Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[boomerangutang]

Circular thinking. People push a conspiracy theory on FB. It gets picked up but not investigated by the press. The police investigate. They clear him. People use the fact that he was investigated to suggest guilt, ignoring the clearance. The same conspiracy theorists claim that his family is so powerful that he is beyond being touched, ignoring the argument that he was investigated.

The above paragraph assumes the general public are as dumb as doornails. Similarly, it asserts that because Nomsod was supposedly investigated (a whimpy investigation at best) and cleared by RTP, that should end any speculation on his involvement. Anyone familiar with how RTP often operates re; crime investigations, will have to smirk at that assertion.

Just one example (among many). True story: Police get ahold of a rape suspect in Krabi, the day after he raped a farang woman. The raped woman identifies him. The rapist admits to the crime. Incriminating thus far, isn't it? Oh but wait. A few hours later, the rapist changes his story. RTP let him out the back door with a warning; "Don't rape anyone else. It's bad for our tourism image."

You still have not responded to the list of all the people who would have to be either part of your conspiracy theory, or complicite in it.

For the umpteenth time, only one or a few top brass would have to skew the data. They may not even have to do that much. All they'd have to do is make an announcement, "The DNA from the B2 matches the DNA found in Hannah." Everyone is obliged to believe it. That's not a conspiracy of thousands. That may be a belief by thousands, but the only conspiracy is the very few men at the top. Who is going to go over the heads of the top brass to scrutinize the DNA and announce the top brass are wrong? A junior officer? A reporter? You or me? ...get serious, and quit wasting our time. If it's proven that a top brass intentionally skewed the DNA, that's a criminal offense - or at least it should be - but this is Thailand, so all bets are off.

Not releasing key CCTV in this case should also be a criminal offense, but again, this is Thailand, so nothing will be done about it.

Your above argument suffers from a lack of internal logic. Named as a suspect and cleared shows that the family doesn't have the status you claim.

Does.

[JLCrab]

From the post above: That may be a belief by thousands, but the only conspiracy is the very few men at the top. Who is going to go over the heads of the top brass to scrutinize the DNA and announce the top brass are wrong? A junior officer? A reporter? You or me?

No -- the defense.

[rockingrobin]

The reasoning that a large number of people would be required to skew data is total rubbish,

Once you have a slight understanding of the mindset then it becomes clear, I will use an actual example from this case itself

According to Mon an employee helped to wash blood off Mcanna in the morning of the murders. The said employee was reluctant to speak to the police because they had ruled out an European

[boomerangutang]

From the post above: That may be a belief by thousands, but the only conspiracy is the very few men at the top. Who is going to go over the heads of the top brass to scrutinize the DNA and announce the top brass are wrong? A junior officer? A reporter? You or me?

No -- the defense.

Hopefully so. Yet the defense will have to deal with same top brass who publicly declared they would not share former prime suspect's DNA with the British Coroner's Office. Good luck to the defense for getting access to original/verifiable files and/or DNA typing. They're going to need it.

[thailandchilli]

Circular thinking. People push a conspiracy theory on FB. It gets picked up but not investigated by the press. The police investigate. They clear him. People use the fact that he was investigated to suggest guilt, ignoring the clearance.

The same conspiracy theorists claim that his family is so powerful that he is beyond being touched, ignoring the argument that he was investigated.

Here's my understanding of your circular thinking, it was the RTP who pushed the "conspiracy theory" (your words not mine) on the 24th Sept is the earliest one I can find without digging too deep:

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

Social Media or at least CSI did not mention the headmans son or any suspect until the first post on the 26th Sept. The only previous post to this regards the murders was a video of an interview where the official was speaking about the rights people have in Koh Tao to refuse to give a DNA sample

Csila mentioned him earlier.

Would you like to add some credibility to that or is that considered enough for you. A quote of what was mentioned about Nomsod, the date in the CSI LA timeline. Or is it the fact that the first post about Koh Tao was on the 26th Sept and so you can't actually back that statement up

Edited March 27, 2015 by thailandchilli

[greenchair]

It is quite possible that the defense may concentrate on disproving the evidence the prosecution puts forward against the 2 accused and never even mention that others may be responsible for the crimes for which their clients will be standing trial.

I expect that is exactly what they will do.

Hardly going to say " it wasn't me it was him", Are they bright brain ???

