Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[boomerangutang]

The murders happened on September 14th, ....No wonder you don't like timelines.

Wrong again AleG. The crime happened on the 15th.

"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."

You go ahead and believe that he's completely innocent if you so choose. Obviously, there is no evidence that I or anyone else can supply that will change that fixation. You can go and believe everything else the RTP announce is true also. While you're at it, believe the reenactment was realistic, and the heavy farang with the beard and the small Asian woman (shown as a couple on CCTV) are David and Hannah (as earlier reported by RTP).

[AleG]

The murders happened on September 14th, ....No wonder you don't like timelines.

Wrong again AleG. The crime happened on the 15th.

"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."

You go ahead and believe that he's completely innocent if you so choose. Obviously, there is no evidence that I or anyone else can supply that will change that fixation. You can go and believe everything else the RTP announce is true also. While you're at it, believe the reenactment was realistic, and the heavy farang with the beard and the small Asian woman (shown as a couple on CCTV) are David and Hannah (as earlier reported by RTP).

Yes, 15th, my bad.

The murders happened on September 15th, 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.

Better now? Are you going to face the issue of you making demonstrably false claims now or are you going to ignore it again?

"Obviously, there is no evidence that I or anyone else can supply that will change that fixation."

There is no evidence, period. If there was actual evidence you would have presented it.

[thailandchilli]

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.

And that post on the 22nd has absolutely nothing to do with Nomsod the headmans son so your claim is again false and based on nothing but your own imagination, if you want to make a claim I suggest in the future you actually back it up. Hint.. you will not find a post on CSI that refers to Nomsod before the RTP made their announcements. Your timeline is wrong accept it and move on

[AleG]

And that post on the 22nd has absolutely nothing to do with Nomsod the headmans son so your claim is again false and based on nothing but your own imagination, if you want to make a claim I suggest in the future you actually back it up. Hint.. you will not find a post on CSI that refers to Nomsod before the RTP made their announcements. Your timeline is wrong accept it and move on

"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?

Well, the reason is because "Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement that he was being threatened and bullied by the mafia. In many ways, this allowed Admin and people on CSI LA page to see the suspicious behavior and we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod"."

I put in bold the part you are trying to ignore.

It's clear to anyone not encumbered by an agenda that the speculation about Nomsod began before the police announced they were looking for him.

[thailandchilli]

And that post on the 22nd has absolutely nothing to do with Nomsod the headmans son so your claim is again false and based on nothing but your own imagination, if you want to make a claim I suggest in the future you actually back it up. Hint.. you will not find a post on CSI that refers to Nomsod before the RTP made their announcements. Your timeline is wrong accept it and move on

"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?

Well, the reason is because "Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement that he was being threatened and bullied by the mafia. In many ways, this allowed Admin and people on CSI LA page to see the suspicious behavior and we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod"."

I put in bold the part you are trying to ignore.

It's clear to anyone not encumbered by an agenda that the speculation about Nomsod began before the police announced they were looking for him.

No its not clear to anyone, apparently its clear to you but you make no quote to any post naming Nomsod on CSI before the RTP on the 23rd or 24th, until you do that no matter who the post is from then your claim is meaningless and derived from your own agenda

Edited March 28, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

"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?

Well, the reason is because "Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement that he was being threatened and bullied by the mafia. In many ways, this allowed Admin and people on CSI LA page to see the suspicious behavior and we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod"."

I put in bold the part you are trying to ignore.

It's clear to anyone not encumbered by an agenda that the speculation about Nomsod began before the police announced they were looking for him.

No its not clear to anyone, apparently its clear to you but you make no quote to any post naming Nomsod on CSI before the RTP on the 23rd or 24th, until you do that no matter who the post is from then your claim is meaningless and derived from your own agenda

"Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement "

Sean McAnna incident was on the 21st.

[thailandchilli]

"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?

Well, the reason is because "Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement that he was being threatened and bullied by the mafia. In many ways, this allowed Admin and people on CSI LA page to see the suspicious behavior and we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod"."

I put in bold the part you are trying to ignore.

