Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[berybert]

After 6 months of this subject I still like to see what jdinasia has to comment on. AleG and Thingy, cant remember his name nor can be bothered to check, he does the film comments and pictures of a guy flying.

[rockingrobin]

stephenterry, on 23 Mar 2015 - 09:37, said:

catsanddogs, on 23 Mar 2015 - 09:14, said:

stephenterry, on 23 Mar 2015 - 04:13, said:

More background and a mystery. See below:

“According to the testimony of Maung Maung, who shared accommodation with the two suspects [Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun], they were all three drinking and playing guitar on the night of the incident,” the Burmese lawyer told DVB.

“Maung Maung said he then went to see his girlfriend and did not return until 5am.”

Lawyer Aung Myo Thant and MAT representative Kyaw Thaung both confirmed to DVB that Maung Maung had told the embassy team that he had witnessed Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun in bed sleeping when he returned to the room at 5am and that nothing seemed suspicious.

According to Kyaw Thaung: “Maung Maung said he woke them up and asked them, ‘Where is the guitar?’ at which point one of the pair indicated it was in AC Bar [where the British couple, Hannah Witheridge and David Miller, had been drinking with friends the night before]. Maung Maung said he then went to AC Bar to look for the guitar and his sandals, ‘because they were expensive – 350 baht’, he said.

From the above, at least one of the B2 returned the guitar to the AC bar after finishing up their session on the beach. At what time? Supposedly before the bar closed at 3am. Which means they could have been present when the victims left. Doing what? More drinking? Could explain their 'we were drunk' statement.

So either they followed the victims back to the beach after 3am, or went back to their lodgings. Any CCTV?

The implications are enormous:-

1. Who witnessed their return to the AC bar with the guitar?

2. What did they do there? Drink? or Leave?

3. Where is the CCTV to evidence their movements?

4. The scenario that they were at the beach within a hundred metres of the crime scene is (probably) correct up to the time when they left to return to AC bar.

5. The scenario that they were at the beach within a hundred metres of the crime scene at the time when the attacks took place is contestable (because the guitar didn't return to AC bar on its own).

6. Muang Muang's statement that nothing seemed suspicious when he returned to their lodgings at 5am is exculpatory evidence.

Does anyone have a timeline of their movements?

There is always the possibility that neither of the B2 took the guitar back to the bar - maybe someone else did for whatever reason. Maybe someone borrowed it and took it back to the bar after the B2 had left the beach. Maybe Hannah borrowed it? Why would the B2 take it back to the bar instead of to their lodgings?

The very fact that the guitar moved from the beach to the AC bar has not been explained anywhere. That's why it is important to hear what the B2 say about their movements, and what happened to the guitar. When they were awakened they stated that the guitar was at the AC Bar, that indicates first hand knowledge of its movements (not that someone borrowed it).

If another person was involved, he/she would be a witness at a time after Muang Muang left them on the beach. Maybe the AC bar was more secure than their lodgings? Maybe they fancied another drink?

There is yet another report that says the B2 went for a swim and when they came out of the water, their clothes and the guitar had disappeared.

Burmese embassy representative went to see two boys for more information.: Media interview and answer by embassy official. The Embassy officer said: “The two boys told him that they were swimming at beach near AC Bar and Maya Bar on that night, after 10 or 15 minutes, when they come back to the beach after swimming, they did not find their guitar and cloth on where they left. Somebody may be stolen their cloth and guitar.but on 14 Oct the police bring as evidence their cloth and guitar to the court.

https://crimesontheblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/burmese-on-the-beach-at-crime-time/

I have often wondered if they told Maung Maung that they had left the guitar at the AC bar because they were too embarassed to admit that they had eiher lost it or it had been stolen.

