Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[boomerangutang]

Randy.jpg

It's interesting you post a picture of Randi. He's actually one of my heroes. He's made a career out of, among other things, debunking charlatans. I even wrote a book on the same topic (debunking astrology, metaphysics, paranormal, crop circles, etc).

Now how does that relate to the investigation? One can't comment on the Brit experts because they've been hamstrung (by Thai officialdom) from the beginning, and seem to be intent on doing and revealing as little as possible. However, Thai investigators (like all Thais, are deeply immersed in superstitious beliefs) have, by all indications, been intent on not looking for evidence (no bloody clothes, no phone data, etc) and/or trashing any evidence which implicates people they're trying to shield.

Anyone objective observer can see plainly that Randi-type probing for truth is in line with skeptics like myself, and is anathema to cover-up artists like Thai officialdom and the H's people.

[JLCrab]

Randy.jpg

It's interesting you post a picture of Randi. He's actually one of my heroes. He's made a career out of, among other things, debunking charlatans. I even wrote a book on the same topic (debunking astrology, metaphysics, paranormal, crop circles, etc).

Now how does that relate to the investigation? One can't comment on the Brit experts because they've been hamstrung (by Thai officialdom) from the beginning, and seem to be intent on doing and revealing as little as possible. However, Thai investigators (like all Thais, are deeply immersed in superstitious beliefs) have, by all indications, been intent on not looking for evidence (no bloody clothes, no phone data, etc) and/or trashing any evidence which implicates people they're trying to shield.

Anyone objective observer can see plainly that Randi-type probing for truth is in line with skeptics like myself, and is anathema to cover-up artists like Thai officialdom and the H's people.

I even wrote a book on the same topic ... and, in a parallel universe, some people may have actually read it.

[AleG]

It's "Trollanoia", admitting to trolling is not a smooth move.

"Some posters may be curious to know how you know (and how much you know) about their private lives."

You've been told many times by those you accused of having a vested interest or connection to the murders that you are completely off-base, with that you choose to believe they are lying; so how do you come to know so much about their private lives that you can tell they are lying? You are the one claiming special knowledge, not me.

I haven't accused anyone of any connections. Instead, I've raised the issue in the context: 'if any posters are connected to Nomsod or Mon or any of the H's people' it would be cool if they would come clean on this forum.' In contrast, AleG asserts he knows for sure there are no connections. Two different sides of the coin. One (me) is wondering out loud about something, ....the other (AleG) is 100% sure of something (that certain fellow posters are completely clear of any connections to any of the H's people). He still hasn't explained how he knows all about other posters' private lives.

As for 'trollanoia' ....would AleG get all excited if I wrote; I am a 5 headed warlock with 17 salamander wives? Judging from his quickness to vindictiveness; 'yes'

You have accused me of being connected with the cover-up of the murders, just because those posts were removed by moderation doesn't mean you didn't do it. Now you just hide behind the I'm just asking façade to try to discredit people, that is vindictiveness.

You project your beheaviour and thoughts into others a lot, in case you haven´t noticed.

Randy.jpg

It's interesting you post a picture of Randi. He's actually one of my heroes. He's made a career out of, among other things, debunking charlatans. I even wrote a book on the same topic (debunking astrology, metaphysics, paranormal, crop circles, etc).

Now how does that relate to the investigation? One can't comment on the Brit experts because they've been hamstrung (by Thai officialdom) from the beginning, and seem to be intent on doing and revealing as little as possible. However, Thai investigators (like all Thais, are deeply immersed in superstitious beliefs) have, by all indications, been intent on not looking for evidence (no bloody clothes, no phone data, etc) and/or trashing any evidence which implicates people they're trying to shield.

Anyone objective observer can see plainly that Randi-type probing for truth is in line with skeptics like myself, and is anathema to cover-up artists like Thai officialdom and the H's people.

Your image of yourself doesn't match your actual beheaviour, you act more like a religious zealot that, when confronted with facts that contradict his beliefs, promptly rolls out the dogma or conjures up some unverifiable scenario for self validation; like when after the umpteen time you repeated the meme of "The investigation changed course after Panya's promotion", you were proved wrong and your answer was that it didn't matter if that was so, because some higher power was pulling the strings from the beginning any way.