It's clear to anyone not encumbered by an agenda that the speculation about Nomsod began before the police announced they were looking for him.

No its not clear to anyone, apparently its clear to you but you make no quote to any post naming Nomsod on CSI before the RTP on the 23rd or 24th, until you do that no matter who the post is from then your claim is meaningless and derived from your own agenda

"Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement "

Sean McAnna incident was on the 21st.

There you go again, back up your claim AleG, you claimed the speculation started about Nomsod on CSI before the RTP announced it on the 23rd or 24th. You made that claim not me, I want to see evidence of that claim not references to posts that contain nothing about it or references to posts on Sean or anything else, to back up that claim you need a reference to a post speculating about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI. Can you do that? No

[AleG]

There you go again, back up your claim AleG, you claimed the speculation started about Nomsod on CSI before the RTP announced it on the 23rd or 24th. You made that claim not me, I want to see evidence of that claim not references to posts that contain nothing about it or references to posts on Sean or anything else, to back up that claim you need a reference to a post speculating about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI. Can you do that? No

I already backed up what I said, and it's visible to anyone who wants to see it.

Of course you have an agenda to spin things a certain way, and that's also a claim I can back up: ThailandChill: 1545, invariably one sided, post exclusively (no exceptions) about the Koh Tao murders.

[thailandchilli]

There you go again, back up your claim AleG, you claimed the speculation started about Nomsod on CSI before the RTP announced it on the 23rd or 24th. You made that claim not me, I want to see evidence of that claim not references to posts that contain nothing about it or references to posts on Sean or anything else, to back up that claim you need a reference to a post speculating about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI. Can you do that? No

I already backed up what I said, and it's visible to anyone who wants to see it.

Of course you have an agenda to spin things a certain way, and that's also a claim I can back up: ThailandChill: 1545, invariably one sided, post exclusively (no exceptions) about the Koh Tao murders.

You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI as you claimed and now you attempt to go off topic and pull in unrelated posts to further attempt to deflect this fact, classic.

Edited March 28, 2015 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

There you go again, back up your claim AleG, you claimed the speculation started about Nomsod on CSI before the RTP announced it on the 23rd or 24th. You made that claim not me, I want to see evidence of that claim not references to posts that contain nothing about it or references to posts on Sean or anything else, to back up that claim you need a reference to a post speculating about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI. Can you do that? No

I already backed up what I said, and it's visible to anyone who wants to see it.

Of course you have an agenda to spin things a certain way, and that's also a claim I can back up: ThailandChill: 1545, invariably one sided, post exclusively (no exceptions) about the Koh Tao murders.

You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI as you claimed and now you attempt to go off topic and pull in unrelated posts to further attempt to deflect this fact, classic.

"You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI"

You keep repeating that, you keep ignoring this:

"Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement " That time being the 21st of September.

[PaPiPuPePo]

The defense should question Mon about where he was going on the morning of the crime when he climbed over the police tape.

That picture shows he had a purpose. He was heading towards something for a reason. He should tell us what the reason was.

Exactly. That very interesting photograph, of this guy stepping over police tape into a crime scene with no consequences, is one of many suspicious red flags that either indicate guilt or at least put the "B2 did it" conspiracy theory on thin ice.

If the B2 (or is it B3?) did it, they had to conspire, so claiming they did it together (on weak evidence) makes the members claiming so conspiracy theorists. And since they--or at least one--is posting 1000+ posts with the clear agenda of supporting this theory, they are just using social media to advance their conspiracy theory about the B2.

How hypocritical then to continuously level this accusation at others while doing the same thing. One more reason to ignore these people (if that causes anyone anxiety about losing the chance to engage in mind-numbingly pretzeled pseudo-debates, they're in no danger of going away).

[boomerangutang]

The defense should question Mon about where he was going on the morning of the crime when he climbed over the police tape.

That picture shows he had a purpose. He was heading towards something for a reason. He should tell us what the reason was.

Exactly. That very interesting photograph, of this guy stepping over police tape into a crime scene with no consequences, is one of many suspicious red flags that either indicate guilt or at least put the "B2 did it" conspiracy theory on thin ice.