Muang Muang reportedly went back to AC bar to get the guitar and sandals, it has not been revealed if he did in actual fact find the guitar or sandals. It is assumed that he did not find the guitar ,

therefore did he enquire further with the B2 or is there more than one guitar

There was reports early in the investigation that a guitar was recovered i with nobody taking ownership,

The guy delivering a guitar to the RTP (footage on tv) what is the significance

[jimmybkk]

I've been searching everywhere for any reports that the promotion of the original police chief for the region, K. Panya, had been announced before the murders took place and could not find anything earlier than the 30th September, which is when a few publications ran the story.

AleG and JD, this is something that you guys have stated as fact on several occasions. Would you mind pointing me to a link please.

Incidentally, I did learn that K. Panya and the guy he appointed as chief of police on Phuket take a lot of credit for breaking up the Phuket taxi mafia, and were apparently planning on targeting the Phuket jet ski mafia next, before they both got promoted almost simultaneously.

[boomerangutang]

In order for the RTP (and their friends and clients) to maintain the frame-up/cover-up, they have a lot of niggling issues to deal with. Here is a partial list of things they have to discount/disprove or hope fade from the canary-like memory of most Thais:

>>> furniture shown in alibi video

>>> speedboat allegations

>>> Stabbing wounds to David's neck and body

>>> CCTV which police (and tens of thousands of other observers) said show Nomsod, minutes after the crime

>>> why bloody clothes were not searched for

>>> why full body checks didn't happen

>>> why phone records/histories were apparently not looked into.

>>> why 9 Burmese migrants were tested and cleared for DNA matches, yet a few days later, two of the same were miraculously found to match.

>>> why there is no disclosure of the 3 hr questioning of Mon, nor the interrogation (allegedly with torture) of the Burmese.

>>> why no scrutiny of Mon's living space or where he does laundry.

">>> furniture shown in alibi video"

Oh, furniture, on a video, how... meaningless.

The CCTV footage you insist was faked was reviewed by the press, are they all also in the payroll?

Yes, of course, you think everyone is in the payroll, what was I thinking?

">>> speedboat allegations"

Anyone can make allegations, about anyone or anything else, means nothing.

">>> Stabbing wounds to David's neck and body"

You are neither a pathologist nor did you examine the wounds by yourself, so you are speculating from a position of ignorance.

">>> CCTV which police (and tens of thousands of other observers) said show Nomsod, minutes after the crime"

Tens of thousands agree with you... you simply made that up; for what is worth hundreds of thousands agree with me, so there.

">>> why bloody clothes were not searched for"

You state something as a fact when in reality you have no idea.

">>> why full body checks didn't happen"

See previous point,

">>> why phone records/histories were apparently not looked into."

See previous two points... I'm starting to see a pattern here...

">>> why 9 Burmese migrants were tested and cleared for DNA matches, yet a few days later, two of the same were miraculously found to match."

If you need miracles to make sense of the world then you are doing something wrong, as in this case, claiming the two men now on trial were among those other nine men. You simply made that up, completely.

">>> why there is no disclosure of the 3 hr questioning of Mon, nor the interrogation (allegedly with torture) of the Burmese."

Where in the World, does police release such information to the public ahead of a trial?

Besides that you are flip-flopping like a fish on the ground: "We don't expect defense or prosecution to divulge their plans, data or strategies to us concerned observers." The problem with ad-hoc arguments and rationalizations is that they reveal a lack of intellectual rigor, just say something that sounds about right now, say the opposite later, whatever gives a perceived edge at any given time.

">>> why no scrutiny of Mon's living space or where he does laundry."

Again, you know they didn't do that because you really have nothing else to work with but speculation without any support; so, as always, you invent some scenario, you declare that scenario suspicious therefore things look suspicious... in the fictional world you created. Circular logic, simple, easy, comforting (any similarity with reality is merely accidental).

Thanks AleG for proving my point. I prefaced my list by saying, "...a partial list of things they (RTP and their supporters) have to discount/disprove" in order to not be perceived as being part of a conspiracy to frame the B2 while concurrently shielding the H's people. I didn't state anything as fact.

[boomerangutang]

from AleG: Oh, furniture, on a video, how... meaningless.