You even do it in that quoted post:

"Thai investigators (like all Thais, are deeply immersed in superstitious beliefs) have, by all indications, been intent on not looking for evidence (no bloody clothes, no phone data, etc) and/or trashing any evidence which implicates people they're trying to shield."

You just posit the bold part as the true.

Your problem is that you skip the "If" part of learning the truth and go straight to the "Why", you don't bother to establish if they were not looking for evidence, or if they trashed evidence, or if they are trying to shield some people, you just assume all that to be true (because it fits nicely with your prejudices) and start with tendentious speculation of why they did what you just decided to be true.

[rockingrobin]

Aleg

"DNA EVIDENCE CAN ONLY PROVE INNOCENCE"

Nonsense, complete and absolute nonsense, criminal guilt based on DNA evidence is proved all the time everywhere.

You are incorrect , it is well understood that dna can only prove innocence, dna does not speak it only establishes that the persons dna is present and the next question is to ask why and how. it todays world it even can be manufactured

[berybert]

I thought it was fact that a 3rd set of DNA was found on Hannah's body. Isn't it fact that DNA now means nothing ? How can factual DNA mean nothing. Unless you a hoping to assist someone with getting away with a crime ?

I have asked before, it was mentioned a certain someone had a 70% DNA match. Then his son had a 0% match. Is the son adopted ?

Maybe someone posting here is the real father !!!!

[boomerangutang]

Boomerangutang mentioned: "Thai investigators (like all Thais, are deeply immersed in superstitious beliefs) have, by all indications, been intent on not looking for evidence (no bloody clothes, no phone data, etc) and/or trashing any evidence which implicates people they're trying to shield."

You just posit the bold part as the true.

Are you asserting the above is not true?

Here are some other things that, by all indications, the RTP haven't looked at or looked at and tossed in the waste can because it implicated the people they're trying to shield:

>>> CCTV from the two beach bars

>>> other CCTV near crime scene

>>> altercations at the bars on that night

>>> Sean's knowledge of or involvement with the crime

>>> The couple (farang man, Asian woman) near the crime, just before and after it happened

>>> People familiar with Nomsod who could shed light on his whereabouts that night, and the next day

>>> Speedboat operators (saying they were 'too drugged to talk,' is a soggy excuse for not questioning them thoroughly)

>>> searching Mon's room, and where he does laundry

>>> body searching all 'persons of interest' as soon as possible after the crime

[boomerangutang]

I have asked before, it was mentioned a certain someone had a 70% DNA match. Then his son had a 0% match. Is the son adopted ?

Good point, but watch out. Thai village headmen and their families are hyper sensitive about maintaining their image of being sage top dogs, and above reproach. You may be stirring up a hornets nest which stings by way of slapping defamation of character lawsuits on anyone who's not sufficiently awed by their status. If I sound like an RTP echoer, pardonne moi.

[thailandchilli]

Boomerangutang mentioned: "Thai investigators (like all Thais, are deeply immersed in superstitious beliefs) have, by all indications, been intent on not looking for evidence (no bloody clothes, no phone data, etc) and/or trashing any evidence which implicates people they're trying to shield."

You just posit the bold part as the true.

Are you asserting the above is not true?

Here are some other things that, by all indications, the RTP haven't looked at or looked at and tossed in the waste can because it implicated the people they're trying to shield:

>>> CCTV from the two beach bars

>>> other CCTV near crime scene

>>> altercations at the bars on that night

>>> Sean's knowledge of or involvement with the crime

>>> The couple (farang man, Asian woman) near the crime, just before and after it happened

>>> People familiar with Nomsod who could shed light on his whereabouts that night, and the next day

>>> Speedboat operators (saying they were 'too drugged to talk,' is a soggy excuse for not questioning them thoroughly)

>>> searching Mon's room, and where he does laundry

>>> body searching all 'persons of interest' as soon as possible after the crime

The list could go on and on Boomer but here's a few more:

Investigate exactly what was the evidence that some Thai's had apparently tried to destroy and the misinformation they had given to hide the real killers

Investigate the very serious allegations made by the taxi driver on KT that he was beaten for not agreeing to be a witness and was also offered 700K

Explain why when the RTP had the opportunity to independently verify the DNA samples when the UK police were here they chose not to do so? The eyes of scrutiny would have been put at ease.