[JLCrab]

It is quite possible that the defense may concentrate on disproving the evidence the prosecution puts forward against the 2 accused and never even mention that others may be responsible for the crimes for which their clients will be standing trial.

I expect that is exactly what they will do.

Hardly going to say " it wasn't me it was him", Are they bright brain ???

That's right -- no Perry Mason.

[AleG]

I wonder if the twisted arguments by jdinasia and AleG are indicative of how the prosecution plans to play their cards at the trial - to influence the judge. Here's the pattern: A fact comes forth and the time-line (more so than the fact itself) is challenged vehemently. Some examples:

>>> Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police

>>> Nomsod evaded police for about a week

>>> Nomsod claims he was at class. But also claims he quit attending classes.

>>> Police are seeking the man in the CCTV video, who they think is Nomsod.

>>> Mon claims it was himself in the same CCTV, but the video shows a younger man's skinny body.

>>> Two weeks in to the investigation, it changed course 180 degrees. Two as yet unheard of men were implicated, and the prime suspects up to that moment, were fully excused without a second glance.

......and police echoers, when realizing they can't disprove such allegations, then then try to attack the time line. It's called diversion. It may work for the judges, but it won't work for those of us looking squarely at the evidence. And those of us not trying to excuse people from being suspects because of their family's status, wealth, and connections with police.

"......and police echoers, when realizing they can't disprove such allegations" No, it's not that, it's that you are in deep denial and every time your allegations are disproved, you just carry on as if nothing had happened.

>>> Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police

And then cleared, that's why they use the word "suspect", other people were named suspects, and also cleared. But you have an unhealthy obsession with Nomsod so you just can't let go.

>>> Nomsod evaded police for about a week

Already proved not to be true just a few pages ago, and you have the temerity to call this a "fact"

>>> Police are seeking the man in the CCTV video, who they think is Nomsod.

They were following allegations that it was him on the CCTV and then he was cleared by the police, but you don't want to believe that part.

>>> Mon claims it was himself in the same CCTV, but the video shows a younger man's skinny body.

You don't know what particular CCTV footage Mon was on.

>>> Two weeks in to the investigation, it changed course 180 degrees. Two as yet unheard of men were implicated, and the prime suspects up to that moment, were fully excused without a second glance.

They were not excused, they were cleared because there was, and there isn't, any evidence to keep them as suspects, and in the case of Nomsod because he wasn't on the island at all.

There, disproved; now do the usual number of sticking your fingers in your ears, shout "LALALA shielding the headman people!" and claim you are fighting for Truth and Justice.

[AleG]

No, because what I quoted happened before the police announced they were looking for the headman's son.

If you copy and paste your quote "I didn't think that "Thai Police Story" would analyze whether or not "Nom Sod" was on Koh Tao (Turtle Island) on the date of the murder just by looking at a post on Facebook would they?" into google it takes you to a post on csi dated 7th Oct well after the RTP made their statements on looking for Nomsod

And that post is in reference to earlier posts from September 22nd, which is before the police announced they were looking for the headman's son.

Your investigative powers are very lacking, you should leave that stuff to more capable people.

[thailandchilli]

No, because what I quoted happened before the police announced they were looking for the headman's son.

If you copy and paste your quote "I didn't think that "Thai Police Story" would analyze whether or not "Nom Sod" was on Koh Tao (Turtle Island) on the date of the murder just by looking at a post on Facebook would they?" into google it takes you to a post on csi dated 7th Oct well after the RTP made their statements on looking for Nomsod

And that post is in reference to earlier posts from September 22nd, which is before the police announced they were looking for the headman's son.

Your investigative powers are very lacking, you should leave that stuff to more capable people.

Well thats a direct contradiction of your statement. Now to back it up with some substance lets have this apparent quote from the 22nd Sept about Nomsod that is on the CSI timeline, I'm sure you can dig it out with your superior investigative skills

[rockingrobin]

Aleg

with regards Mon and the cctv, if I recall correctly in an earlier post you agreed it was Mon but added that it had to be taken in context

Edited March 27, 2015 by rockingrobin

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I wonder if the twisted arguments by jdinasia and AleG are indicative of how the prosecution plans to play their cards at the trial - to influence the judge. Here's the pattern: A fact comes forth and the time-line (more so than the fact itself) is challenged vehemently. Some examples:

>>> Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police

>>> Nomsod evaded police for about a week

>>> Nomsod claims he was at class. But also claims he quit attending classes.