The CCTV footage you insist was faked was reviewed by the press, are they all also in the payroll?

Yes, of course, you think everyone is in the payroll, what was I thinking?

First off, as I've mentioned several times in prior posts, if many people believe something, that doesn't mean they're all part of a conspiracy. It only takes one or a few people (usually elders or trusted or in uniform) to get misinformation started. Perhaps the alibi video is legit, but it's not the responsibility of the press corps to verify it. Their job is to report the news. It's up to RTP investigators to verify whether evidence is sound or not. In many ways, RTP have not been doing their jobs, and it shows bias against the the B2, while shielding the H's people. I suspect we'll hear more about the alibi video in the trial, unless the judges deem it's immaterial because only the B2 are on trial, no one else. There are some interested parties who obviously don't want the alibi CCTV scrutinized.

[JLCrab]

After 6 months of this subject I still like to see what jdinasia has to comment on. AleG and Thingy, cant remember his name nor can be bothered to check, he does the film comments and pictures of a guy flying.

From the screenplay for Chinatown -- Jack Nicholson as Gittes

GITTES

Jasper Lamar Crabb -- Jasper Lamar Crabb --

[He's pulling out his wallet, excitedly now, spilling its contents onto the seat. He pulls out the obituary column he'd folded up earlier in the day.]

GITTES

(continuing) We got it. We got it, baby.

EVELYN

What? What is it?

GITTES

There was a memorial service at the Mar Vista Inn today for Jasper Lamar Crabb. He died three weeks ago.

EVELYN

Is that unusual?

GITTES

Two weeks ago he bought those 25,000 acres. That's unusual.

[jdinasia]

I've been searching everywhere for any reports that the promotion of the original police chief for the region, K. Panya, had been announced before the murders took place and could not find anything earlier than the 30th September, which is when a few publications ran the story.

AleG and JD, this is something that you guys have stated as fact on several occasions. Would you mind pointing me to a link please.

Incidentally, I did learn that K. Panya and the guy he appointed as chief of police on Phuket take a lot of credit for breaking up the Phuket taxi mafia, and were apparently planning on targeting the Phuket jet ski mafia next, before they both got promoted almost simultaneously.

Look at Phuketwan and BP amongst others going back to the 12th of September. Most of the reports were in the Thai press, obviously.

The promotion cycle is at the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1st) which is also the day that those who turned 60 during the preceding year must retire.(Prayuth)

[jdinasia]

from AleG: Oh, furniture, on a video, how... meaningless.

The CCTV footage you insist was faked was reviewed by the press, are they all also in the payroll?

Yes, of course, you think everyone is in the payroll, what was I thinking?

First off, as I've mentioned several times in prior posts, if many people believe something, that doesn't mean they're all part of a conspiracy. It only takes one or a few people (usually elders or trusted or in uniform) to get misinformation started. Perhaps the alibi video is legit, but it's not the responsibility of the press corps to verify it. Their job is to report the news. It's up to RTP investigators to verify whether evidence is sound or not. In many ways, RTP have not been doing their jobs, and it shows bias against the the B2, while shielding the H's people. I suspect we'll hear more about the alibi video in the trial, unless the judges deem it's immaterial because only the B2 are on trial, no one else. There are some interested parties who obviously don't want the alibi CCTV scrutinized.

LOL

With people like you so loudly proclaiming the power of social media you would think that one news outlet would follow up on the conspiracy theories you guys are presenting.

While investigative reporting is a bit week in Thailand the UK press certainly should follow up on real stories..... But apparently not in the world of the conspiracy theorists.

You suggest it is not the press' job and the job belongs to the RTP. The RTP has cleared the people you are obsessed with. They did their job.

[CRUNCHER]

Muang Muang reportedly went back to AC bar to get the guitar and sandals, it has not been revealed if he did in actual fact find the guitar or sandals. It is assumed that he did not find the guitar ,

therefore did he enquire further with the B2 or is there more than one guitar

There was reports early in the investigation that a guitar was recovered i with nobody taking ownership,

The guy delivering a guitar to the RTP (footage on tv) what is the significance

What is the significance?

