This would appear to have become an issue where a group of posters have become labeled as conspiracy theorists in an attempt to dismiss or ridicule there view , in a similar way to how one would perceive a cult.

However what history shows us that there have been a number of real conspiracies and that these real conspiracies usually involve at least 4 distinctive attributes

Not isolated individuals

illegal aims

Does not benefit society as a whole

Orchestrated acts

Does the above satisfy the Khao Tao case ,

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

"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."

Isn't it one of the TV rules that links have to be provided?

"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."

Isn't it one of the TV rules that links have to be provided?

Click on the blue print, it is a link!

Click on the blue print, it is a link!

The link provided does not say Nomsod was a suspect due to social media, you are just pedalling a conspiracy theory that social media was responsible, when it has been clearly stated that it was the RTP who claimed he had fled and was caught on cctv

Click on the blue print, it is a link!

The link provided does not say Nomsod was a suspect due to social media, you are just pedalling a conspiracy theory that social media was responsible, when it has been clearly stated that it was the RTP who claimed he had fled and was caught on cctv

The link says exactly what is in the blue font.

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

Here we go again. If some of Pizarro's conquistadores come back from the Inca Empire and claim there are dragons there, everyone in Spain who believes their story is not a fellow-conspirator. They're believers. There's a difference between believers and conspirators.

If top brass say there's a DNA match, then everyone is compelled to believe it. Who's going to do independent verification of DNA? You, me, your doctor? A lowly officer in the RTP? Those of us seeking truth and justice were hoping the Brit Coroner would pipe up, but thus far she's been tighter than a submarine hatch. Even if the Brits wanted to do any comparison, they can't, because Thai officials won't share DNA data. So all anybody has to go by is the sterling word of the Mon's buddies, ....the top brass at Ko Tao.

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

Here we go again. If some of Pizarro's conquistadores come back from the Inca Empire and claim there are dragons there, everyone in Spain who believes their story is not a fellow-conspirator. They're believers. There's a difference between believers and conspirators.

If top brass say there's a DNA match, then everyone is compelled to believe it. Who's going to do independent verification of DNA? You, me, your doctor? A lowly officer in the RTP? Those of us seeking truth and justice were hoping the Brit Coroner would pipe up, but thus far she's been tighter than a submarine hatch. Even if the Brits wanted to do any comparison, they can't, because Thai officials won't share DNA data. So all anybody has to go by is the sterling word of the Mon's buddies, ....the top brass at Ko Tao.

"If top brass say there's a DNA match, then everyone is compelled to believe it."

Just because it suits you well to think of Thai people as unthinking, amoral drones and will blindly follow what the... "Koh Tao top brass" tell them, doesn't make it so.

All your arguments boil down to your prejudices, nothing more, nothing less.

As for this: "Those of us seeking truth and justice"

Again, just because you say so it doesn't become true, and I have an easy test to prove it.

"For the first week of the investigation, the RTP were looking for Nomsod because they thought the CCTV showed him."

Is that the truth or not?

Click on the blue print, it is a link!

The link provided does not say Nomsod was a suspect due to social media, you are just pedalling a conspiracy theory that social media was responsible, when it has been clearly stated that it was the RTP who claimed he had fled and was caught on cctv

The link says exactly what is in the blue font.

Again

There is nothing substantial in the quote, the reader is left to speculate on what the subject of the quote is about, there is no mention of who the influential " mafia " are or Nomsods name, or in fact which social media they are on about

Over 11k GBP now raised for Hannah's family to attend the trial in July, great achievement, lets hope they get to see a fair and transparent trial http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-32022526

BBC 23rd March

Click on the blue print, it is a link!

The link provided does not say Nomsod was a suspect due to social media, you are just pedalling a conspiracy theory that social media was responsible, when it has been clearly stated that it was the RTP who claimed he had fled and was caught on cctv

The link says exactly what is in the blue font.

Again

There is nothing substantial in the quote, the reader is left to speculate on what the subject of the quote is about, there is no mention of who the influential " mafia " are or Nomsods name, or in fact which social media they are on about

Deflection

Over 11k GBP now raised for Hannah's family to attend the trial in July, great achievement, lets hope they get to see a fair and transparent trial http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-32022526

BBC 23rd March

Good to hear that they will be able to attend.

It could be frustrating for the victims' families if they attend court proceedings. There will be at least 3 different languages - Thai mostly, of course. It's doubtful they will be allowed interpreters in court. Unless interpreters are seated in soundproof glass-enclosed booths, they will be disturbing to proceedings.