>>> Police are seeking the man in the CCTV video, who they think is Nomsod.

>>> Mon claims it was himself in the same CCTV, but the video shows a younger man's skinny body.

>>> Two weeks in to the investigation, it changed course 180 degrees. Two as yet unheard of men were implicated, and the prime suspects up to that moment, were fully excused without a second glance.

......and police echoers, when realizing they can't disprove such allegations, then then try to attack the time line. It's called diversion. It may work for the judges, but it won't work for those of us looking squarely at the evidence. And those of us not trying to excuse people from being suspects because of their family's status, wealth, and connections with police.

"......and police echoers, when realizing they can't disprove such allegations" No, it's not that, it's that you are in deep denial and every time your allegations are disproved, you just carry on as if nothing had happened.

>>> Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police

And then cleared, that's why they use the word "suspect", other people were named suspects, and also cleared. But you have an unhealthy obsession with Nomsod so you just can't let go.

>>> Nomsod evaded police for about a week

Already proved not to be true just a few pages ago, and you have the temerity to call this a "fact"

>>> Police are seeking the man in the CCTV video, who they think is Nomsod.

They were following allegations that it was him on the CCTV and then he was cleared by the police, but you don't want to believe that part.

>>> Mon claims it was himself in the same CCTV, but the video shows a younger man's skinny body.

You don't know what particular CCTV footage Mon was on.

>>> Two weeks in to the investigation, it changed course 180 degrees. Two as yet unheard of men were implicated, and the prime suspects up to that moment, were fully excused without a second glance.

They were not excused, they were cleared because there was, and there isn't, any evidence to keep them as suspects, and in the case of Nomsod because he wasn't on the island at all.

There, disproved; now do the usual number of sticking your fingers in your ears, shout "LALALA shielding the headman people!" and claim you are fighting for Truth and Justice.

Well AleG, you're wrong again, right on down the line. We expect as much. Couldn't have been more wrong if it were Mon himself writing that post. Just one example, from above:

Boomerangutang claimed: "Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police"

AleG responded: "And then cleared, ...."

So, even when AleG can't avoid agreeing, he tries mightily to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

[AleG]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I wonder if the twisted arguments by jdinasia and AleG are indicative of how the prosecution plans to play their cards at the trial - to influence the judge. Here's the pattern: A fact comes forth and the time-line (more so than the fact itself) is challenged vehemently. Some examples:

>>> Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police

>>> Nomsod evaded police for about a week

>>> Nomsod claims he was at class. But also claims he quit attending classes.

>>> Police are seeking the man in the CCTV video, who they think is Nomsod.

>>> Mon claims it was himself in the same CCTV, but the video shows a younger man's skinny body.

>>> Two weeks in to the investigation, it changed course 180 degrees. Two as yet unheard of men were implicated, and the prime suspects up to that moment, were fully excused without a second glance.

......and police echoers, when realizing they can't disprove such allegations, then then try to attack the time line. It's called diversion. It may work for the judges, but it won't work for those of us looking squarely at the evidence. And those of us not trying to excuse people from being suspects because of their family's status, wealth, and connections with police.

"......and police echoers, when realizing they can't disprove such allegations" No, it's not that, it's that you are in deep denial and every time your allegations are disproved, you just carry on as if nothing had happened.

>>> Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police

And then cleared, that's why they use the word "suspect", other people were named suspects, and also cleared. But you have an unhealthy obsession with Nomsod so you just can't let go.

>>> Nomsod evaded police for about a week

Already proved not to be true just a few pages ago, and you have the temerity to call this a "fact"

>>> Police are seeking the man in the CCTV video, who they think is Nomsod.

They were following allegations that it was him on the CCTV and then he was cleared by the police, but you don't want to believe that part.

>>> Mon claims it was himself in the same CCTV, but the video shows a younger man's skinny body.

You don't know what particular CCTV footage Mon was on.

>>> Two weeks in to the investigation, it changed course 180 degrees. Two as yet unheard of men were implicated, and the prime suspects up to that moment, were fully excused without a second glance.

They were not excused, they were cleared because there was, and there isn't, any evidence to keep them as suspects, and in the case of Nomsod because he wasn't on the island at all.

There, disproved; now do the usual number of sticking your fingers in your ears, shout "LALALA shielding the headman people!" and claim you are fighting for Truth and Justice.