Bow to the pressure of their own Human Rights advocates and also international governments and NGO's why the RTP has not independently investigated the serious allegations of the suspects mistreatment and alleged torture.

The above are all perfectly able to be carried out even now, but we all know its not going to happen

[jdinasia]

There have been about 80 or 90 people who have commented on the murder threads over the last 6 months. There are 4 people who are 100% sure the Burmese are the killers and are prepared to listen to no one who disagree with them.

10 or 20 who don't have a view as to guilty or not.

50 or 60 who believe the police have the wrong people.

For me 3 of the 4 are desperate for the Burmese to be found guilty. One even would refuse to believe they didn't do it if found not guilty.

I do wonder why they need the Burmese to be found guilty. They don't just want them found guilty they need them to be found guilty.

Please tell us all, exactly which "4 people who are 100% sure..." are.

In fact, while you are at it, please include a list of each group, including those that are positive the Burmese are involved in some way.

You did demonstrate the group narcissism so aptly pointed out above.

You are at least a 1000% sure of guilt, maybe you have some information you would like to share with us to prove it.

Lets play a game, watch when someone mentions something like Hannah's phone or Davids phone. look to see who other than yourself, the posters who will shout out CT and ask for proof. Then when proof is giving .... You may have noticed one of the four has giving up using CT and now seems to have taken a liking to using BS instead.

As for JTJ he got so excited using the term 'semen found in the body' he no longer seems able to post. Stroke about getting so excited possibly.

So that's 3 of the four. The other one makes really stupid posts to make himself look clever. It aint working.

I have always said that I "think" that they have the killers. Trials determine guilt or innocence, not you me nor any other conspiracy theorists.

You, sir, are lying about my position.

I am fairly sure the others mentioned the same standing making you a habitual purveyor of lies.

On the other hand have you ever used the phrase "everyone knows exactly who did it "?

How many of the conspiracy theorists have used that phrase?

[jdinasia]

How do you explain DNA matches etc? Necrophilia is a long standing custom in our culture.

Whose culture are you representing?

You are the one that speculated on that earlier.

Yes I alluded to that earlier (in relation to remote possibilities), but JLCrab appears to be embracing necrophilia as being "a long standing custom in our culture." I'm curious whose culture he's making that sweeping statement about. If he's American, is he insinuating that necrophilia is a long standing American custom? Maybe I shouldn't ask, but it just seems an odd statement by the poster. Note: I didn't use that word in any of my prior posts. It was JL who introduced that word, bandied it around, and went on to expand upon it.

You brought it up. He eloquently pointed out the absurdity of your position.

[IslandLover]

berybert, on 02 Apr 2015 - 05:55, said:

I thought it was fact that a 3rd set of DNA was found on Hannah's body. Isn't it fact that DNA now means nothing ? How can factual DNA mean nothing. Unless you a hoping to assist someone with getting away with a crime ?

I have asked before, it was mentioned a certain someone had a 70% DNA match. Then his son had a 0% match. Is the son adopted ?

Maybe someone posting here is the real father !!!!

I thought the whole point of Nomsod's DNA test was to prove the headman was his father

Talking of DNA, were the clothes found at the crime scene kept as evidence in sealed plastic bags and tested for DNA? Perhaps Hannah's clothing was but it wouldn't appear to be so for David's. Instead his clothes were placed neatly on a table for the press to photograph. Even his t-shirt looked freshly washed.

[greenchair]

I am wondering why the first shot is 3 seconds before mon, but the red line I'd further along. Shouldn't the second shot be further along the line.

[AleG]

Boomerangutang mentioned: "Thai investigators (like all Thais, are deeply immersed in superstitious beliefs) have, by all indications, been intent on not looking for evidence (no bloody clothes, no phone data, etc) and/or trashing any evidence which implicates people they're trying to shield."

You just posit the bold part as the true.

Are you asserting the above is not true?

Here are some other things that, by all indications, the RTP haven't looked at or looked at and tossed in the waste can because it implicated the people they're trying to shield:

>>> CCTV from the two beach bars

>>> other CCTV near crime scene

>>> altercations at the bars on that night

>>> Sean's knowledge of or involvement with the crime

>>> The couple (farang man, Asian woman) near the crime, just before and after it happened

>>> People familiar with Nomsod who could shed light on his whereabouts that night, and the next day

>>> Speedboat operators (saying they were 'too drugged to talk,' is a soggy excuse for not questioning them thoroughly)

>>> searching Mon's room, and where he does laundry

>>> body searching all 'persons of interest' as soon as possible after the crime

And again you posit all that as being true and/or relevant...