Just a thought - no more.

Hiding the possessions of people who are swimming is the sort of prank young people get up to, especially when they have had a few drinks.

The victims of the prank do not always see the funny side, again especially if they have had a few drinks.Things get out of control They get angry...argue...fight and....?? It happens. Add to that the possibility of getting the wrong pranksters.

Not saying this is what happened, but it is not impossible.

Edited March 24, 2015 by CRUNCHER

[IslandLover]

CRUNCHER, on 24 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:

IslandLover, on 23 Mar 2015 - 16:40, said:

Muang Muang reportedly went back to AC bar to get the guitar and sandals, it has not been revealed if he did in actual fact find the guitar or sandals. It is assumed that he did not find the guitar ,

therefore did he enquire further with the B2 or is there more than one guitar

There was reports early in the investigation that a guitar was recovered i with nobody taking ownership,

The guy delivering a guitar to the RTP (footage on tv) what is the significance

What is the significance?

Just a thought - no more.

Hiding the possessions of people who are swimming is the sort of prank young people get up to, especially when they have had a few drinks.

The victims of the prank do not always see the funny side, again especially if they have had a few drinks.Things get out of control They get angry...argue...fight and....?? It happens. Add to that the possibility of getting the wrong pranksters.

Not saying this is what happened, but it is not impossible.

The above quoted post was not made by me. It was made by rockingrobin.

[stephenterry]

There is yet another report that says the B2 went for a swim and when they came out of the water, their clothes and the guitar had disappeared.

Burmese embassy representative went to see two boys for more information.: Media interview and answer by embassy official. The Embassy officer said: “The two boys told him that they were swimming at beach near AC Bar and Maya Bar on that night, after 10 or 15 minutes, when they come back to the beach after swimming, they did not find their guitar and cloth on where they left. Somebody may be stolen their cloth and guitar.but on 14 Oct the police bring as evidence their cloth and guitar to the court.

https://crimesontheblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/burmese-on-the-beach-at-crime-time/

I have often wondered if they told Maung Maung that they had left the guitar at the AC bar because they were too embarassed to admit that they had eiher lost it or it had been stolen.

Muang Muang reportedly went back to AC bar to get the guitar and sandals, it has not been revealed if he did in actual fact find the guitar or sandals. It is assumed that he did not find the guitar ,

therefore did he enquire further with the B2 or is there more than one guitar

There was reports early in the investigation that a guitar was recovered i with nobody taking ownership,

The guy delivering a guitar to the RTP (footage on tv) what is the significance

From the above report posted by Island Lover:-

Questions:

• Who took the Clothes (they got them back?)
• Who brought the Guitar to AC Bar

Previously reported:

• All 3 Burmese on the Beach
• Mau went forth and back to bring Beer
• Mau left Guitar back, before going to his Wife/GF
• Mau returns at 5am to the Acco, 2 suspects sleep
• Mau returns to AC Bar to pick up his Guitar.

Perhaps, this weird info by the Burmese Staff was supposed to explain:

• Why they went home without Mau’s Guitar
• Why one of them was in underwear on CCTV?

This could mean:

• One of them is the CCTV-Running-Guy?
• They were around the crime scene (CCTV-Times) at the time of the Murders?
• Their clothes did not show up again that night, but the Guitar later would?
• Were their clothes blood stained?

[stephenterry]

Clearly, there are conflicting reports as to the B2's movements that night. Not really helped by their own confusing accounts. Either they went for a swim near the AC bar and someone stole their clothes and guitar, or they just got drunk and returned to their lodgings. Or a mixture of the two statements.

And who would want to steal their clothes? Hardly, designer gear? And how did the police get hold of their clothes and the guitar? Was it evidence of guilt, or what?