Well AleG, you're wrong again, right on down the line. We expect as much. Couldn't have been more wrong if it were Mon himself writing that post. Just one example, from above:

Boomerangutang claimed: "Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police"

AleG responded: "And then cleared, ...."

So, even when AleG can't avoid agreeing, he tries mightily to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

Sttomping your feet and going "you are wrong, wrong wrong" doesn't make it so.

You say your allegations can't / won't be disproved, one of those is that Nomsod was a suspect and you say it because you want that status to be maintained; he was a suspect, then cleared, therefore the allegation that he was a suspect has been disproved, his status as a suspect is gone, finished, kaput.

Obviously you can't handle that fact, therefore you cling on to those two or three days (not the whole week you falsely claim) when he was considered a suspect out of sheer existential necessity.

[AleG]

And that post is in reference to earlier posts from September 22nd, which is before the police announced they were looking for the headman's son.

Your investigative powers are very lacking, you should leave that stuff to more capable people.

Well thats a direct contradiction of your statement. Now to back it up with some substance lets have this apparent quote from the 22nd Sept about Nomsod that is on the CSI timeline, I'm sure you can dig it out with your superior investigative skills

No, it's not in direct contradiction to what I said, I said the events described in that quote (not the post itself) happened before Nomsod was sought by the police; the post you referred to on CSI LA has the screen capture to the posts done on the 22nd, right in front of your eyes and you didn't see it?

As I said, you are simply not good at it.

[AleG]

Aleg

with regards Mon and the cctv, if I recall correctly in an earlier post you agreed it was Mon but added that it had to be taken in context

No, I did not

I said that one source said something along the lines of "Mon admitted to being the man on the CCTV footage", that source didn't identify what footage in particular it was referring to, so saying "Mon admitted to being on this particular footage" is an unsupported assertion.

[boomerangutang]

You say your allegations can't / won't be disproved, one of those is that Nomsod was a suspect and you say it because you want that status to be maintained; he was a suspect, then cleared, therefore the allegation that he was a suspect has been disproved, his status as a suspect is gone, finished, kaput.

Obviously you can't handle that fact, therefore you cling on to those two or three days (not the whole week you falsely claim) when he was considered a suspect out of sheer existential necessity.

I said "Nomsod was a suspect." You say "Nomsod was a suspect" ...that sounds like an agreement, doesn't it?

Yet, you can't let it stay as a simple agreement of fact. Instead, you twist things around like you're making salt water tafee - in desperate attempts to try and shield him.

And that post is in reference to earlier posts from September 22nd, which is before the police announced they were looking for the headman's son.

Your investigative powers are very lacking, you should leave that stuff to more capable people.

Well thats a direct contradiction of your statement. Now to back it up with some substance lets have this apparent quote from the 22nd Sept about Nomsod that is on the CSI timeline, I'm sure you can dig it out with your superior investigative skills

No, it's not in direct contradiction to what I said, I said the events described in that quote (not the post itself) happened before Nomsod was sought by the police; the post you referred to on CSI LA has the screen capture to the posts done on the 22nd, right in front of your eyes and you didn't see it?

As I said, you are simply not good at it.

We get it. AleG can't disprove the allegations, so he tries tearing in to the time-line. Desperation.

[rockingrobin]

Aleg

with regards Mon and the cctv, if I recall correctly in an earlier post you agreed it was Mon but added that it had to be taken in context

No, I did not

I said that one source said something along the lines of "Mon admitted to being the man on the CCTV footage", that source didn't identify what footage in particular it was referring to, so saying "Mon admitted to being on this particular footage" is an unsupported assertion.

There was a detailed description of the man in the cctv when it was reported by the RTP that Mon was that person

When taking all reports starting from BP 21st september through to 25th september when Somyot declared Nomsod was not a suspect , I am of the opinion that some kind of subterfuge is being carried out

[berybert]

Right well Mon was cleared as he doesnt have a tattoo as per the picture of running man. despite him saying it was him !

Suddenly it all makes sense.

[AleG]

You say your allegations can't / won't be disproved, one of those is that Nomsod was a suspect and you say it because you want that status to be maintained; he was a suspect, then cleared, therefore the allegation that he was a suspect has been disproved, his status as a suspect is gone, finished, kaput.

Obviously you can't handle that fact, therefore you cling on to those two or three days (not the whole week you falsely claim) when he was considered a suspect out of sheer existential necessity.