[thailandchilli]

Interesting, never seen this report before. From a defense team spokesman. A little over confident I think but why not, if that's what he believes. According to this there are two foreigners in the defense witness list.

“I’ve visited the two workers in prison and I believe they are innocent. The strongest case against them is for illegal working status. For this [offence] the sentence should be only one or two months,” he said.

The first court hearing took place on December 26, with 65 witnesses, mostly police and Thai government officials, plus six Myanmar migrant workers. There are 31 defence witnesses, including two foreigners."

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/13247-koh-tao-murder-case-to-drag-on-through-2015.html

[boomerangutang]

I am wondering why the first shot is 3 seconds before mon, but the red line I'd further along. Shouldn't the second shot be further along the line.

post-223227-0-47481400-1419906699.jpg

I don't understand your reference to the red line. Please explain.

Also, you seem to have the lone walker as Mon. I think you're in the minority with that assessment, as most observers see him as Nomsod. The body is a young man close to 20. Mon is in his 40's.

There is at least one revealing CCTV photo which was shown in the first few days, showing a close up of the lone man's face, and a strong reflection of an earring. CCTV often doesn't show detail well, but it can show reflections of light. It also shows clearly the sideburn curving to the front of the man's face. I haven't searched for that photo, but if anyone has it, and other pertinent photos, please share them with us. Oh, the photo I referred to in this paragraph was had a caption which quoted a cop commenting on the earring. It would also be interesting to see photos of Nomsod taken just before the night of the crime - to see how closely his haircut / body type / whatever else - matches the CCTV.

There are some photos of Nomsod, reclining in various chairs, which show his habit of bending his left arm so the hand appears to be almost nestled in his belly area. That fits with the CCTV images which show a young skinny man with bushy hair, bending his left arm and appearing to nestle his left hand near his belly.

Note, even if it's proven that it was indeed Nomsod in those 'running man' shots, the people shielding the H's people can shoot back and say, "So what. The sidewalk is not the scene of the crime, so the CCTV signifies nothing."

Notably, the CCTV we have seen doesn't show the B2 after around midnight, which is 4 to 5 hours before the crime. So the CCTV of the B2 riding on a motorbike means nothing more than they were out that evening, same as dozens of other folks were out that evening. Even the internal shots in the 7-11 show no connection to the crime for similar reason.

I would bet dollars to donuts that if the two bars had CCTV - that they've certainly destroyed it by now - probably within an hour after the cops sheepishly asked for it. Of course, the cops should have demanded it (not asked for it), as it should be a crime to withhold such potential evidence in a double murder investigation. But alas, this is Thailand, and (at least) one of the former prime suspects is bosom buddies with local cops, so what can we expect? Professionalism? Ha. Not on your life, nor on a couple of unlucky farangs' lives.

[boomerangutang]

Boomerangutang mentioned: "Thai investigators (like all Thais, are deeply immersed in superstitious beliefs) have, by all indications, been intent on not looking for evidence (no bloody clothes, no phone data, etc) and/or trashing any evidence which implicates people they're trying to shield."

You just posit the bold part as the true.

Are you asserting the above is not true?

Here are some other things that, by all indications, the RTP haven't looked at or looked at and tossed in the waste can because it implicated the people they're trying to shield:

>>> CCTV from the two beach bars

>>> other CCTV near crime scene

>>> altercations at the bars on that night

>>> Sean's knowledge of or involvement with the crime

>>> The couple (farang man, Asian woman) near the crime, just before and after it happened

>>> People familiar with Nomsod who could shed light on his whereabouts that night, and the next day

>>> Speedboat operators (saying they were 'too drugged to talk,' is a soggy excuse for not questioning them thoroughly)

>>> searching Mon's room, and where he does laundry

>>> body searching all 'persons of interest' as soon as possible after the crime

And again you posit all that as being true and/or relevant...

just because you dearly want it not to be true, doesn't make it not true.

[AleG]

Are you asserting the above is not true?

