said:

minikev, on 17 Feb 2015 - 15:50, said:

Running man is NOT Mon

Prove it.

Simply use your eyes! the video shows a young man both walking and running. Mon is not a teenager! What other proof would you need. I suppose you could ask Mon to remove his shirt as most middle aged Thais have a tattoo or two.

Mon is not a teenager!

He is 45 apparently.

[Jai Dee]

One post containing defamation has been removed from this thread.

Members are reminded of the following from the Forum Rules:

6) You will not post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.

Defamation is the issuance of a statement about another person or business which causes that person to suffer harm. It does not have to be false to be defamatory. Libel is when the defamatory statement is published either in a drawing, painting, cinematography, film, picture or letters made visible by any means, or any other recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means. Defamation is both a civil and criminal charge in Thailand.

[thailandchilli]

I see Hannah's family is now asking for donations to help get them out here in July

Dear all...
As many of you know, the trial into the horrific murder of our beautiful Hannah will begin in July this year. As a family we are extremely keen to travel out to Thailand to represent Hannah and to, hopefully, see justice done.

Link to the site is on CSI