I said "Nomsod was a suspect." You say "Nomsod was a suspect" ...that sounds like an agreement, doesn't it?

Yet, you can't let it stay as a simple agreement of fact. Instead, you twist things around like you're making salt water tafee - in desperate attempts to try and shield him.

We get it. AleG can't disprove the allegations, so he tries tearing in to the time-line. Desperation.

Well, you wouldn't like things like facts and timelines to get on the way of your conspiracies, would you?

"I said "Nomsod was a suspect." You say "Nomsod was a suspect" ...that sounds like an agreement, doesn't it?"

But it's not the only thing you said, is it? You said that the allegation was not/could not be disproved. Seems to me that you are trying to treat the mere existence of the statement "Nomsod was a suspect" itself as an allegation that can't be disproved, which is true because it's not an allegation, just as the existence of the statement "Boomerangutant is a spider" is not an allegation and can't be disproved, because it's written right there. In short, you are trying to play semantics and making a dog's breakfasts of it.

Now, the underlying allegation, his connection to the crimes and therefore his status as a suspect has already been disprove, he was cleared, he wasn't on the island, he is not a suspect anymore and repeating "but but but Nomsod was a suspect" (while deliberately ignoring that he was subsequently cleared, as did other suspects) over and over doesn't prove, elucidate or demonstrate anything; I mean, besides your obsession with the man and your complete disregard of any facts that don't fit in the narrative you want to believe in.

[balo]

I agree with AleG , he is one of the few people here who actually try to look at this case from both sides of the coin unlike many of you in here.

Edited March 27, 2015 by balo

[berybert]

I agree with AleG , he is one of the few people here who actually try to look at this case from both sides of the coin unlike many of you in here.

Really. There is a picture of someone running to or from the crime just before or just after it happened. Its isn't Mon or Nom or either of the Burmese.

So what side of the coin is he looking from when he is happy to ignore maybe the best piece of evidence anyone has seen regarding the crime ?

[boomerangutang]

Police are supposed to work for the safety of people in general, in their district, are they not? In some countries, police are not the lead investigators, because they're liable to be too subjective and not well-trained enough to be detectives. That's apparently not the situation in Thailand. But that's beside the point.

Since police are supposed to be looking out for the safety and well-being of citizens (who pay their salaries) and non-citizens, including tourists, then the next question is: are police at Ko Tao and the Surat Thani province doing that? Protecting locals and visitors would seem to entail doing everything reasonable to ensure that bad and harmful things don't happen. If a serious crime happens, then there's a likelihood some very bad people are still in the area. If that crime goes unpunished, or the wrong people are nailed as the perpetrators, then the real criminals are still 'at large' walking around freely. Not only that, it reinforces the criminals' knowledge that it's easy to get away with crime.

Here's how that applies to the KT crime of Sept 15, 2014: Although police will have the general public believe that they (the police) have the culprits in behind bars getting ready for trial - the vast majority of observers don't believe the policemen's story. Here's just one proof of that: Every time there was a news update on the KT crime in Thailand's major Eng.Lang newspaper, there would be dozens of online commentaries. Not one comment, I repeat, not one of those many comments were backing the police. Every one cast grave doubts. Here's another proof of the lack of support of police in this case: There are several online sites where regular people can comment on the crime investigation. Nearly every one of the tens of thousands of online comments (again from regular people observing the investigation) vary in attitude between serious doubts to outright indignation - about how the investigation is being handled.

I acknowledge that finding whether the two Burmese are guilty or not, should not be a popularity contest. It will ultimately have to rely on what the judges decide (and then likely go to legal appeals). Yet still, 'face' is important, particularly for Thais, and the Thai authorities involved with the the case are losing a lot of face, week by week.

If police are working for the people, they should leave no stone unturned in trying to find who the real criminals are in this case. By letting Mon and Nomsod off so easily, they prove they're not doing what they should. In other countries, even if a victim doesn't file charges against a criminal, the police may decide on their own to pursue the case. That's another example of police doing their duty. In Thailand, it's the other way around. Police are too eager to let local perps off the hook, because of the perps' social status or wealth or because the cops know the family of the accused, or the perp is himself a cop and/or connected to police. It may work to protect their friends and get added money in their wallets, but it doesn't help protect the public - and it certainly tarnishes RTP's image.