Mon is buddies with local police. Anyone familiar with how thing happen in Thailand, knows that if a person is buddies with police, that person has an added layer of teflon regarding avoiding getting in to legal trouble.

I knew a farang who had a biz card from the chief of police with a scribble of a signature. Whenever the farang got pulled over in his car for doing something illegal, all he had to do was smile at the attending cop and wave the dog-eared card. No problem. A salute and a smile from the cop, and the farang was on his merry way down the hwy.

Remember that photo of all the stern (most of them uniformed) men standing menacingly around the B2, while the B2 (with crash helmets) were bowing down asking forgiveness from Buddha for their crimes? Some of the men in that photo had fists clenched. In the 2nd row, on the left of center, Mon's face can be seen, as one of the condemning men.

Edited March 28, 2015 by boomerangutang

[thailandchilli]

There you go again, back up your claim AleG, you claimed the speculation started about Nomsod on CSI before the RTP announced it on the 23rd or 24th. You made that claim not me, I want to see evidence of that claim not references to posts that contain nothing about it or references to posts on Sean or anything else, to back up that claim you need a reference to a post speculating about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI. Can you do that? No

I already backed up what I said, and it's visible to anyone who wants to see it.

Of course you have an agenda to spin things a certain way, and that's also a claim I can back up: ThailandChill: 1545, invariably one sided, post exclusively (no exceptions) about the Koh Tao murders.

You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI as you claimed and now you attempt to go off topic and pull in unrelated posts to further attempt to deflect this fact, classic.

"You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI"

You keep repeating that, you keep ignoring this:

"Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement " That time being the 21st of September.

If you want to make claims please reference "Nomsods" post otherwise that again is meaningless.

What I care about is your claim that speculation on Nomsod started on CSI before the the RTP announced they were looking for him. You made that claim AleG & if you want it to be credible, reference an actual post that was made before that date where it mentions this. Its simple right

Edited March 28, 2015 by thailandchilli

[berybert]

There you go again, back up your claim AleG, you claimed the speculation started about Nomsod on CSI before the RTP announced it on the 23rd or 24th. You made that claim not me, I want to see evidence of that claim not references to posts that contain nothing about it or references to posts on Sean or anything else, to back up that claim you need a reference to a post speculating about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI. Can you do that? No

I already backed up what I said, and it's visible to anyone who wants to see it.

Of course you have an agenda to spin things a certain way, and that's also a claim I can back up: ThailandChill: 1545, invariably one sided, post exclusively (no exceptions) about the Koh Tao murders.

You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI as you claimed and now you attempt to go off topic and pull in unrelated posts to further attempt to deflect this fact, classic.

"You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI"

You keep repeating that, you keep ignoring this:

"Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement " That time being the 21st of September.

TC once you realize Nom commented on and Nom was commented on, despite being two entirely different things, mean the same thing. You too can join the twilight world.

[thailandchilli]

You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI as you claimed and now you attempt to go off topic and pull in unrelated posts to further attempt to deflect this fact, classic.

"You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI"

You keep repeating that, you keep ignoring this:

"Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement " That time being the 21st of September.

TC once you realize Nom commented on and Nom was commented on, despite being two entirely different things, mean the same thing. You too can join the twilight world.

Yes, your right, I'm bowing out of this particular discussion with AleG now its become boring.

[jdinasia]

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.

The top brass?

You

Me

The techs

The Thai government

The UK government

The UK police

The families and friends of David

The families and friends of Hannah

The witnesses (60) for the prosecution

The UK press plus the AFP CNN al jazeera etc

The Thai press

Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

All have to either be in on your conspiracy theory or are complicite in it.

You claiming only a few doesn't make it true.

All have to

[AleG]

"You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI"

You keep repeating that, you keep ignoring this:

"Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement " That time being the 21st of September.

If you want to make claims please reference "Nomsods" post otherwise that again is meaningless.