It could be frustrating for the victims' families if they attend court proceedings. There will be at least 3 different languages - Thai mostly, of course. It's doubtful they will be allowed interpreters in court. Unless interpreters are seated in soundproof glass-enclosed booths, they will be disturbing to proceedings.

You may want to check with the International Affairs Division of the courts before making such a pronouncement.

It could be frustrating for the victims' families if they attend court proceedings. There will be at least 3 different languages - Thai mostly, of course. It's doubtful they will be allowed interpreters in court. Unless interpreters are seated in soundproof glass-enclosed booths, they will be disturbing to proceedings.

Its not going to be easy for anybody to keep up with, the families of the victims, suspects, observers and reporters. Here's a fairly good first hand account of the judge's actions in the B2 court case on the 26th Dec written by this poster http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/user/147580-slesq/

Enter the courtroom, posted start time 9:00 am. Empty. Inquired a nearby gentleman as to the true location or time of the trial, he asks the guard. Reply, maybe around 10-ish, but I do have the right room. Turns out he’s part of the prosecution team. Soon, there are three westerners inside, one is me. The others ask of my involvement. Casual, concern, my reply. They are advocates, the man in support, the woman on watch for human rights. Enter one Thai advocate lawyer, the wife of the foreigner man.

A judge in these courts has quite the duty-laden job, it seems. Much of the day for all is spent watching the judge discussing, questioning, receiving testimony, then filing through mounds of information and speaking into a recorder, occasionally, and re-playing it to listen, then passing on these now-official trial records to a headphoned person who sits off to the side with a monitor and types out the official transcriptions, while another assistant hands finished documents back to the judge.

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

One of the people social media has hurt was the copper who shot dead a biker. Without social media he would have got away clean as a whistle.

As I have said before you are happy for people to get away with murder. Damn social media.

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

One of the people social media has hurt was the copper who shot dead a biker. Without social media he would have got away clean as a whistle.

As I have said before you are happy for people to get away with murder. Damn social media.

And without social media Hannahs phone would be proof of the theory of entanglement,

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

One of the people social media has hurt was the copper who shot dead a biker. Without social media he would have got away clean as a whistle.

As I have said before you are happy for people to get away with murder. Damn social media.

It was the family of the man that requested a second autopsy and that proved the man was shot, plus witnesses that saw the shooting... and a video of the incident. In short, real evidence as opposed inbred theories with no factual basis whatsoever.

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

One of the people social media has hurt was the copper who shot dead a biker. Without social media he would have got away clean as a whistle.

As I have said before you are happy for people to get away with murder. Damn social media.

It was the family of the man that requested a second autopsy and that proved the man was shot, plus witnesses that saw the shooting... and a video of the incident. In short, real evidence as opposed inbred theories with no factual basis whatsoever.

Do you understand social media ? Doesn't matter who saw what, without it being filmed it would have been accepted that the biker died after falling from his bike. or someone else had shot him. That was the RTP story. If not for social media you would be calling anyone who said the copper shot him a conspiracy theorist.

Try to understand social media leads to the truth.

<snip>

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

One of the people social media has hurt was the copper who shot dead a biker. Without social media he would have got away clean as a whistle.

As I have said before you are happy for people to get away with murder. Damn social media.

Non Sequitur

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

One of the people social media has hurt was the copper who shot dead a biker. Without social media he would have got away clean as a whistle.

As I have said before you are happy for people to get away with murder. Damn social media.

It was the family of the man that requested a second autopsy and that proved the man was shot, plus witnesses that saw the shooting... and a video of the incident. In short, real evidence as opposed inbred theories with no factual basis whatsoever.

Truth is painful for some people.

I am still waiting for people to admit, after so many links to prove it, that Panya cleared previous suspects prior to his promotion.

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

One of the people social media has hurt was the copper who shot dead a biker. Without social media he would have got away clean as a whistle.

As I have said before you are happy for people to get away with murder. Damn social media.

It was the family of the man that requested a second autopsy and that proved the man was shot, plus witnesses that saw the shooting... and a video of the incident. In short, real evidence as opposed inbred theories with no factual basis whatsoever.

Truth is painful for some people.

I am still waiting for people to admit, after so many links to prove it, that Panya cleared previous suspects prior to his promotion.

Why are you bored already on the replies to your original post warning of the perils of Social media.

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

One of the people social media has hurt was the copper who shot dead a biker. Without social media he would have got away clean as a whistle.