[fritzzz25]

I wonder if the twisted arguments by jdinasia and AleG are indicative of how the prosecution plans to play their cards at the trial - to influence the judge. Here's the pattern: A fact comes forth and the time-line (more so than the fact itself) is challenged vehemently. Some examples:

>>> Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police

>>> Nomsod evaded police for about a week

>>> Nomsod claims he was at class. But also claims he quit attending classes.

>>> Police are seeking the man in the CCTV video, who they think is Nomsod.

>>> Mon claims it was himself in the same CCTV, but the video shows a younger man's skinny body.

>>> Two weeks in to the investigation, it changed course 180 degrees. Two as yet unheard of men were implicated, and the prime suspects up to that moment, were fully excused without a second glance.

......and police echoers, when realizing they can't disprove such allegations, then then try to attack the time line. It's called diversion. It may work for the judges, but it won't work for those of us looking squarely at the evidence. And those of us not trying to excuse people from being suspects because of their family's status, wealth, and connections with police.

"......and police echoers, when realizing they can't disprove such allegations" No, it's not that, it's that you are in deep denial and every time your allegations are disproved, you just carry on as if nothing had happened.

>>> Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police

And then cleared, that's why they use the word "suspect", other people were named suspects, and also cleared. But you have an unhealthy obsession with Nomsod so you just can't let go.

>>> Nomsod evaded police for about a week

Already proved not to be true just a few pages ago, and you have the temerity to call this a "fact"

>>> Police are seeking the man in the CCTV video, who they think is Nomsod.

They were following allegations that it was him on the CCTV and then he was cleared by the police, but you don't want to believe that part.

>>> Mon claims it was himself in the same CCTV, but the video shows a younger man's skinny body.

You don't know what particular CCTV footage Mon was on.

>>> Two weeks in to the investigation, it changed course 180 degrees. Two as yet unheard of men were implicated, and the prime suspects up to that moment, were fully excused without a second glance.

They were not excused, they were cleared because there was, and there isn't, any evidence to keep them as suspects, and in the case of Nomsod because he wasn't on the island at all.

There, disproved; now do the usual number of sticking your fingers in your ears, shout "LALALA shielding the headman people!" and claim you are fighting for Truth and Justice.

Uhm, where was this proven? Did the court case commence and this was proven in the court? Or was this just "reported" somewhere, which then makes it "true"?

[boomerangutang]

I agree with AleG , he is one of the few people here who actually try to look at this case from both sides of the coin unlike many of you in here.

Really. There is a picture of someone running to or from the crime just before or just after it happened. Its isn't Mon or Nom or either of the Burmese. So what side of the coin is he looking from when he is happy to ignore maybe the best piece of evidence anyone has seen regarding the crime ?

That so-called 'running man' videos are very possibly some of the best evidence. You're right. However, who said it isn't Nomsod? For the first week of the investigation, the RTP were looking for Nomsod because they thought the CCTV showed him. Cops have never denied that the CCTV looks a lot like him. That CCTV footage certainly doesn't resemble either of the B2. It might resemble Mon, if Mon were half his age, much thinner, and as sprightly as a 21 year old.

I suspect the prosecution will try to do all they can to disallow those very important CCTV from being shown, just as they will want CCTV from the bars/beach area (if they exist) to continue to be suppressed. BTW, it's been alleged that the bar owners had CCTV in their bars, and they (including Mon) were buddies with the local guy who sold and installed CCTV there.

[AleG]

I agree with AleG , he is one of the few people here who actually try to look at this case from both sides of the coin unlike many of you in here.

Really. There is a picture of someone running to or from the crime just before or just after it happened. Its isn't Mon or Nom or either of the Burmese. So what side of the coin is he looking from when he is happy to ignore maybe the best piece of evidence anyone has seen regarding the crime ?

That so-called 'running man' videos are very possibly some of the best evidence. You're right. However, who said it isn't Nomsod? For the first week of the investigation, the RTP were looking for Nomsod because they thought the CCTV showed him. Cops have never denied that the CCTV looks a lot like him. That CCTV footage certainly doesn't resemble either of the B2. It might resemble Mon, if Mon were half his age, much thinner, and as sprightly as a 21 year old.

I suspect the prosecution will try to do all they can to disallow those very important CCTV from being shown, just as they will want CCTV from the bars/beach area (if they exist) to continue to be suppressed. BTW, it's been alleged that the bar owners had CCTV in their bars, and they (including Mon) were buddies with the local guy who sold and installed CCTV there.