What I care about is your claim that speculation on Nomsod started on CSI before the the RTP announced they were looking for him. You made that claim AleG & if you want it to be credible, reference an actual post that was made before that date where it mentions this. Its simple right

Nomsod emerged as a suspect out of social media speculation:

"Pol Gen Somyot acknowledged that the investigation did not move as quickly as people had hoped, but blamed delays on social media, saying officers were forced to respond to demands to investigate Koh Tao's influential "mafia" figures. Valuable time, he said, was wasted on responding to "misunderstandings" on social media that, if ignored, would have made police look guilty of a cover-up.

However, all the claims made online turned out to be groundless after police had investigated them, he said."

[berybert]

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.

The top brass?

You

Me

The techs

The Thai government

The UK government

The UK police

The families and friends of David

The families and friends of Hannah

The witnesses (60) for the prosecution

The UK press plus the AFP CNN al jazeera etc

The Thai press

Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

All have to either be in on your conspiracy theory or are complicite in it.

You claiming only a few doesn't make it true.

All have to

How do you know what David and Hannah's friends think about the case

They haven't gone running to the press out of respect of their friends and their friends family.

You know nothing about what they will say when the case starts and may even be part of the defense teams witnesses.

Just another of these lines you run by us where you say something so it must be true.

<snip>

Edited March 28, 2015 by Jai Dee
flame deleted

[PaPiPuPePo]

Sorry Boomerangutang,

A conspiracy theory relies on a shadowed powerful group manipulating things from the dark. This is what you ascribe to.

A conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime.

Scientific American has a few great articles on conspiracy theorists and how to look for a conspiracy theory versus an actual conspiracy.

Well worth a read

Please we're adults on here and are all aware of what the meanings of conspiracy and conspiracy theory are and the numerous situations and interpretations that they can be applied to as defined in any dictionary. For instance a conspiracy does not necessarily mean an agreement to commit crime it can be applied to many situations such as a conspiracy of silence, a conspiracy to take over a company, a conspiracy to hide the truth.

A conspiracy theory similarly can be applied to many situations such as:

"a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group"

We can both cherry pick whatever suits our particular agenda but is it really a worthwhile cause to debate such an irrelevant aspect of this case or use those phrases constantly to try and put down an opposing view.

All of the articles linked-to above are from one writer. Just because he is published by SA doesn't make him right (see "appeal to authority" as a rhetorical ploy, it's one this JD guy uses often). If you read the comments to these articles he's written you'll come across numerous arguments countering his points (so I won't repeat them here--they're "well worth a read.").

The belief that UFO visit us are labelled conspiracy theories. That JFK wasn't killed by a lone gunman is called a conspiracy theory. That the WTC buildings weren't the first and only buildings of their type to fall down after being hit by an airliner (which they were designed to easily withstand) and pancake in free fall, but were brought down, is called a conspiracy theory. That WTC7 was in fact "pulled" unnecessarily by the man who stood to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars by losing these three buildings, is called a conspiracy theory. Point is, the amount of credibility and consistency with fact of these "theories" can vary greatly, and at times be greater than the official stories (like Oswald's superhuman speed and accuracy with an old, $20 mail-order bolt-action rifle, and his ability to descend 5 flights in 90 seconds and position himself at a table drinking coffee and then calmly talk to a cop, like the "magic bullet," like the odd ordered stand-down of agents on the back of JFK's limo right before he was shot--and so on). Let's not even start with 9/11.

Thin ice to skate on branding the other story about the KT murders a "conspiracy theory" when there's so much evidence to the contrary, not that the OP gives a &lt;deleted&gt;.

[thailandchilli]

"You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI"

You keep repeating that, you keep ignoring this:

"Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement " That time being the 21st of September.

If you want to make claims please reference "Nomsods" post otherwise that again is meaningless.

What I care about is your claim that speculation on Nomsod started on CSI before the the RTP announced they were looking for him. You made that claim AleG & if you want it to be credible, reference an actual post that was made before that date where it mentions this. Its simple right

Nomsod emerged as a suspect out of social media speculation:

"Pol Gen Somyot acknowledged that the investigation did not move as quickly as people had hoped, but blamed delays on social media, saying officers were forced to respond to demands to investigate Koh Tao's influential "mafia" figures. Valuable time, he said, was wasted on responding to "misunderstandings" on social media that, if ignored, would have made police look guilty of a cover-up.