As I have said before you are happy for people to get away with murder. Damn social media.

It was the family of the man that requested a second autopsy and that proved the man was shot, plus witnesses that saw the shooting... and a video of the incident. In short, real evidence as opposed inbred theories with no factual basis whatsoever.

Truth is painful for some people.

I am still waiting for people to admit, after so many links to prove it, that Panya cleared previous suspects prior to his promotion.

Why are you bored already on the replies to your original post warning of the perils of Social media.

Nope AleG covered that

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

One of the people social media has hurt was the copper who shot dead a biker. Without social media he would have got away clean as a whistle.

As I have said before you are happy for people to get away with murder. Damn social media.

It was the family of the man that requested a second autopsy and that proved the man was shot, plus witnesses that saw the shooting... and a video of the incident. In short, real evidence as opposed inbred theories with no factual basis whatsoever.

Truth is painful for some people.

I am still waiting for people to admit, after so many links to prove it, that Panya cleared previous suspects prior to his promotion.

Why are you bored already on the replies to your original post warning of the perils of Social media.

Nope AleG covered that

Let me also cover an example of the misuse of the draconian laws particularly CCA that you mentioned in your post

From today's thread In the Thailand news section.

"The social media, having hurt many innocent people with its knee-jerk reaction , must exercise its power with a greater responsibility. Responsibility is the key for everyone involved.

In an era where what is said or written can go viral in the blink of an eye and is much harder to retract or erase, prudence is required more than ever before. While punishment can be decried as harsh, those at the wrong end of defamation can bemoan a scar that lasts virtually forever."

This doesn't even take the CCA into account.

One of the people social media has hurt was the copper who shot dead a biker. Without social media he would have got away clean as a whistle.

As I have said before you are happy for people to get away with murder. Damn social media.

It was the family of the man that requested a second autopsy and that proved the man was shot, plus witnesses that saw the shooting... and a video of the incident. In short, real evidence as opposed inbred theories with no factual basis whatsoever.

Truth is painful for some people.

I am still waiting for people to admit, after so many links to prove it, that Panya cleared previous suspects prior to his promotion.

That appear so on the surface. I have no problem admitting a certain policy was enacted while Panya was still appearing to be in charge. Yet, I also know how bureaucratic things work in Thailand. Nearly everything is controlled from Bangkok. The Thai PM and his top police officers (who out-ranked Panya) were very concerned about the investigation in the early stages - particularly in how it might affect tourists' view of the island, and hamper money coming in.

In the bigger picture, it doesn't much matter who was appearing to be at the helm, whether proxy or not. The important issue is while Panya was leading the investigation at its early stages, he wasn't afraid to follow the evidence wherever it led. The fact that RTP didn't look at large swaths of evidence or potential leads is unfortunate (and unprofessional) but that happened during and after Panya. For Panya, the H's people weren't off-limits. Soon after the investigation got going, the H's people were dropped like red hot bricks, and never looked at again afterwards. Whether it was in the last days of Panya being at the head, is not a big deal - unless jdinasia or AleG want to make it a big deal - then it is for them.

If I had a magic wand and could wave it to pick one RTP brass to tell the truth, it would be Panya. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a witness for the defense - but then again, we (seeking truth and justice) would have to hope he would tell the unvarnished truth, and not just say what he's expected to say by those at the top.

Great to get a look at the BIG picture from a big picture kinda guy.

Hey guys, maybe we can unstick this verbal merry-go-round.

There are obviously two camps here: those who support, and those who seriously doubt, the conclusions (so far) of the police investigation.

The two, especially one, very vocal supporters of the investigation repeatedly call anyone who thinks there was a coverup of the real murderers and the B2 (B3?) were framed a "conspiracy theorist" subscribing to a "conspiracy theory," that theory of course being that the police and the AC Bar-etc owning family colluded to cover up evidence pointing at nuclear and extended family members.

"Conspiracy theory" is pretty strong language and it's definitely pejorative. Defining a whole set of convictions, many of them supported by evidence as solid as that laid against the B2, as "conspiracy theory" appears very clearly to be an intentional attempt by this member (certainly, he uses it in just about every post) to discredit these beliefs, convictions, theories by using a word with very negative connotations and associations in the minds of the vast majority of people (Alex Jones fans etc aside).