The murders happened on September 14th, the police announced they were looking for Nomsod on the 23rd (and was cleared by the 25th); this: "For the first week of the investigation, the RTP were looking for Nomsod because they thought the CCTV showed him." is completely false.

No wonder you don't like timelines.

[AleG]

"......and police echoers, when realizing they can't disprove such allegations" No, it's not that, it's that you are in deep denial and every time your allegations are disproved, you just carry on as if nothing had happened.

>>> Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police

And then cleared, that's why they use the word "suspect", other people were named suspects, and also cleared. But you have an unhealthy obsession with Nomsod so you just can't let go.

>>> Nomsod evaded police for about a week

Already proved not to be true just a few pages ago, and you have the temerity to call this a "fact"

>>> Police are seeking the man in the CCTV video, who they think is Nomsod.

They were following allegations that it was him on the CCTV and then he was cleared by the police, but you don't want to believe that part.

>>> Mon claims it was himself in the same CCTV, but the video shows a younger man's skinny body.

You don't know what particular CCTV footage Mon was on.

>>> Two weeks in to the investigation, it changed course 180 degrees. Two as yet unheard of men were implicated, and the prime suspects up to that moment, were fully excused without a second glance.

They were not excused, they were cleared because there was, and there isn't, any evidence to keep them as suspects, and in the case of Nomsod because he wasn't on the island at all.

There, disproved; now do the usual number of sticking your fingers in your ears, shout "LALALA shielding the headman people!" and claim you are fighting for Truth and Justice.

Uhm, where was this proven? Did the court case commence and this was proven in the court? Or was this just "reported" somewhere, which then makes it "true"?

"The police have ruled out a son of Koh Tao village headman as a suspect in the murder of two British tourists after he has evidence to prove he was not on the island at the time the murder occurred."

[boomerangutang]

Here is an image which appears to show the 'running man' with an earring in his left ear. There was another image published within days of the crime, which showed the earring more evidently. Do any of the 'people of interest' wear an earring? It would have to been (pics or eyewitness) before the crime, because the earring would be chucked afterwards. . . . .

[JLCrab]

The only reason for the Prosecution to attempt to suppress any evidence is if the Defense motions to introduce it; whether you think that the Defense will attempt to introduce any such as evidence as above is up-to-you.

[fritzzz25]

"......and police echoers, when realizing they can't disprove such allegations" No, it's not that, it's that you are in deep denial and every time your allegations are disproved, you just carry on as if nothing had happened.

>>> Nomsod was named a prime suspect by police

And then cleared, that's why they use the word "suspect", other people were named suspects, and also cleared. But you have an unhealthy obsession with Nomsod so you just can't let go.

>>> Nomsod evaded police for about a week

Already proved not to be true just a few pages ago, and you have the temerity to call this a "fact"

>>> Police are seeking the man in the CCTV video, who they think is Nomsod.

They were following allegations that it was him on the CCTV and then he was cleared by the police, but you don't want to believe that part.

>>> Mon claims it was himself in the same CCTV, but the video shows a younger man's skinny body.

You don't know what particular CCTV footage Mon was on.

>>> Two weeks in to the investigation, it changed course 180 degrees. Two as yet unheard of men were implicated, and the prime suspects up to that moment, were fully excused without a second glance.

They were not excused, they were cleared because there was, and there isn't, any evidence to keep them as suspects, and in the case of Nomsod because he wasn't on the island at all.

There, disproved; now do the usual number of sticking your fingers in your ears, shout "LALALA shielding the headman people!" and claim you are fighting for Truth and Justice.

Uhm, where was this proven? Did the court case commence and this was proven in the court? Or was this just "reported" somewhere, which then makes it "true"?

"The police have ruled out a son of Koh Tao village headman as a suspect in the murder of two British tourists after he has evidence to prove he was not on the island at the time the murder occurred."

Who said that? Is there a copy of the police report available to prove this? If a media source reports it, does it make it true? Police have been known to release information like this to have suspects let their guard down, and then nab them.

Oh, that doesn't fit your agenda.

[AleG]

Here is an image which appears to show the 'running man' with an earring in his left ear. There was another image published within days of the crime, which showed the earring more evidently. Do any of the 'people of interest' wear an earring? It would have to been (pics or eyewitness) before the crime, because the earring would be chucked afterwards. . . . .

You can see an earring on that photo as much as you can identify Nomsod with it, that is to say, baloney.