However, all the claims made online turned out to be groundless after police had investigated them, he said."

Still waiting....................a news report in Oct just does nothing to add credibility to your claims of these posts on CSI before 23rd Sept

If you want to make claims please reference "Nomsods" post otherwise that again is meaningless.

What I care about is your claim that speculation on Nomsod started on CSI before the the RTP announced they were looking for him. You made that claim AleG & if you want it to be credible, reference an actual post that was made before that date where it mentions this. Its simple right

Edited March 28, 2015 by thailandchilli

[z42]

"You've deflected in every singe post on this thread the fact that you cannot produce one single post that speculates about Nomsod before the 23rd Sept on CSI"

You keep repeating that, you keep ignoring this:

"Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement " That time being the 21st of September.

If you want to make claims please reference "Nomsods" post otherwise that again is meaningless.

What I care about is your claim that speculation on Nomsod started on CSI before the the RTP announced they were looking for him. You made that claim AleG & if you want it to be credible, reference an actual post that was made before that date where it mentions this. Its simple right

Nomsod emerged as a suspect out of social media speculation:

"Pol Gen Somyot acknowledged that the investigation did not move as quickly as people had hoped, but blamed delays on social media, saying officers were forced to respond to demands to investigate Koh Tao's influential "mafia" figures. Valuable time, he said, was wasted on responding to "misunderstandings" on social media that, if ignored, would have made police look guilty of a cover-up.

However, all the claims made online turned out to be groundless after police had investigated them, hAhhhhe said."

Ahhh that uber truthful, uber diligent white knight detective Somyot made a statement clarifying it all. So it becomes a fact then does it. Yeah of course it does. Don't think i've seen a man in uniform anywhere as seemingly bent as this guy.

He is a lackey for those higher up the chain and seemingly those who know those folks higher up the chain. I'm sorry aleg but the red flags pulled up by social media haven't been addressed in any meaningful, transparent way. A 3rd party police force was effectively sidelined when it could have corroborated evidence, boosting the case and shutting up doubters. But no all we hear are constant denials of any malpractice in the investigation & the undoubted credibility of the evidence gathered..

And incidentally what did you make of the reenactment? It was a complete farce imo. And the fact these burmese lads are toast already just makes it worse. The prosecution has 20 witnesses apparently, i wonder what they're gonna say about the murders because I doubt they will have witnessed anything given the estimated time the crime took place

[Jai Dee]

A couple of personal attacks (flames) have been removed from this thread.

A reminder to all from the Forum Rules:

Posting Content & General Conduct

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[PaPiPuPePo]

Exactly. That very interesting photograph, of this guy stepping over police tape into a crime scene with no consequences, is one of many suspicious red flags that either indicate guilt or at least put the "B2 did it" conspiracy theory on thin ice.

Mon is buddies with local police. Anyone familiar with how thing happen in Thailand, knows that if a person is buddies with police, that person has an added layer of teflon regarding avoiding getting in to legal trouble.

I knew a farang who had a biz card from the chief of police with a scribble of a signature. Whenever the farang got pulled over in his car for doing something illegal, all he had to do was smile at the attending cop and wave the dog-eared card. No problem. A salute and a smile from the cop, and the farang was on his merry way down the hwy.

Remember that photo of all the stern (most of them uniformed) men standing menacingly around the B2, while the B2 (with crash helmets) were bowing down asking forgiveness from Buddha for their crimes? Some of the men in that photo had fists clenched. In the 2nd row, on the left of center, Mon's face can be seen, as one of the condemning men.

Sure, that's pretty common knowledge (and I have my own collection of name cards, they can indeed come in handy :-)). I was speaking however to the questions this action and others raise about his (people's) involvement.

Edited March 28, 2015 by PaPiPuPePo

[Jai Dee]

More posts containing petty bickering have been removed from this thread.

PUBLIC WARNING

Any more baiting and bickering will result in posting suspensions for the offenders, and this topic will be closed.

Please behave and be civil to each other.