While I still hold the belief that they did not commit murder, they certainly haven't helped their cause. I hope Mau will take the witness stand either for the prosecution or defence. I'm sure he can fill in a few gaps.

As the days drag by towards the trial, it is also clear that no-one connected with this murder investigation has come out with any credibility, or credit, except perhaps the taxi driver who allegedly turned down a 300k bribe to offer false witness. Oh, and Ms Porntip. If she had been in charge of the forensic analysis and DNA testing, I would have trusted her results.

Edited March 24, 2015 by stephenterry

[JLCrab]

I will nominate the chief defense attorney Nakhon Chompuchat because he has shown the wisdom and discretion to TTBOMK not say anything publicly since the 26 DEC 2014 preliminary hearing.

[jdinasia]

Stolen clothes..... As pointed out it is not likely. It probably won't play well in court.

"defendants claim that their clothing were stolen "

"prosecution suggests that defendants disposed of bloody evidence "

Which scenario would you tend to believe?

[stephenterry]

Stolen clothes..... As pointed out it is not likely. It probably won't play well in court.

"defendants claim that their clothing were stolen "

"prosecution suggests that defendants disposed of bloody evidence "

Which scenario would you tend to believe?

As the alleged swimming took place in the proximity of the AC bar, it has been suggested that it was a prank by other youngsters to hide their effects. Everyone having a few drinks, a few laughs, it's plausible. That's also a possible scenario that the defence could be addressing.

As to the suggested court drama, the police produced the clothes (if it was the B2's clothes) and a guitar to court at the preliminary hearing. How the guitar helps the prosecution is unknown by us. The clothes, maybe. Evidence of blood, perhaps? CCTV or witness proof of ownership?

[stephenterry]

I will nominate the chief defense attorney Nakhon Chompuchat because he has shown the wisdom and discretion to TTBOMK not say anything publicly since the 26 DEC 2014 preliminary hearing.

If he has the ammunition to bust open the prosecution's case, he's not going to show his cards until the trial. And that reasoning would apply if he hasn't. But on the whole scheme of things, I agree he takes credit for not spreading misleading information, disinformation, or making any public domain remarks.

Have you got a picture of him we can pin up on our wall?

[AleG]

from AleG: Oh, furniture, on a video, how... meaningless.

The CCTV footage you insist was faked was reviewed by the press, are they all also in the payroll?

Yes, of course, you think everyone is in the payroll, what was I thinking?

First off, as I've mentioned several times in prior posts, if many people believe something, that doesn't mean they're all part of a conspiracy. It only takes one or a few people (usually elders or trusted or in uniform) to get misinformation started. Perhaps the alibi video is legit, but it's not the responsibility of the press corps to verify it. Their job is to report the news. It's up to RTP investigators to verify whether evidence is sound or not. In many ways, RTP have not been doing their jobs, and it shows bias against the the B2, while shielding the H's people. I suspect we'll hear more about the alibi video in the trial, unless the judges deem it's immaterial because only the B2 are on trial, no one else. There are some interested parties who obviously don't want the alibi CCTV scrutinized.

"It's up to RTP investigators to verify whether evidence is sound or not"

They did verify it, you don't want to believe it because it would not fit with a narrative you created to provide you with existential validation.

"There are some interested parties who obviously don't want the alibi CCTV scrutinized."

AKA, a conspiracy, if you don't like the term, tough luck; all you have to offer are conspiracy theories, about the crime and about the people that don't buy your narrative.

Thanks AleG for proving my point. I prefaced my list by saying, "...a partial list of things they (RTP and their supporters) have to discount/disprove" in order to not be perceived as being part of a conspiracy to frame the B2 while concurrently shielding the H's people. I didn't state anything as fact.

"I didn't state anything as fact."

>>> furniture shown in alibi video

>>> speedboat allegations

>>> Stabbing wounds to David's neck and body

>>> CCTV which police (and tens of thousands of other observers) said show Nomsod, minutes after the crime

>>> why bloody clothes were not searched for

>>> why full body checks didn't happen

>>> why phone records/histories were apparently not looked into.