Here are some other things that, by all indications, the RTP haven't looked at or looked at and tossed in the waste can because it implicated the people they're trying to shield:

>>> CCTV from the two beach bars

>>> other CCTV near crime scene

>>> altercations at the bars on that night

>>> Sean's knowledge of or involvement with the crime

>>> The couple (farang man, Asian woman) near the crime, just before and after it happened

>>> People familiar with Nomsod who could shed light on his whereabouts that night, and the next day

>>> Speedboat operators (saying they were 'too drugged to talk,' is a soggy excuse for not questioning them thoroughly)

>>> searching Mon's room, and where he does laundry

>>> body searching all 'persons of interest' as soon as possible after the crime

And again you posit all that as being true and/or relevant...

just because you dearly want it not to be true, doesn't make it not true.

Prove this "the RTP haven't looked at or looked at and tossed in the waste can because it implicated the people they're trying to shield:" to be true, for any of your points; specially the last part.

You say that is the truth, shouldn't be difficult, right?

[AleG]

Are you asserting the above is not true?

Here are some other things that, by all indications, the RTP haven't looked at or looked at and tossed in the waste can because it implicated the people they're trying to shield:

>>> CCTV from the two beach bars

>>> other CCTV near crime scene

>>> altercations at the bars on that night

>>> Sean's knowledge of or involvement with the crime

>>> The couple (farang man, Asian woman) near the crime, just before and after it happened

>>> People familiar with Nomsod who could shed light on his whereabouts that night, and the next day

>>> Speedboat operators (saying they were 'too drugged to talk,' is a soggy excuse for not questioning them thoroughly)

>>> searching Mon's room, and where he does laundry

>>> body searching all 'persons of interest' as soon as possible after the crime

And again you posit all that as being true and/or relevant...

just because you dearly want it not to be true, doesn't make it not true.

Prove this "the RTP haven't looked at or looked at and tossed in the waste can because it implicated the people they're trying to shield:" to be true, for any of your points; specially the last part.

You say that is the truth, shouldn't be difficult, right? Just saying that it's all a conspiracy by the police to shield certain people doesn't make it true, specially since you can't provide one shred of evidence or even a reasonable argument for that to be true.

[MaXiMaN]

I am wondering why the first shot is 3 seconds before mon, but the red line I'd further along. Shouldn't the second shot be further along the line.

post-223227-0-47481400-1419906699.jpg

This is interesting ive never noticed this before. It could be that the redlines are actually from a youtube post rather than that of the CCTV. One film might of been loaded slightly before the other hence discreptancy with the redline. It looks as if in the second shot the guy without the shirt may be only seconds behind the couple in the first shot, literally only a few paces away. We have to assume that the couple in the first shot were never persued as witnesses. The first shot might be of a western guy with possibly a petit local girl?

More interestingly though is the modified date line in the black bar. Its alittle blurred but the first one appears to read 15/9/2357 (a wrong year date maybe) 14.02.36 (the wrong time maybe)? The second one appears to read 15/9/2357 14.02.46. Making him 10 seconds behind the walking couple assuming that this indeed is the clock thats set incorrectly in the CCTV system. Why is the main reading of 15/9/2014 04.51.25 and in the second shot it reads 15/9/2014 04.51.28? There seems to be a time lapse of 7 seconds from somewhere?

This video also seems to show the same man possibly walking in the other direction a few minutes earlier at 4.49. 01

I somehow can't imagine that this guy is the killer who on earth would pace around the streets at this time of the morning having committed a murder with other tourists still walking around. He would of walked passed the couple walking back in the other direction a few minutes earlier and then turned around and followed them a few minutes later assuming it is the same man in both shots. If this was Nomsod the couple in the first shot would surely of identified him by now.

[catsanddogs]

I am wondering why the first shot is 3 seconds before mon, but the red line I'd further along. Shouldn't the second shot be further along the line.

post-223227-0-47481400-1419906699.jpg

This is interesting ive never noticed this before. It could be that the redlines are actually from a youtube post rather than that of the CCTV. One film might of been loaded slightly before the other hence discreptancy with the redline. It looks as if in the second shot the guy without the shirt may be only seconds behind the couple in the first shot, literally only a few paces away. We have to assume that the couple in the first shot were never persued as witnesses. The first shot might be of a western guy with possibly a petit local girl?