[jdinasia]

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.

The top brass?

You

Me

The techs

The Thai government

The UK government

The UK police

The families and friends of David

The families and friends of Hannah

The witnesses (60) for the prosecution

The UK press plus the AFP CNN al jazeera etc

The Thai press

Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

All have to either be in on your conspiracy theory or are complicite in it.

You claiming only a few doesn't make it true.

All have to

How do you know what David and Hannah's friends think about the case

They haven't gone running to the press out of respect of their friends and their friends family.

You know nothing about what they will say when the case starts and may even be part of the defense teams witnesses.

Just another of these lines you run by us where you say something so it must be true.

<snip>

If you are pushing that this is a conspiracy to scapegoat the 2 Burmese defendants, the silence is meaningful.

Not one word of any of the tripe trotted out by the conspiracy theorists. Nothing about a conflict during the night before. Not one word about the person some of the posters here are intent on blaming being present on the island. Nothing from the friends at all.

The family however has spoken, asking the conspiracy theorists to stop with the speculation. They did this through the FCO. Meaning....

[thailandchilli]

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.

The top brass?

You

Me

The techs

The Thai government

The UK government

The UK police

The families and friends of David

The families and friends of Hannah

The witnesses (60) for the prosecution

The UK press plus the AFP CNN al jazeera etc

The Thai press

Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

All have to either be in on your conspiracy theory or are complicite in it.

You claiming only a few doesn't make it true.

All have to

How do you know what David and Hannah's friends think about the case

They haven't gone running to the press out of respect of their friends and their friends family.

You know nothing about what they will say when the case starts and may even be part of the defense teams witnesses.

Just another of these lines you run by us where you say something so it must be true.

<snip>

If you are pushing that this is a conspiracy to scapegoat the 2 Burmese defendants, the silence is meaningful.

Not one word of any of the tripe trotted out by the conspiracy theorists. Nothing about a conflict during the night before. Not one word about the person some of the posters here are intent on blaming being present on the island. Nothing from the friends at all.

The family however has spoken, asking the conspiracy theorists to stop with the speculation. They did this through the FCO. Meaning....

Lets keep this balanced shall we, the FCO have raised their concerns in the strongest terms possible (while keeping within diplomatic relations) about this case, corruption, unverified DNA, abuse of suspects have all be mentioned by them along with the need to investigate those allegations.

The UK police statement after they had actually seen the evidence which none of us has, was that what they were shown was confusing and contradictory.

[berybert]

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.

The top brass?

You

Me

The techs

The Thai government

The UK government

The UK police

The families and friends of David

The families and friends of Hannah

The witnesses (60) for the prosecution

The UK press plus the AFP CNN al jazeera etc

The Thai press

Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

All have to either be in on your conspiracy theory or are complicite in it.

You claiming only a few doesn't make it true.

All have to

How do you know what David and Hannah's friends think about the case

They haven't gone running to the press out of respect of their friends and their friends family.

You know nothing about what they will say when the case starts and may even be part of the defense teams witnesses.

Just another of these lines you run by us where you say something so it must be true.

<snip>

If you are pushing that this is a conspiracy to scapegoat the 2 Burmese defendants, the silence is meaningful.

Not one word of any of the tripe trotted out by the conspiracy theorists. Nothing about a conflict during the night before. Not one word about the person some of the posters here are intent on blaming being present on the island. Nothing from the friends at all.

The family however has spoken, asking the conspiracy theorists to stop with the speculation. They did this through the FCO. Meaning....

So you associating silence with guilt ? Can you point out one single piece of information where by Hannah or David's friends who were on the island with them at the time have pointed the finger at the Burmese ? Don't take to long.

[jdinasia]

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.

The top brass?

You

Me

The techs

The Thai government

The UK government

The UK police

The families and friends of David

The families and friends of Hannah

The witnesses (60) for the prosecution

The UK press plus the AFP CNN al jazeera etc

The Thai press

Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

All have to either be in on your conspiracy theory or are complicite in it.

You claiming only a few doesn't make it true.