>>> why 9 Burmese migrants were tested and cleared for DNA matches, yet a few days later, two of the same were miraculously found to match.

>>> why there is no disclosure of the 3 hr questioning of Mon, nor the interrogation (allegedly with torture) of the Burmese.

>>> why no scrutiny of Mon's living space or where he does laundry.

Of course you did, I don't know if you are truly so lacking in self awareness or simply want to weasel your way around.

The only thing not stated as a fact are the first two points.

In any case, granting your denial as being true, you want people to go around disproving non-facts? How does that work, in your head? Keep throwing increasingly convoluted, unsupported allegations and theories and see what sticks?

As always, the utterly predictable fall back of "shielding the headman's people", nobody is shielding anyone, your arguments are unsustainable, you get called on it and rather than address that you retreat into your own fantasy: oh no, it's not that my arguments are unsound, they say those things because they are working for *them*.

Edited March 24, 2015 by AleG

[PaPiPuPePo]

More background and a mystery. See below:

“According to the testimony of Maung Maung, who shared accommodation with the two suspects [Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun], they were all three drinking and playing guitar on the night of the incident,” the Burmese lawyer told DVB.

“Maung Maung said he then went to see his girlfriend and did not return until 5am.”

Lawyer Aung Myo Thant and MAT representative Kyaw Thaung both confirmed to DVB that Maung Maung had told the embassy team that he had witnessed Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun in bed sleeping when he returned to the room at 5am and that nothing seemed suspicious.

According to Kyaw Thaung: “Maung Maung said he woke them up and asked them, ‘Where is the guitar?’ at which point one of the pair indicated it was in AC Bar [where the British couple, Hannah Witheridge and David Miller, had been drinking with friends the night before]. Maung Maung said he then went to AC Bar to look for the guitar and his sandals, ‘because they were expensive – 350 baht’, he said.

From the above, at least one of the B2 returned the guitar to the AC bar after finishing up their session on the beach. At what time? Supposedly before the bar closed at 3am. Which means they could have been present when the victims left. Doing what? More drinking? Could explain their 'we were drunk' statement.

So either they followed the victims back to the beach after 3am, or went back to their lodgings. Any CCTV?

The implications are enormous:-

1. Who witnessed their return to the AC bar with the guitar?

2. What did they do there? Drink? or Leave?

3. Where is the CCTV to evidence their movements?

4. The scenario that they were at the beach within a hundred metres of the crime scene is (probably) correct up to the time when they left to return to AC bar.

5. The scenario that they were at the beach within a hundred metres of the crime scene at the time when the attacks took place is contestable (because the guitar didn't return to AC bar on its own).

6. Muang Muang's statement that nothing seemed suspicious when he returned to their lodgings at 5am is exculpatory evidence.

Does anyone have a timeline of their movements?

Good post and your questions highlight once again the importance of CCTV footage.

There's been a lot of discussion of the lack of it, and I've heard mention a few times of the recordings made by certain cameras in critical positions or at critical moments have been withheld on privacy grounds, or for other reasons.

Can anyone give a well-informed synopsis of what the deal with the scanty CCTV footage is, and the apparent withholding of some. It seems that if such exists it would be very revealing, and without it there's a huge gap in the evidence against anyone. Anyone.

[JLCrab]

I will nominate the chief defense attorney Nakhon Chompuchat because he has shown the wisdom and discretion to TTBOMK not say anything publicly since the 26 DEC 2014 preliminary hearing.

If he has the ammunition to bust open the prosecution's case, he's not going to show his cards until the trial. And that reasoning would apply if he hasn't. But on the whole scheme of things, I agree he takes credit for not spreading misleading information, disinformation, or making any public domain remarks.

Have you got a picture of him we can pin up on our wall?

I make no comment as to WHY he has kept mum; just that he has:

[rockingrobin]

Stolen clothes..... As pointed out it is not likely. It probably won't play well in court.