More interestingly though is the modified date line in the black bar. Its alittle blurred but the first one appears to read 15/9/2357 (a wrong year date maybe) 14.02.36 (the wrong time maybe)? The second one appears to read 15/9/2357 14.02.46. Making him 10 seconds behind the walking couple assuming that this indeed is the clock thats set incorrectly in the CCTV system. Why is the main reading of 15/9/2014 04.51.25 and in the second shot it reads 15/9/2014 04.51.28? There seems to be a time lapse of 7 seconds from somewhere?

This video also seems to show the same man possibly walking in the other direction a few minutes earlier at 4.49. 01

I somehow can't imagine that this guy is the killer who on earth would pace around the streets at this time of the morning having committed a murder with other tourists still walking around. He would of walked passed the couple walking back in the other direction a few minutes earlier and then turned around and followed them a few minutes later assuming it is the same man in both shots. If this was Nomsod the couple in the first shot would surely of identified him by now.

At 0:23 on the video it looks like the man is wearing something on his left wrist - watch/bracelet? Hadn't noticed that before.

[IslandLover]

greenchair, on 02 Apr 2015 - 12:10, said:

I am wondering why the first shot is 3 seconds before mon, but the red line I'd further along. Shouldn't the second shot be further along the line.

post-223227-0-47481400-1419906699.jpg

They are two separate screen grabs of a video and they appear to have been captured differently, which explains the difference in the length of the red lines.

[IslandLover]

I am wondering why the first shot is 3 seconds before mon, but the red line I'd further along. Shouldn't the second shot be further along the line.

post-223227-0-47481400-1419906699.jpg

This is interesting ive never noticed this before. It could be that the redlines are actually from a youtube post rather than that of the CCTV. One film might of been loaded slightly before the other hence discreptancy with the redline. It looks as if in the second shot the guy without the shirt may be only seconds behind the couple in the first shot, literally only a few paces away. We have to assume that the couple in the first shot were never persued as witnesses. The first shot might be of a western guy with possibly a petit local girl?

More interestingly though is the modified date line in the black bar. Its alittle blurred but the first one appears to read 15/9/2357 (a wrong year date maybe) 14.02.36 (the wrong time maybe)? The second one appears to read 15/9/2357 14.02.46. Making him 10 seconds behind the walking couple assuming that this indeed is the clock thats set incorrectly in the CCTV system. Why is the main reading of 15/9/2014 04.51.25 and in the second shot it reads 15/9/2014 04.51.28? There seems to be a time lapse of 7 seconds from somewhere?

This video also seems to show the same man possibly walking in the other direction a few minutes earlier at 4.49. 01

I somehow can't imagine that this guy is the killer who on earth would pace around the streets at this time of the morning having committed a murder with other tourists still walking around. He would of walked passed the couple walking back in the other direction a few minutes earlier and then turned around and followed them a few minutes later assuming it is the same man in both shots. If this was Nomsod the couple in the first shot would surely of identified him by now.

The date/time imprinted on the images is the actual CCTV timestamp. What's underneath seems to be a secondary device (computer?) re-playing the CCTV footage. Is the year of "2357" the Thai calendar year for 2014? The whole thing seems to have been re-recorded on a YouTube video to add to the confusion.

It would appear from the CCTV timestamp that the running man is only 3 seconds behind the unknown couple, who must have seen him. An image of this couple (a farang man and an asian girl) was originally released to the press in a separate CCTV still and they were erroneously reported as being David and Hannah.

When the CCTV footage of running man was first released, it was claimed that there were people in front of him, almost out of shot, and that the footage had been deliberately edited to remove something. I presume this image of the couple is the missing CCTV footage alluded to. Their identity remains a mystery, as does why they would be walking around at nearly 5 am in the morning when most people would be in bed, unless of course they were waiting for an early ferry off the island.

[boomerangutang]

Are you asserting the above is not true?

Here are some other things that, by all indications, the RTP haven't looked at or looked at and tossed in the waste can because it implicated the people they're trying to shield:

>>> CCTV from the two beach bars

>>> other CCTV near crime scene

>>> altercations at the bars on that night

>>> Sean's knowledge of or involvement with the crime

>>> The couple (farang man, Asian woman) near the crime, just before and after it happened

>>> People familiar with Nomsod who could shed light on his whereabouts that night, and the next day

>>> Speedboat operators (saying they were 'too drugged to talk,' is a soggy excuse for not questioning them thoroughly)

>>> searching Mon's room, and where he does laundry

>>> body searching all 'persons of interest' as soon as possible after the crime

And again you posit all that as being true and/or relevant...

just because you dearly want it not to be true, doesn't make it not true.