All have to

How do you know what David and Hannah's friends think about the case

They haven't gone running to the press out of respect of their friends and their friends family.

You know nothing about what they will say when the case starts and may even be part of the defense teams witnesses.

Just another of these lines you run by us where you say something so it must be true.

<snip>

If you are pushing that this is a conspiracy to scapegoat the 2 Burmese defendants, the silence is meaningful.

Not one word of any of the tripe trotted out by the conspiracy theorists. Nothing about a conflict during the night before. Not one word about the person some of the posters here are intent on blaming being present on the island. Nothing from the friends at all.

The family however has spoken, asking the conspiracy theorists to stop with the speculation. They did this through the FCO. Meaning....

So you associating silence with guilt ? Can you point out one single piece of information where by Hannah or David's friends who were on the island with them at the time have pointed the finger at the Burmese ? Don't take to long.

Nope I am saying that for the conspiracy theory to hold water, that silence implies complicitly. The same doesn't apply for the case not to be a conspiracy to scapegoat the 2 Burmese defendants.

[jdinasia]

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.

The top brass?

You

Me

The techs

The Thai government

The UK government

The UK police

The families and friends of David

The families and friends of Hannah

The witnesses (60) for the prosecution

The UK press plus the AFP CNN al jazeera etc

The Thai press

Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

All have to either be in on your conspiracy theory or are complicite in it.

You claiming only a few doesn't make it true.

All have to

How do you know what David and Hannah's friends think about the case

They haven't gone running to the press out of respect of their friends and their friends family.

You know nothing about what they will say when the case starts and may even be part of the defense teams witnesses.

Just another of these lines you run by us where you say something so it must be true.

<snip>

If you are pushing that this is a conspiracy to scapegoat the 2 Burmese defendants, the silence is meaningful.

Not one word of any of the tripe trotted out by the conspiracy theorists. Nothing about a conflict during the night before. Not one word about the person some of the posters here are intent on blaming being present on the island. Nothing from the friends at all.

The family however has spoken, asking the conspiracy theorists to stop with the speculation. They did this through the FCO. Meaning....

Lets keep this balanced shall we, the FCO have raised their concerns in the strongest terms possible (while keeping within diplomatic relations) about this case, corruption, unverified DNA, abuse of suspects have all be mentioned by them along with the need to investigate those allegations.

The UK police statement after they had actually seen the evidence which none of us has, was that what they were shown was confusing and contradictory.

Let's stay balanced, " strongest terms possible" is your characterization.

[thailandchilli]

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.

The top brass?

You

Me

The techs

The Thai government

The UK government

The UK police

The families and friends of David

The families and friends of Hannah

The witnesses (60) for the prosecution

The UK press plus the AFP CNN al jazeera etc

The Thai press

Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

All have to either be in on your conspiracy theory or are complicite in it.

You claiming only a few doesn't make it true.

All have to

How do you know what David and Hannah's friends think about the case

They haven't gone running to the press out of respect of their friends and their friends family.

You know nothing about what they will say when the case starts and may even be part of the defense teams witnesses.

Just another of these lines you run by us where you say something so it must be true.

<snip>

If you are pushing that this is a conspiracy to scapegoat the 2 Burmese defendants, the silence is meaningful.

Not one word of any of the tripe trotted out by the conspiracy theorists. Nothing about a conflict during the night before. Not one word about the person some of the posters here are intent on blaming being present on the island. Nothing from the friends at all.

The family however has spoken, asking the conspiracy theorists to stop with the speculation. They did this through the FCO. Meaning....

Lets keep this balanced shall we, the FCO have raised their concerns in the strongest terms possible (while keeping within diplomatic relations) about this case, corruption, unverified DNA, abuse of suspects have all be mentioned by them along with the need to investigate those allegations.

The UK police statement after they had actually seen the evidence which none of us has, was that what they were shown was confusing and contradictory.

Let's stay balanced, " strongest terms possible" is your characterization.

Keeping within diplomatic relations yes, expressing serious concerns of corruption, expressing concerns at the lack of independent DNA evidence, expressing concerns at the mistreatment of the suspects, is pretty strong terms in my opinion.