"defendants claim that their clothing were stolen "

"prosecution suggests that defendants disposed of bloody evidence "

Which scenario would you tend to believe?

It is my understanding that the RTP are claiming that there was no blood on the clothes because they had been washed

As for defense not disclosing its information, this would be normal and especially so in Thailand where the prosecution doesnt reveal the evidence in there possesion

It would appear that some posters like the judiicial system of discovery but appear not to like the defence to have the same privilege

Correction the translator made the claim the clothes had been washed

Edited March 24, 2015 by rockingrobin

[berybert]

Stolen clothes..... As pointed out it is not likely. It probably won't play well in court.

"defendants claim that their clothing were stolen "

"prosecution suggests that defendants disposed of bloody evidence "

Which scenario would you tend to believe?

I believe they choose to dispose of bloody clothes while at the same time leave the muder weapon at the scene. Well one of the 2 murder weapons.

Just think they had the Gulf of Thailand to hide the hoe yet choose to leave it on the beach.

They had the Gulf of Thailand to drag Hannah's body into but choose to drag David's body into the water instead. Leaving Hannah on the beach along with the murder weapon like some sort of trophy.

Just the sort of thing you expect 2 drunk people to do.

P.S. Leaving no stone unturned, why didn't the RTP find any bloody clothes anywhere ? I guess they could have burn a couple of old T-Shirts and claimed it was Burmese.

Or it could be those that believed the Burmese did it made the story of stolen clothes up as a conspiracy.

Edited March 24, 2015 by berybert

[CRUNCHER]

CRUNCHER, on 24 Mar 2015 - 02:34, said:

IslandLover, on 23 Mar 2015 - 16:40, said:

Muang Muang reportedly went back to AC bar to get the guitar and sandals, it has not been revealed if he did in actual fact find the guitar or sandals. It is assumed that he did not find the guitar ,

therefore did he enquire further with the B2 or is there more than one guitar

There was reports early in the investigation that a guitar was recovered i with nobody taking ownership,

The guy delivering a guitar to the RTP (footage on tv) what is the significance

What is the significance?

Just a thought - no more.

Hiding the possessions of people who are swimming is the sort of prank young people get up to, especially when they have had a few drinks.

The victims of the prank do not always see the funny side, again especially if they have had a few drinks.Things get out of control They get angry...argue...fight and....?? It happens. Add to that the possibility of getting the wrong pranksters.

Not saying this is what happened, but it is not impossible.

The above quoted post was not made by me. It was made by rockingrobin.

Sorry. My bad.

[jimmybkk]

I've been searching everywhere for any reports that the promotion of the original police chief for the region, K. Panya, had been announced before the murders took place and could not find anything earlier than the 30th September, which is when a few publications ran the story.

AleG and JD, this is something that you guys have stated as fact on several occasions. Would you mind pointing me to a link please.

Incidentally, I did learn that K. Panya and the guy he appointed as chief of police on Phuket take a lot of credit for breaking up the Phuket taxi mafia, and were apparently planning on targeting the Phuket jet ski mafia next, before they both got promoted almost simultaneously.

Look at Phuketwan and BP amongst others going back to the 12th of September. Most of the reports were in the Thai press, obviously.

The promotion cycle is at the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1st) which is also the day that those who turned 60 during the preceding year must retire.(Prayuth)

OK, so that was a "no" to posting the link then. I looked again but still can't find any reference to what you guys claim. The Nation reported his promotion on the 2nd October. Could they really be so far behind the ball?

So... I've done my searching. Now it's your turn. Once again the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate these claims that you have made on so many occasions. Or I suppose you could just put your hands up and admit you've been fabricating stories to back up the incredibly weak position you feign to support. Or you could take the 5th again, and put your hands up in a Marcel Marceau kinda way...

<snip>

Edited March 25, 2015 by Jai Dee
Flame deleted

[Jai Dee]

One post deliberately mis-quoting another member has been removed from this thread.