Prove this "the RTP haven't looked at or looked at and tossed in the waste can because it implicated the people they're trying to shield:" to be true, for any of your points; specially the last part.

You say that is the truth, shouldn't be difficult, right? Just saying that it's all a conspiracy by the police to shield certain people doesn't make it true, specially since you can't provide one shred of evidence or even a reasonable argument for that to be true.

No one on either side of the debate can prove anything without a glimmer of doubt, any more than RTP can prove that Nomsod's poorly-crafted alibi CCTV at the U has any validity. The best commenters can do is show/mention things which appear to add to the evidence trail. If AleG or anyone wants to see reasons why the RTP have done a shoddy and possibly illegal mess of an investigation, that person can go through and read the hundreds of posts on the dozen threads on this topic. Of course, if that person is fixated on shielding Nomsod and Mon, then nothing less than a tearful confession by them will suffice to show guilt.

[thailandchilli]

I am wondering why the first shot is 3 seconds before mon, but the red line I'd further along. Shouldn't the second shot be further along the line.

post-223227-0-47481400-1419906699.jpg

This is interesting ive never noticed this before. It could be that the redlines are actually from a youtube post rather than that of the CCTV. One film might of been loaded slightly before the other hence discreptancy with the redline. It looks as if in the second shot the guy without the shirt may be only seconds behind the couple in the first shot, literally only a few paces away. We have to assume that the couple in the first shot were never persued as witnesses. The first shot might be of a western guy with possibly a petit local girl?

More interestingly though is the modified date line in the black bar. Its alittle blurred but the first one appears to read 15/9/2357 (a wrong year date maybe) 14.02.36 (the wrong time maybe)? The second one appears to read 15/9/2357 14.02.46. Making him 10 seconds behind the walking couple assuming that this indeed is the clock thats set incorrectly in the CCTV system. Why is the main reading of 15/9/2014 04.51.25 and in the second shot it reads 15/9/2014 04.51.28? There seems to be a time lapse of 7 seconds from somewhere?

This video also seems to show the same man possibly walking in the other direction a few minutes earlier at 4.49. 01

I somehow can't imagine that this guy is the killer who on earth would pace around the streets at this time of the morning having committed a murder with other tourists still walking around. He would of walked passed the couple walking back in the other direction a few minutes earlier and then turned around and followed them a few minutes later assuming it is the same man in both shots. If this was Nomsod the couple in the first shot would surely of identified him by now.

The date/time imprinted on the images is the actual CCTV timestamp. What's underneath seems to be a secondary device (computer?) re-playing the CCTV footage. Is the year of "2357" the Thai calendar year for 2014? The whole thing seems to have been re-recorded on a YouTube video to add to the confusion.

It would appear from the CCTV timestamp that the running man is only 3 seconds behind the unknown couple, who must have seen him. An image of this couple (a farang man and an asian girl) was originally released to the press in a separate CCTV still and they were erroneously reported as being David and Hannah.

When the CCTV footage of running man was first released, it was claimed that there were people in front of him, almost out of shot, and that the footage had been deliberately edited to remove something. I presume this image of the couple is the missing CCTV footage alluded to. Their identity remains a mystery, as does why they would be walking around at nearly 5 am in the morning when most people would be in bed, unless of course they were waiting for an early ferry off the island.

In this video you can just about make out the couple or at least the asian girl walking in front of the suspect in shorts, you have to look closely as the figure is on the far left of the screen.

[boomerangutang]

In those videos of the young man in shorts walking/running, he's often shown with his right arm straight (often swung high) and his left arm bent at the elbow. All people have a particular 'gait' and that peculiarity is particular to the young man in shorts. When those videos are shown side by side, as in this comparison:

...the similarity is striking to all but die-hard Nomsod shielders.

[boomerangutang]

Thanks to whomever put together that comparison video and loaded it on YouTube. That, and hundreds of other possibly useful items (which might help solve the crime) are the sorts of things RTP are NOT doing.