Aside from the fact that branding people's arguments with pejoratives in a debate is in bad faith, the term is vague, inaccurate, and one could just as easily characterise the belief in the B2's guilt as conspiracy. Additionally, at least in the US as we all know from our TV-based legal educations, the charge of "conspiracy" is readily brought against any group of 2 or more people accused of a crime, the point being that if two or more people commit a crime there's necessarily some conspiracy involved.

So I think we can all agree (well, likely all but 2 of us) that this term "conspiracy theory" when used to define the defenders of the B2/doubters of the official investigation is useless, and harmful to the debate: it's inaccurate (if only because of it's overly-broad, vague meaning), without a doubt pejorative and being used as a slur without good cause, and thus is not just a poor descriptor, but is counter to the spirit of debate and arguably something more serious, which I can't mention.

I therefore argue that if these two member are truly interested in debating these opposing theories on their merits, they'll cease using this pejorative and misleading term and challenge the valid points on their merit rather than merely dismissing them.

A similar use is made of "social media;" it's used pejoratively, with the people using it stating explicitly or implying that it's full merely of the fantasies of teenagers and ignoramuses and has contributed nothing of value to understanding what happened that night on KT. This is also demonstrably false, so I suggest, again in the spirit of debating in good faith, that the members repeatedly using this term as a catchall way of dismissing information (without challenging the information on its merits) desist from doing so.

On the other side of the coin.......

It would be very helpful if people refrained from posting (overly-) speculative material, as it muddies the waters with for those of us keeping an open mind and trying to get a better understanding of the case (we do exist) while providing ammo to those who use these wild speculations to paint all info from the same quarter as "conspiracy" from the non-credible "social media" (vs. the "rock-solid" info coming from the "antisocial media" lol).

Moreover, the same certainty that someone in the headman's family or someone else "did it" is no more helpful than deciding that the B2 did. Some of the accusations flying around have been indeed pretty speculative.

A little long-winded, perhaps, but it's a simple thing: one side should stop using various rhetorical/verbal ploys to dismiss what they don't agree with and actually debate it, and the other should be more careful about letting the minority of information they put out there that is too speculative be used to discredit the majority of what they're putting forward.

If both sides can manage to do this maybe the online discussion here can move forward instead of spiralling around in cycles of mutual accusation and talking past one another.

And since I anticipate this post being characterised as inappropriate, moderator-type commentary, I suggest that a meta-comment on the way this debate is being conducted is essential to its moving forward rather than (further) degenerating into a finger-pointing spat. Assuming they're not deleted, will either set of suggestions go anywhere but in one ear and out the other?

My non-long-winded point of view: If this thing is a hoax in that those at the top of the Prosecution chain if not top-to-bottom know for a fact that the 2 accused are in no way complicit in the crimes for which they are charged, then I don't think those down in Samui even with direction from Bangkok are good enough to pull that one off given the international attention this trial will receive.

My non-long-winded point of view: If this thing is a hoax in that those at the top of the Prosecution chain if not top-to-bottom know for a fact that the 2 accused are in no way complicit in the crimes for which they are charged, then I don't think those down in Samui even with direction from Bangkok are good enough to pull that one off given the international attention this trial will receive.

Your statement would have some credence if it didn't use superlatives like "....know for a fact that..." "...are in no way complicit..."

When I was in jr. High school, there were gals who had a world view something like this: Everything, certainly every boy, was either 'super dreamy' or 'yuksville.' In other words, everything was either excellent or horrible - no middle ground. We don't need to stoop to that level. It's Sunday for Kryssache.

For example, when I discount what the RTP have done in this investigation, I don't assert everything they've done is off-base and unprofessional, .....only some things.

My non-long-winded point of view: If this thing is a hoax in that those at the top of the Prosecution chain if not top-to-bottom know for a fact that the 2 accused are in no way complicit in the crimes for which they are charged, then I don't think those down in Samui even with direction from Bangkok are good enough to pull that one off given the international attention this trial will receive.

Your statement would have some credence if it didn't use superlatives like "....know for a fact that..." "...are in no way complicit..."

When I was in jr. High school, there were gals who had a world view something like this: Everything, certainly every boy, was either 'super dreamy' or 'yuksville.' In other words, everything was either excellent or horrible - no middle ground. We don't need to stoop to that level. It's Sunday for Kryssache.

For example, when I discount what the RTP have done in this investigation, I don't assert everything they've done is off-base and unprofessional, .....only some things.

Did you make it past jr. High school? Either the B2 are complicit in these crimes or they are not. I don't see that there is any shade-of-grey in that matter.