All subsequent replies quoting the mis-quote have also been removed.

From the Forum Rules:

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[Godders]

What are the lives of a couple of impoverished immigrants compared with maintaining "good diplomatic relations" between two countries with an unsavoury history of deviousness and double-dealing?

The role of the British police and Parliament in this case is nothing short of shameful.

[boomerangutang]

from AleG: Oh, furniture, on a video, how... meaningless.

The CCTV footage you insist was faked was reviewed by the press, are they all also in the payroll?

Yes, of course, you think everyone is in the payroll, what was I thinking?

First off, as I've mentioned several times in prior posts, if many people believe something, that doesn't mean they're all part of a conspiracy. It only takes one or a few people (usually elders or trusted or in uniform) to get misinformation started. Perhaps the alibi video is legit, but it's not the responsibility of the press corps to verify it. Their job is to report the news. It's up to RTP investigators to verify whether evidence is sound or not. In many ways, RTP have not been doing their jobs, and it shows bias against the the B2, while shielding the H's people. I suspect we'll hear more about the alibi video in the trial, unless the judges deem it's immaterial because only the B2 are on trial, no one else. There are some interested parties who obviously don't want the alibi CCTV scrutinized.

LOL

With people like you so loudly proclaiming the power of social media you would think that one news outlet would follow up on the conspiracy theories you guys are presenting. While investigative reporting is a bit week in Thailand the UK press certainly should follow up on real stories..... But apparently not in the world of the conspiracy theorists. You suggest it is not the press' job and the job belongs to the RTP. The RTP has cleared the people you are obsessed with. They did their job.

The RTP apparently cleared Nomsod, on the strength of two still shot 'grabs' from two questionable CCTV videos. Even if the CCTV was valid (which many observers doubt), The possibility of a desperate person with lots of money getting from the island to Bkk in four to five hours was (apparently) not considered valid in the equation. In other words, even if the CCTV wasn't bogus, it still doesn't preclude the possibility of Nomsod being on the island at the time of the crime, to any objective/reasonable person.

The issue of whether the furniture was in the alibi CCTV is one which could be easily proven or disproven - simply by looking at CCTV at same location, just prior to the alibi footage. Newspaper reporters aren't supposed to arrange for that. That's the job of investigators, if they were sincerely aiming to investigate the crime, and objectively seeking who did it. There are dozens of indications which show the RTP aren't doing that.

btw, has Mon been officially cleared of all wrongdoing? If so, let's see the link.

Edited March 25, 2015 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

jdinasia, are you still laughing out loud? I'm not.

[jdinasia]

Jimmy - as I cannot post from Phuketwan or Thai language sources, you are free to disbelieve.

The point, as brought up by the conspiracy theorists is moot, since Panya cleared the people who some people are obsessed with blaming on September 25th

Edit to add link requested by boomerangutang

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/police-now-rule-koh-tao-headmans-son-murder-suspect-turn-foreign-tourists-probe

Edited March 25, 2015 by jdinasia

[jdinasia]

Note - cleared is cleared and the claims by people here built around a conspiracy theory cooked up on csila just carry no weight.

For all the conspiracy theories, not one news outlet has come forward with evidence to support them. Although investigation reporting is a bit weak in Thailand, the UK news outlets here should be interested enough to have followed up.

So I guess to keep the conspiracy theories alive you have to add

The RTP

The leaders of Thailand

The leaders of the UK

The UK police

Every person on the island

The Thai media

The UK media

The HRC commissioner

The lawyer

All the friends of David and Hannah

The families of David and Hannah

The lab techs

The list goes on and on

Edited March 25, 2015 by jdinasia

[jdinasia]

jdinasia, are you still laughing out loud? I'm not.

I am laughing, but not at the crimes, just at the lengths people go to to blame anyone but the defendants.

BTW, of course it is the job of the press to do investigation. You should look up "the role of a free press "

Edited March 25, 2015 by jdinasia