Here's something else RTP won't do: They won't stage a reenactment at that site as viewed by the same CCTV. Here's how it could be done: pick a night when the lighting is similar. Clear all non-participants away (suggest: 30 meters). Have the people of interest (former and current suspects) take turns, one by one, dressed the same as original video, and see how it looks. Have them do it several times, running and walking, left and right, so it would be less easy to play-act (to try and avoid looking similar to original).

Trouble is, even if there were a reenactment, police couldn't keep themselves from micro-managing it - even to the extent of physically holding the suspects (sometimes one cop on either side), and police couldn't help but make it into a big loud media event. ....because that's the only way they know how to do reenactments.

addendum: To get a more accurate comparison, have an outside person stage the reenactment - perhaps a film-maker (familiar with lighting, etc) who can be truly objective, and who is not beholden to police or army. Thai or farang.

[JLCrab]

You're doing a great public service here because -- when the REAL killers lurking out there decide it's time to strike again -- the RTP in KT and Samui will know much better than the last time how to conduct a proper non-inept investigation.

[AleG]

Thanks to whomever put together that comparison video and loaded it on YouTube. That, and hundreds of other possibly useful items (which might help solve the crime) are the sorts of things RTP are NOT doing.

Here's something else RTP won't do: They won't stage a reenactment at that site as viewed by the same CCTV. Here's how it could be done: pick a night when the lighting is similar. Clear all non-participants away (suggest: 30 meters). Have the people of interest (former and current suspects) take turns, one by one, dressed the same as original video, and see how it looks. Have them do it several times, running and walking, left and right, so it would be less easy to play-act (to try and avoid looking similar to original).

Trouble is, even if there were a reenactment, police couldn't keep themselves from micro-managing it - even to the extent of physically holding the suspects (sometimes one cop on either side), and police couldn't help but make it into a big loud media event. ....because that's the only way they know how to do reenactments.

addendum: To get a more accurate comparison, have an outside person stage the reenactment - perhaps a film-maker (familiar with lighting, etc) who can be truly objective, and who is not beholden to police or army. Thai or farang.

I can't think of a better example to the extent of the cognitive dissonance at work here than wanting to use footage that proves Nomsod couldn't be on Koh Tao at the time the other CCTV footage was recorded as proof that they are the same person on both videos.

As for your reenactment idea, all the person on the original footage has to do is to walk differently and drats, foiled again!

Any other brilliant ideas?

[boomerangutang]

You're doing a great public service here because -- when the REAL killers lurking out there decide it's time to strike again -- the RTP in KT and Samui will know much better than the last time how to conduct a proper non-inept investigation.

It's not too late to do a reenactment of the walkway covered by CCTV, as described above.

However, it's probably too late to do most of the following:

>>> look for bloody clothes (burned, buried, hidden) or inspect where clothes are laundered near the bar.

>>> grab CCTV from bars (probably were destroyed right after they were first sought)

>>> get ahold of phone records from phone companies - probably not available for same reason as CCTV not available

>>> do full body searches of all 'persons of interest'

>>> search Mon's room

>>> scrutinize people connected to Mon, including his cop friend, and others

>>> do a thorough search of ways a person could quickly get from island to Bkk

>>> scrutinize Nomsod's alibi video from U

>>> Look closely at friends of Nomsod, regarding where Nomsod was during that Sunday night/Monday morning. Even his g.f. in Bkk said she couldn't find him, and people who know then say 'they're always together.'

I know JLCrab is being facetious when saying (to me) "thanks for doing a public service" - but there are a slew of things related to good detective work - which have been suggested within many posts herein, by many posters - which could help Thai investigators do a better job. But they know better, so it's no use trying to make suggestions. It's like suggesting to the Thai Minister (in 2011) that there are better ways to lessen the flooding of Bkk than by tethering little boats to bridges, with their propellers turning. Thais often have their own ways of doing things, and don't want outside interference. That's why there was the reenactment on the beach with twelve cops shouting directions to two confused young men.

[JLCrab]

Yessirree and when they want to know how to go about conducting good detective work they now know just where to turn, you betcha.

From Hitchcock's Dial 'M' for Murder:

Mark Halliday: What is all this?

Chief Insp. Hubbard: They talk about flat-footed policemen. May the saints protect us from the gifted amateur